Post by: Dave Lev on 07/11/2020 04:39:13
What is the size of the Universe? Is it finite or Infinite?
In the following explanation from NASA, it is stated that the Universe is an "infinite universe expanding into itself?
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/bigBangQandA.html
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."
How could it be?
I do recall that just few years ago our scientists have claimed that it is finite.
They even told us that the maximal size of our Universe might be 92 BLY (which is called - Observable Universe).
Few weeks ago I had been told that it is finite but unbounded which means a finite Universe without End.
Now it becomes Infinite Universe expanding into itself.
Dr. John Mather, Nobel Laureate and James Webb Space Telescope Senior Project Scientist had also stated:
"The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time."
However, in the following article it is stated that the Big bang started at singularity:
https://www.big-bang-theory.com/
"According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago."
Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity."
So, please:
What is the real size of our current Universe? Is it finite or Infinite?
If it is finite - Can you specify the real size?
If it is infinite – then how an infinite Universe could expand into itself?
How the Big Bang happened everywhere while it took place at singularity point According to the standard theory?
If it is infinite today, then how it could be at singularity 13.8 BY ago?
That issue of size is critical for the CMBR which had been set during the Era Of Recombination
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/science/firstLight.html
"This process of particles pairing up is called "Recombination" and it occurred approximately 240,000 to 300,000 years after the Big Bang. The Universe went from being opaque to transparent at this point. Light had formerly been stopped from traveling freely because it would frequently scatter off the free electrons. Now that the free electrons were bound to protons, light was no longer being impeded. "The era of recombination" is the earliest point in our cosmic history to which we can look back with any form of light. This is what we see as the Cosmic Microwave Background today"
If the Big Bang took place everywhere, then during the Era of recombination the Universe was already everywhere.
If it was already everywhere then how the expansion could reduce the CMBR temp while it was already everywhere as it was "infinite universe expanding into itself"
Don't you agree that if the Universe is infinite today - it must be infinite at the Big bang moment?
If it is expanding into itself - how that process could reduce the CMBR temp?
Sorry – If our scientists don't know even the basic understanding about the real size of our Universe, (finite or infinite), then how do they know for sure that the whole BBT is correct?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/11/2020 05:59:35
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/11/2020 08:54:06
If you didn't understand the Big Bang theory when it was explained to you in all of your other threads, you're not going to understand it in this one either.That is correct. I don't understand the BBT.
Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.
One time they claim for finite Universe with a clear limited size and shape and after few years they consider it as "infinite universe expanding into itself".
So, how could they develop any sort of a theory for a Universe without clear understanding about its real size and shape?
Don't you agree that somehow our real universe refuse to fit itself into that Big Bang Theory which had been developed 80 years ago.
Don't you agree that if any theory starts with singularity, we can't just reverse it to start from everywhere or infinity?
Hence, if our scientists consider now that the Universe is "infinite universe expanding into itself" - why they don't clear the table from the BBT and look for better Theory?
Why is it so difficult for our scientists to look at our real universe without the BBT filter?
Why they would never ever give clear information about the Universe without adding the interpretation how that verification/understanding/observation fits into the BBT?
If they understand now that the Universe is infinite, why they can't say: "We have discovered that our Universe is Infinite"?
Why they insist to add the BBT even in this discovery (by adding the expansion):
"infinite universe expanding into itself"
Could it be that even Dr. John Mather doesn't understand the real meaning of its own message?
So, how could you expect that I would understand how our Universe fits into the BBT, while the most specialized BBT scientists don't really understand the real size & shape of our Universe
Post by: evan_au on 07/11/2020 09:53:48
Quote from: Dave Lev
Why is it so difficult for our scientists to look at our real universe?1. Because the most distant parts of it are severely red-shifted.
- That means you need a powerful infra-red telescope to see even the brightest parts of it (quasars).
- The long-overdue James Webb telescope will open up this part of the spectrum (if and when it is ever successfully commissioned)
2. Because the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation creates a horizon that we can't peer past with electromagnetic radiation
3. Because the kinds of radiation that can penetrate the CMBR (relic neutrinos and relic gravitational waves) are so incredibly weak that we can't detect them.
- In fact, we struggle to detect events that have happened in the past 100,000 years with neutrinos
- And events in the past billion years with gravitational waves
Quote
If they understand now that the Universe is infiniteThey don't.
Some theoreticians think the universe might be infinite, but they can't prove it.
- If you can see only a finite distance back in time and space (ie only events within our "light cone"), you can't easily prove that something is infinite
- If you have an opaque veil across the universe that you can't see beyond, then you struggle to know about even a finite universe
Quote
how could they develop any sort of a theory for a Universe without clear understanding about its real size and shape?You have it backwards.
With today's technology, scientists can't know the size and shape of the universe.
So all they have are a multitude of theories - and a hope that someday, some new experimental technique or some theoretical breakthrough will let them decide between these competing theories.
Basically all the common cosmology theories today incorporate some variant of a big bang, since it is the best explanatory power for what we see today.
Quote
Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.I am sure that there are far less than 100,000 cosmologists on the Earth.
An expert studying butterflies in the Amazon does not pretend to be an expert cosmologist (and vice-versa).
Face it, your knowledge is poor - and the knowledge of expert cosmologists is considerably less poor.
- But there are boundaries to our communal knowledge - get used to it!
- Recognizing the limits of your knowledge is the first step to expanding your boundaries.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2020 10:31:37
Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.How have you ruled out this as an explanation of the situation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Post by: puppypower on 07/11/2020 11:58:29
The implication of the second law is there is a pool of dead energy forming, that has energy value but is tied up into entropy and is thereof not fully reusable by the universe. This means the universe cannot go on forever, since the second law implies the increasing entropy will eventually cause the universe to run out of useable energy.
One big problem is since light travels faster than matter, the signals may not express the impact of the growing dead pool energy on the matter that the energy represents due to the amount of time delay between the two.
Another question one may ask is the observed red shift due to motion or the movement of energy into the dead pool, or both? Red shifted energy causes the original energy to lower energy value in a way where some of the original energy is made unusable to the universe.
For example. if I was to start with a cylinder of compressed gas at temperature T, and allowed it to expand out of the cylinder, the gas and cylinder will get colder as entropy increases. This will show up as red shift in IR spectrum, even if the cylinder remains stationary and the gas is in motion way below relativistic speeds. We can retrieve the gas and compress it to restore the heat; reverse the entropy, but that will take work and increase entropy even mor for a net gain of dead pool energy and a net loss of reusable universal energy.
How does cosmology factor in dead pool energy? If it does not, why not? Without this consideration any theory would be flawed. Dead pool energy obeys energy conservation and the second law, with these two laws higher than any theory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2020 12:12:44
The 100,00 scientists who study the universe leave this out.No.
They write about it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
One big problem is since light travels faster than matter, the signals may not express the impact of the growing dead pool energy on the matter that the energy represents due to the amount of time delay between the two.That doesn't make sense.
Another question one may ask is the observed red shift due to motionYes it is
or the movement of energy into the dead poolNo, it's not.
For example. if I was to start with a cylinder of compressed gas at temperature T, and allowed it to expand out of the cylinder, the gas and cylinder will get colderFor an ideal gas, it will not.
For a real gas it will, but that's not an entropic effect.
This will show up as red shift in IR spectrum,Not really, no.
How does cosmology factor in dead pool energy?In great detail.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entropy_(arrow_of_time)#Cosmology
Which, if you knew what you were talking about, you would already be aware of.
Did you consider at least doing a quick google search of what's known before seeking to pretend that it isn't?
If it does not, why not? Without this consideration any theory would be flawed.Doesn't apply, does it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/11/2020 15:45:58
With today's technology, scientists can't know the size and shape of the universe.Well if they can't know the size and shape of the Universe, then they can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe.
If they don't know - then let them stay at the "don't know" black box.
However, I claim that they can easily understand the real size of the Universe.
The main problem is that our scientists insist to look at our Universe by the BBT filter.
1. Because the most distant parts of it are severely red-shifted.Sorry, even if we have the best powerful telescope which would detect a galaxy at a distance of 100,000 Bly away - it won't help.
- That means you need a powerful infra-red telescope to see even the brightest parts of it (quasars).
- The long-overdue James Webb telescope will open up this part of the spectrum (if and when it is ever successfully commissioned)
The limitation is not in the instruments - it is in the mind of our scientists.
As long as our scientists insist that the maximal universe is 13.4 BLY they wouldn't be able to unleash their real understanding about our Universe.
Our scientists claim that an object with a redshift of 1.4 is located at a distance of about 9 BLY.
So, if the redshift is 1 it should represent a distance of about 6 BLY.
Therefore, it is quite obvious that if the redshift is 2 the distance should be 12 BLY.
If the redshift is 10 the distance should be 60BLY.
However, due to the BBT, those BBT scientists have decided that we can't see more than 13.4 BLY
Therefore, they have "normalized" the redshift so even if we get it at 1100 they claim for less than 13.4 LY.
This isn't science - it is science fiction.
This shows that the BBT has a full control on our observation and full control on those BBT scientists mind.
So all they have are a multitude of theories - and a hope that someday, some new experimental technique or some theoretical breakthrough will let them decide between these competing theories.This hope isn't realistic.
They can't look at our universe by the BBT filter and hope that they have better understanding in the Future.
A redshift of 10 represents a direct distance of 60 BLY.
This is real science.
However, we are living today in the BBT universe.
Therefore, as long as our scientists keep the BBT limitation of 13.4 BLY on the table, they wouldn't be able to see our real Universe.
You discuss about hope, so I have A HOPE:
I hope that one day our scientists would look at the Universe without the BBT filter.
I know for sure that once they would be able to ignore the BBT (even for just one day) and set all the real data on the table, they will find the ultimate theory for that Universe.
However, if they can't do it, I hope that someone will do it for them as it's the time to take the science from those BBT scientists that can't breakout from the BBT chain.
Face it, your knowledge is poor - and the knowledge of expert cosmologists is considerably less poor.As engineer with a master in communication, I have deep knowledge in real science.
- But there are boundaries to our communal knowledge - get used to it!
- Recognizing the limits of your knowledge is the first step to expanding your boundaries.
I agree that my knowledge in the BBT science fiction is quite poor, but that is my biggest advantage over those BBT scientists.
I have no obligation to the BBT fiction, while they can't move their head without approval from the BBT "master".
I have already proved that the Black body radiation in the CMBR tells us that the Universe MUST be infinite.
Now, Dr. John Mather from Nasa confirms my understanding about the Infinite Universe.
So, why do you ignore his message?
As I have already knew that the Universe is infinite - the science community have to offer me a reward for this discovery.
However, it is very clear to me that it won't happen as our BBT scientists prefer to lock themselves at the BBT black box forever and ever...
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2020 16:19:00
Well if they can't know the size and shape of the Universe, then they can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe.True, but they can rule out some ideas- like yours- because it breaks the conservation laws.
I have no obligation to the BBT fictionYou seem much more interested in your own absurd fiction.
Therefore, it is quite obvious thatEvery complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, obvious—and wrong.
BTW, you failed to address this.
Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.How have you ruled out this as an explanation of the situation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Please answer it, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see your reply.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/11/2020 20:53:05
.In this thread we discuss about the BBT.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:45:58True, but they can rule out some ideas- like yours- because it breaks the conservation laws.
Well if they can't know the size and shape of the Universe, then they can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe..
As you confirm that without clear understanding about the size and shape of the Universe our scientists can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe, then you should agree that the BBT is useless.
You seem much more interested in your own absurd fiction.My own understanding is a direct outcome from the big black holes in that BBT. If that theory was real, no one in the whole Universe (including me) would even consider offering different ideas.
Every complex problem has a solution which is simple, direct, obvious—and wrong.In the case of the redshift it is 100% correct.
Just think about the following:
if each redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6 BLY, then as
1+ 1 = 2
then
6Bly + 6 Bly = 12 Bly
In the following article it is stated:
https://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/Lecture21.html
An accurate value for Ho, as we have seen, gives us confidence that we know the age and size of the universe. The size of the observable universe, by definition, is the size given by assuming we can see to infinite redshift (where the recession velocity reaches the speed of light). At infinite redshift, the factor involving z becomes unity and we have:
d = (c/100 h) [(z + 1)2 - 1]/[(z + 1)2 + 1]
= (3 x 105/100 h) = 3.00/h Gpc = 4.17 Gpc. (Size of visible universe)
That proves that those calculations are useless.
How our scientists dare to claim that "An accurate value for Ho, as we have seen, gives us confidence that we know the age and size of the universe" while we know that they don't have a basic clue about the real size of the Universe?
Based on this calculation and based on the assumption that even at z equal to infinity the maximal distance of 4.17 Gpc is 15.329349752BLY.
However, we clearly know that our Universe must be much bigger than that.
As Dr. John Mather from Nasa confirms that the universe is actually Infinite, that formula including all the BBT assumption should be set in the garbage.
The sooner is the better!!!
How have you ruled out this as an explanation of the situation?Well as you offer that articale about the cognitive bias, it is very clear that you are fully aware to your internal illusion due to your low ability
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Therefore, you try to overcome your low ability by attacking other person.
In any case, your tactics are already clear to all of us.
You have no interest in real science. You have proved it.
You totally ignore all the evidences which I have offered.
You suffer from the internal illusions that you are the master of knowledge, while you clearly don't have a basic idea how to protect the BBT.
So, you keep attacking the personality of the other person instead of offering real answers.
It is very clear that there is no science in your messages.
It's time for you to consider psychological treatment for yourself.
The sooner is the better for you!
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/11/2020 21:09:51
As you confirm that without clear understanding about the size and shape of the Universe our scientists can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe, then you should agree that the BBT is useless.That does not make sense.
It's like saying that because I can't tell what the weather will be tomorrow, I shouldn't set the alarm clock.
Why do you make nonsensical statements like that?
My own understanding is a direct outcome from the big black holes in that BBT.You have completely failed to show any problems with the BBT.
On the other hand you have shown that you do not understand it.
Just think about the following:I thought about it.
if each redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6 BLY, then as
1+ 1 = 2
then
6Bly + 6 Bly = 12 Bly
Imagine you are tiling a floor.
You know that a room that a room which is 6 feet square takes 36 tiles and you know that 6+6 = 12
So a room that is 12 feet by 12 feet will take 36 + 36 , i.e. 72 tiles.
Except it doesn't because areas are non linear- like red shifts.
This is a clear example that you do not understand the physics so you make silly mistakes.
That's why I think you are exhibiting D K syndrome.
Well as you offer that articale about the cognitive bias, it is very clear that you are fully aware to your internal illusion due to your low abilityThat's a complete non sequitur.
I have, at least in the field of science, a lot of ability.
I'm a published author and I get paid more than the national average salary to do science.
So, with good reason, I don't have anything "due to your low ability".
You totally ignore all the evidences which I have offered.All you have offered proof of, is your own inability to understand science (and, indeed, simple logic).
while you clearly don't have a basic idea how to protect the BBT.I don't feel that I need to protect it.
As I have said before, I don't care if it gets replaced. In fact, I will be pleased because it will mean that science is making progress.
So, you keep attacking the personality of the other person instead of offering real answers.No, I'm not attacking your personality.
I'm pointing out that you do not know what you're talking about.
That's really not the same thing.
It is very clear that there is no science in your messages.Yes there is science there .
It's just you can't understand it because... let's face it, you aren't bright enough.
It's time for you to consider psychological treatment for yourself.The one who, in spite of having no scientific training, thinks that he knows better than all the scientists in the world is the one who needs medical help.
BTW, you forgot to answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 10:31:37
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:54:06
Not because my knowledge is poor, but because that all our 100,000 scientists don't understand our real Universe.
How have you ruled out this as an explanation of the situation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Please answer it, I'm sure I'm not the only one who would like to see your reply.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/11/2020 11:44:21
You should improve your sense.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:53:05That does not make sense.
As you confirm that without clear understanding about the size and shape of the Universe our scientists can't tell us what is the correct theory for our Universe, then you should agree that the BBT is useless.
So, let me ask you step by step:
1. Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?
In the following explanation from NASA, it is stated that the Universe is an "infinite universe expanding into itself?
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/bigBangQandA.html
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."
Dr. John Mather, Nobel Laureate and James Webb Space Telescope Senior Project Scientist had also stated:Yes or No?
"The Big Bang happened everywhere at once and was a process happening in time, not a point in time."
2. As, our scientists from Nasa consider that the Universe is infinite, how could it be that based on the BBT math, the maximal size of the Universe is only 15.329349752BLY?
In the following article it is stated:
https://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/Lecture21.html
An accurate value for Ho, as we have seen, gives us confidence that we know the age and size of the universe. The size of the observable universe, by definition, is the size given by assuming we can see to infinite redshift (where the recession velocity reaches the speed of light). At infinite redshift, the factor involving z becomes unity and we have:
d = (c/100 h) [(z + 1)2 - 1]/[(z + 1)2 + 1]
= (3 x 105/100 h) = 3.00/h Gpc = 4.17 Gpc. (Size of visible universe)
That proves that those calculations are useless.
How our scientists dare to claim that "An accurate value for Ho, as we have seen, gives us confidence that we know the age and size of the universe" while we know that they don't have a basic clue about the real size of the Universe?
Based on this calculation and based on the assumption that even at z equal to infinity the maximal distance of 4.17 Gpc is 15.329349752BLY.
If your sense doesn't help you to understand the contradiction in the BBT, I really can't help you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/11/2020 11:55:45
You should improve your sense.No.
You should write proper sentences.
Try again.
1. Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?I don't know and I don't care.
Why are you trying to set up an argument from authority?
Don't you realise that logical fallacies are invalid?
2. As, our scientists from Nasa consider that the Universe is infinite, how could it be that based on the BBT math, the maximal size of the Universe is only 15.329349752BLY?That's just bollocks.
The visible universe is nearly 4 times as big.
So you are pretending the BBT says things that it does not say.
You are either not understanding it, or you are lying.
I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are honest.
In which case you are plainly mistaken.
And again, the grown-ups are thinking "clearly D K syndrome".
If your sense doesn't help you to understand the contradiction in the BBT, I really can't help you.You could start by pointing out what you think those contradictions are.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/11/2020 13:49:57
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:44:21Ok
1. Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?
I don't know and I don't care.
As you don't care about important information from NASA, then I don't care about all your messages.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/11/2020 14:44:20
OkBut the information is not important.
As you don't care about important information from NASA, then I don't care about all your messages.
For a very good reason; nobody knows if it's true.
He may work for NASA, but he still can't see beyond the visible universe.
He can't see if it is infinite or not.
So he can not tell you if there are unicorns out there.
So I don't need to worry about what he thinks.
Do you understand that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/11/2020 05:21:25
nobody knows if it's true.How do you dare to call Dr John which is Nobel Laureate as Nobody?
He may work for NASA, but he still can't see beyond the visible universe.
He can't see if it is infinite or not.
So he can not tell you if there are unicorns out there.
So I don't need to worry about what he thinks.
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
So, he is not there by himself. There must be many other NASA scientists that work with him or for him
That article is published at the main site of NASA.
So, NASA fully backup this new understanding for infinite universe.
I have full confidence that this understanding is a direct outcome from the most updated discovery at that NASA' telescope.
Please be aware that there is no question mark in that statement of infinite Universe.
He clearly claims for infinite Universe.
Therefore, as NASA fully supports Dr John and his team in the understanding that the Universe is infinite Universe, then the Universe must be Infinite.
For long time I clam that our Universe is infinite.
You and all the other BBT scientists were sure that this is unrealistic.
You all have considered me as nobody.
Now when NASA supports my understanding for infinite Universe - you call them nobody.
Shame On you.
You can't be considered as real scientist.
You have proved that you don't care about real science. You only care about BBT.
Therefore, you are a member in the "BBT scientists" choir.
You all would do whatever it takes to keep the BBT song forever and ever.
As you don't care about Dr John and his scientist team at NASA and as you does not care about real science - I really don't care about your messages any more!
Please stay away from my threads!
Post by: pzkpfw on 09/11/2020 08:06:28
...
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
So, he is not there by himself. There must be many other NASA scientists that work with him or for him
That article is published at the main site of NASA.
So, NASA fully backup this new understanding for infinite universe. ...
Are you going to pick and choose what science supported by NASA you agree with? They clearly support the BBT as mainstream theory.
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang
(Your apparent misunderstanding of the use of "nobody" by Bored chemist is quite odd. Was that actually some kind of sarcasm by you?)
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2020 08:44:48
How do you dare to call Dr John which is Nobel Laureate as Nobody?I didn't.
What I said was that nobodys knows if he is correct. (because nobody knows what's outside the visible universe,)
So most of your post was a rant about you not being able to read.
Learn to read; you will find it very helpful.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2020 08:45:48
(Your apparent misunderstanding of the use of "nobody" by Bored chemist is quite odd. Was that actually some kind of sarcasm by you?)I think he deliberately"misunderstood" it so he could get stupidly shouty and not have to actually answer any questions.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/11/2020 10:24:50
...
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescope
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
So, he is not there by himself. There must be many other NASA scientists that work with him or for him
That article is published at the main site of NASA.
So, NASA fully backup this new understanding for infinite universe. ...
Are you going to pick and choose what science supported by NASA you agree with? They clearly support the BBT as mainstream theory.
https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-powered-the-big-bang
It is very clear to me and to all of us that NASA and all their scientists fully support the BBT.
Even Dr John and his team fully support the BBT.
However, they have an obligation also for real science.
As they all know by now that the real science means - Infinite Universe, they were obliged to give us this message.
Never the less, in order to keep the BBT alive, Dr John has stated the following:
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."
So, he doesn't claim that the BBT is incorrect, but he clearly claims that the Universe is infinite.
However, they all clearly know that the BBT is a theory for a finite universe.
I have proved that based on the BBT Math the maximal distance of any object (even if it has an infinite redshift) is only about 15 BLY.
Therefore, he came with a brillient idea of: "infinite universe expanding into itself."
In that message he tells us that the Universe is infinite, but on the same message he tells us the the BBT is still alive.
However, it is very clear to me that he has no clue about the meaning of "expanding into itself" as it is just a message without any real validity.
So, NASA does understand that based on their most updated observations the Universe must be Infinite.
That understanding had been clearly delivered by Dr John.
It is also very clear to me that Dr John and most of the BBT scientist all over the planet try now to find a solution for that contradiction.
Their main task today is to fit the Infinite Universe into the BBT.
Therefore, Dr John also gave us a clue from the information to come as he stated:
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see."
So, they might even change the name of the BBT in order for it to fit in infinite Universe.
Dr John doesn't want to kill the BBT by his direct discovery that the universe is Infinite, but he tries to envelope that discovery/understanding about the infinite Universe in some sort of idea that would keep the BBT alive.
In any case, I claim that the BBT can't live any more in infinite Universe.
It is a theory for a limited size Universe (15BLY maximal redshift size) and the whole math is based on this size.
Therefore, as NASA team have found that the Universe is clearly infinite, while the whole BBT is based on a math for a finite Universe, that BBT should be set in the garbage.
Any scientist who believes in real science must understand by now that the BBT is useless theory for infinite Universe.
However, as the science of astronomy is in the hand of BBT scientists, I'm quite sure that somehow Dr. John and all the other BBT scientists would find the way how to change the BBT' math in order for it to live under that breakthrough discovery of infinite Universe.
So as long as the astronomy science is under the control of those BBT scientists, the BBT would stay with us under any sort of new discovery that contradicts the BBT.
Nothing would be able to knock it down
Not even Dave Lev.
It is fully protected by those BBT scientists!!!
So you are fully correct
"They clearly support the BBT as mainstream theory." Forever and ever!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2020 11:18:15
I have proved that based on the BBT Math the maximal distance of any object (even if it has an infinite redshift) is only about 15 BLY.That's still not true.
The observable universe is about 4 times bigger.
Why are you trying to repeat this lie?
It is a theory for a limited size Universe (15BLY maximal redshift size) and the whole math is based on this size.No
The theory does not actually depend on, or predict the size.
You need observations to do that.
The stated size agrees with the observations (and the idea of an infinite universe hasn't agreed with any theory since Olber's day.)
Any scientist who believes in real science must understand by now that the BBT is useless theory for infinite Universe.It works just fine for a finite observable universe .
So as long as the astronomy science is under the control of those BBT scientistsThere's no such thing as a "BBT scientist".
There are scientists and there are people like you who ignore the laws of physics and pretend that an infinite universe is possible.
Such a universe would collapse under its own weight.
Do you not see that?
Post by: evan_au on 09/11/2020 14:27:34
Quote
Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?I've not read his work.
But it would be more correct to say that he "hypothesized that the Universe is infinite".
That means he has come up with a theory (which he cannot prove at this time) that the Universe may be infinite.
That hypothesis is not necessarily incompatible with the Big Bang.
Quote
He is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescopeAs of now, that NASA telescope is sitting on the ground, all folded up, waiting for the COVID-19 pandemic to pass so they can finish preparing it for launch.
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
It is a very complicated piece of equipment, and unfortunately, it suffered a "big bang" event of its own while undergoing vibration tests back in 2016. Some of the fittings broke loose. Better that it happened on the ground, rather than during the real launch!
See: https://spacenews.com/no-damage-to-jwst-after-vibration-test-anomaly/
Quote
Based on this calculation and based on the assumption that even at z equal to infinity the maximal distance of 4.17 Gpc is 15.329349752BLY.We do know that the universe is larger than this. And this is alluded to in the last sentence on the page that you linked to...
However, we clearly know that our Universe must be much bigger than that.
Quote from: Paper published in the year 2000
Note that if the expansion universe were to ... speed up, galaxies currently in our visible universe would leave it!We now have considerable evidence that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, and this is convincing enough that the 2011 Nobel Prize in Physics was awarded for this discovery. So the "Hubble Constant" assumed in your calculation is not a constant, and the distance calculated by your equation is an underestimate.
How much of an underestimate, nobody is quite sure as yet...
Measuring the redshift of distant galaxies is relatively easy compared to measuring their distance. But a number of surveys are continuing this search in an attempt to refine estimates of the cosmological acceleration. At present, it appears to be a reasonable fit to the "cosmological constant" in Einstein's General Theory of Relativity (but with a very different value than he originally assigned to this constant).
So Big Bang theorists agree that the universe is bigger than you calculated. But whether it is infinite is a whole other question.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe
The highest redshift we can observe with light is the CMBR, which was emitted at a temperature of around 3000K, and now has a redshifted temperature of about 2.7K, a redshift of around 1000:1.
Some scientists are hopeful that they may be able to measure the expansion of the universe with new techniques using more sensitive gravitational wave detectors to measure the distance and time dilation of black hole collisions.
Post by: Halc on 09/11/2020 17:50:35
Quote from: Dave
[Mather] is Senior Project Scientist at the NASA James Webb Space telescopeThat telescope is yielding no data, so your statement is true to a fashion. His position makes him a sort of engineer more than anything, being in charge of implementing/deploying the device, not operating it once it has been put into operation.
In this position he and his team have full access to the most updated data from that NASA' telescope.
He actually does look through the things, as evidenced by the Nobel prize, but the position as described for this project is portrayed more as the engineer than the scientist.
Quote
Based on this calculation and based on the assumption that even at z equal to infinity the maximal distance of 4.17 Gpc is 15.329349752BLYThis quote is from a source of unknown origin. I see it copied on many sites, but I cannot find the original.
First of all, a figure to 3 significant figures cannot yield one of 10.5 significant digits. The article does not state the latter figure, so that mistake is yours. Secondly, the distance computed does not specify the coordinate system used. It appears to use light-travel-time, which is only meaningful in a flat Minkowski coordinate system, which does not correspond to the universe. Better (accepted) figures below.
And to emphasize what Evan says in the prior post, none of this has anything to do with the size of the universe any more than the size of a jail cell in which you spend your life has an bearing on the size of the jail.
We do know that the universe is larger than this. And this is alluded to in the last sentence on the page that you linked to...That is another mistake in that text. Something leaving the visible universe is not a function of the expansion rate. The visible universe (estimated current radius of 46 BLY proper distance along lines of constant cosmological time) is a property of an event (Earth, here, now) and refers to comoving distance to the worldline of a comoving object currently on our particle horizon. That’s a lot more than 4.17 Gpc.Quote from: Paper published in the year 2000Note that if the expansion universe were to ... speed up, galaxies currently in our visible universe would leave it!
Changes to the expansion rate of the universe cannot effect a galaxy entering or leaving that radius. Only a deviation from being a comoving object can. So it would be more correct to say that any galaxy near that radius with recessional peculiar velocity (which isn’t a function of the expansion rate) might leave our visible universe. There’s no way that galaxy is visible to us. That’s not what the term ‘visible universe’ means.
What the paper appears to be talking about is the event horizon. (defined for a worldline, not an event). The event horizon delimits the set of events in the universe that can ever have a causal effect on said worldline (typically that of Earth) given infinite time. The size of that is a bit over 16 BLY, and would be infinite if the expansion rate was not accelerating at all.
An accelerating expansion rate (which is different than a Hubble ‘constant’ that is increasing) can cause a comoving object to cross the event horizon. All the most distant objects that we see today have done this. GN-z11 for instance is currently twice that distance, having crossed the event horizon nearly 10 BY ago, but the image we see of it is from back when it was inside that horizon.
Quote
So the "Hubble Constant" assumed in your calculation is not a constant, and the distance calculated by your equation is an underestimate.It was never a constant, but just something that is known to so few digits (just one) that it effectively isn’t going to change during the history of humanity. If the scale factor was linear (constant expansion), then the Hubble ‘constant’ would be exactly 1/age-of-universe, which is amazingly close to what it is today. The ‘constant’ is currently about 70 km/sec/Mpc, and is projected (FLRW model) to settle down to an actual eventual constant of about 57 km/sec/Mpc in the long run. It would forever decrease as an inverse of time without dark energy.
This Hubble constant defines a Hubble-Sphere, which is yet another measure of the size of the universe, defined as the radius beyond which a comoving object recedes from some worldline (Earth) at a rate greater than c. That radius is about 14 BLY give or take.
Finally, there is the size given by the proper distance from a worldline passing through event X (Earth today) to any event that can possibly have had a causal effect on us. This radius is under 6GLY, meaning no light that has ever been 6GLY away from us has ever reached us. The universe could simply end there and we would not be able to detect it. This radius increases with time as light from those more distant events is given time to reach Earth’s worldline. At t=infinity, this radius merges with the event horizon.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/11/2020 19:29:27
Well, if you didn't read his article then how do you know that it would be more correct to say that he "hypothesized that the Universe is infinite"?QuoteQuoteI've not read his work.
Do you confirm that Dr. John Mather has stated that the Universe is infinite?
But it would be more correct to say that he "hypothesized that the Universe is infinite".
That means he has come up with a theory (which he cannot prove at this time) that the Universe may be infinite.
That hypothesis is not necessarily incompatible with the Big Bang.
https://www.jwst.nasa.gov/content/features/bigBangQandA.htmlI didn't find any hint for "hypothesize" in that article. Therefore, based on the article it seems that Dr John has full confidence about his idea for the Universe is Infinite.
"The Big Bang is a really misleading name for the expanding universe that we see. We see an infinite universe expanding into itself."
Dr John has surly deep knowledge in science. As NASA' senior scientist he is well aware about all the observation data from the current operated telescopes.
He also well aware that he represents NASA and his article is published at NASA web site.
Therefore, as he has full confidence in the idea of Infinite Universe, there is good chance that he has key information which convinced him that our Universe is infinite.
I agree that his idea by itself won't convert the Universe into infinite Universe.
However, I have found one more article which could support that idea:
Big Bang, Deflated? Universe May Have Had No Beginning
https://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html
In this article it is stated that the Big Bang is under fire as
" In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached."
They also add:
"So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that," Brandenberger told Live Science.
There are other problems brewing in physics — namely, that the two most dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be reconciled."
"Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would happen in deep time."
The outcome is:
" In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old."
So, in this article our scientists have found that our Universe is infinity old
They do not claim directly for infinite Universe.
However, an infinite old Universe might leads to infinity Universe.
So, Dr John might base his understanding for Infinite Universe also on this kind of article.
Therefore, even if you don't like the idea of infinite Universe, you have to agree that it is feasible.
The highest redshift we can observe with light is the CMBR, which was emitted at a temperature of around 3000K, and now has a redshifted temperature of about 2.7K, a redshift of around 1000:1.Why do you claim in so high confidence that the CMBR "was emitted at a temperature of around 3000K,"
Can we really measure that temp?
Don't you agree that it is just a conclusion due to the BBT?
So, when you discuss about hypothesized:
hypothesizedThis is the real hypothesized idea as we can't measure that high temp today.
So, we have to say:
Based on the BBT, the hypothesized idea is that the CMBR was emitted at the era of recombination at a temperature of around 3000K
We now have considerable evidence that the expansion of the universe is acceleratingNo,
we have no evidence for Expansion in space of the Universe.
All we see are galaxies.
We only see expansion in galaxies and not expansion of the Universe.
So, the expansion in the Universe is one more hypothesized idea of our scientists.
Therefore, our scientists had to claim that the expansions of the Galaxies are accelerating and not the expansion of the Universe itself.
That statement by itself is misleading information by our scientists.
Measuring the redshift of distant galaxies is relatively easy compared to measuring their distance.Redshift is all about velocity.
However, based on the BBT our scientists have limited the maximal distance of the redshift.
They claim that even at infinite redshift, the maximal distance is 15 BLY.
Actually, I have already proved that Based on the BBR in the CMBR our Universe MUST be infinite.
Also the redshift of 1100 in the CMBR proves that it comes from very far away location
I really can't understand based on what real physics law our scientists are using a redshift of a galaxy in order to determined its age
So why our scientists are so sure that the CMBR is an echo from the early days of the Universe.
Why can't we just assume that the CMBR is due to the radiation of our current Universe (Finite or Infinite)?
Why the redshift can't represents unlimited velocity/distance in our Universe.
Why do we insist to limit that size of our universe by that Hubble size of about 15 BLY?
Why an infinite redshift can't represent an infinite velocity/distance?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/11/2020 19:52:27
Well, if you didn't read his article then how do you know that it is it would be more correct to say that he "hypothesized that the Universe is infinite"?Because we know what a hypothesis is.
Therefore, based on the article it seems that Dr John has full confidence about his idea for the Universe is Infinite.He may well be confident, but it hasn't been proved, so it's hypothetical.
Did you not understand that?
you have to agree that it is feasible.And that, you nitwit, is what a hypothesis means.
Can we really measure that temp?Yes.
Hydrogen is still hydrogen.
We can measure the temperature of a hydrogen plasma in the lab today.
This one, for example,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium_arc_lamp
There's a picture of the spectrum. The bit that corresponds to the plasma (give or take some minor corrections) is the peak near the left hand end.
It's at about 250nM
And you can feed that into this calculator
https://www.omnicalculator.com/physics/wiens-law
to get the plasma temperature- it's about 11500K
Rather hotter than the recombination temperature- but that's because they drive the lamps hard to get as much light (and as short a wavelength) as possible.
Now it's interesting to note that I know things like that and you clearly don't- or you wouldn't have needed to ask the question.
So it's clear that your views...
Well as you offer that articale about the cognitive bias, it is very clear that you are fully aware to your internal illusion due to your low abilityabout my ability are wrong.
Therefore, you try to overcome your low ability by attacking other person.
I'm the one who knows stuff; not you.
No,And some of them "look like" they are travelling at more tan the speed of light- which is impossible.
we have no evidence for Expansion in space of the Universe.
All we see are galaxies.
So they must be in space that is moving away from us.
Again this is an example of a thing I understand, but you don't. Because you are the one with D K syndrome here.
Even at infinite redshift, the maximal distance is 15 BLY.You did the wrong maths - you do that a lot.
It might be because you can't get it right, or it might be because you know that the right maths shows that you are wrong, so you refuse to look at it.
Actually, I have already proved that Based on the BBR in the CMBR our Universe MUST be infinite.No.
I proved that you can get the same CMBR in a toy universe which is finite.
Please remember – redshift is all about distance.It's mainly about the expansion of space.
I really can't understand based on what real physics law our scientists are using a redshift of a galaxy in order to determined its ageThen go away and learn.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/11/2020 03:16:11
Quote
The BBT also hasn't been aproved, so how shall we know in which scientist we have to trust?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:29:27He may well be confident, but it hasn't been proved, so it's hypothetical.
Therefore, based on the article it seems that Dr John has full confidence about his idea for the Universe is Infinite.
How could it be that when one group of scientists claims that the Universe is infinite in its size or in its age - this is hypothetical, while when the other group claims that the Universe is finite in its age and size then this is real science?
2. Temp
Quote
How do we know that 13.4By ago the entire Universe was full ONLY with hot hydrogen plasma?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:29:27Yes.
Can we really measure that temp?
Hydrogen is still hydrogen.
We can measure the temperature of a hydrogen plasma in the lab today.
Actually, based on the BBT, we observe some very far away galaxies that their estimated age is over than 12 BLY.
At that time (based on the BBT) the Temp of the Universe was still very high.
So, do we really see any signs of ultra high temp from those far away galaxies?
If we don't see, then the BBT is not just a hypothetical idea but totally unrealistic.
3. Expansion the space-
As I have already explained, we only see the expansion of galaxies and not the expansion in the Universe space.
The assumption that the space itself can expand is one of the biggest mistake of the modern science.
There is no way to increase the whole Universe space or decrease it.
The space in our Universe is fixed at any given moment and it must go to the infinity.
Therefore, I would like to see a real science law that permits the imagination of increasing or decreasing the whole space. (Please not BBT fiction math)
As the Universe space is fixed - forever and ever, we can wonder if the matter and the galaxies in our infinite universe space also go up to the infinity.
So, the question about the infinity should be as follow:
Could it be that there are galaxies up to the infinity or the galaxies are located at a finite size in the infinite Universe space?
4. Infinite Old Universe
In the following article our scientists prove that the idea of singularity isn't realistic and the Universe should be infinite Old.
Universe May Have Had No BeginningIf this calculation is correct, then the BBT with its limited age of 13.8 BY should be set in the garbage.
https://www.livescience.com/49958-theory-no-big-bang.html
In this article it is stated that the Big Bang is under fire as
" In Einstein's formulation, the laws of physics actually break before the singularity is reached."
They also add:
"So when we say that the universe begins with a big bang, we really have no right to say that," Brandenberger told Live Science.
There are other problems brewing in physics — namely, that the two most dominant theories, quantum mechanics and general relativity, can't be reconciled."
"Using this old-fashioned form of quantum theory, the researchers calculated a small correction term that could be included in Einstein's theory of general relativity. Then, they figured out what would happen in deep time."
The outcome is:
" In the new formulation, there is no singularity, and the universe is infinitely old."
So, in this article our scientists have found that our Universe is infinity old
5. Redshift -
Redshift is all about velocity and Only about Velocity!!!
This is the meaning of real science law!
Quote
It's mainly about the expansion of space.Please prove it by real science law!
In the BBT Math our scientists have transformed that redshift into distance and age.
That transformation is a pure fiction as it violates the science law.
When we observe a far away galaxy with high redshift, that redshift can only tell us about its velocity relative to our location.
Any other estimation from that redshift is imagination!
Therefore, the BBT math which converts the redshift to distance or age is clearly incorrect!
6. BBR in the CMBR
Quote
So far there is no prove that our REAL finite Universe can hold its radiation from a very limited time duration (Only 60 MY - as it had been created during the era of recombination between 240 M to 300M years) forever and ever.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:29:27No.
Actually, I have already proved that Based on the BBR in the CMBR our Universe MUST be infinite.
I proved that you can get the same CMBR in a toy universe which is finite.
Therefore, the idea that we get today the CMBR from that Era is a pure fiction.
7. Inflation
Based on the inflation the Universe has to increase its space at billions times the speed of light.
Our scientists can't explain what is the requested force/energy that could set that kind of inflation.
They also can't explain what kind of force could stop that ultra high inflation.
Therefore, the idea of the inflation in the BBT should be considered as the Biggest imagination which had ever been set by scientist.
Never the less, Alan Harvey Guth have got the Nobel reward for his unrealistic Hypothetical idea as it saved the BBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Guth
It is very clear that without the inflation idea - the BBT is useless.
Conclusions -
The BBT is not just an hypothetical idea. It should be set in the garbage.
We must look at our Universe without the BBT filter.
If we do so, we would find that Redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity.
We would find that those scientists that claim that the Universe is Infinite Old are fully correct.
We would also find that those scientists that claim that the Universe is Infinite in its size are also fully correct.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/11/2020 09:00:59
The BBT also hasn't been aproved, so how shall we know in which scientist we have to trust?You follow the actual evidence, and the logic used by the person making the claim.
This is how we know that we can reject the hypothesis which you called "theory 4.
It's less reliable, but you can also make a judgement based on what the person has said before.
And, since we know that you talked a lot of nonsense in that thread (and this one) we are justified in not trusting what you say.
There's nothing special about science here- this is exactly the same way you would work out who to trust in any other walk of life.
How do we know that 13.4By ago the entire Universe was full ONLY with hot hydrogen plasma?We don't, but you would have to explain where the other stuff went. (The universe is mainly hydrogen)
It also doesn't matter.
Any hot dense plasma would act like a blackbody.
That's pretty much why it's called black.
Again, this is an example of things you don't know but which I do know.
As I have already explained, we only see the expansion of galaxies and not the expansion in the Universe space.And I have explained that's all you need to be able to see to verify the expansion of space.
And some of them "look like" they are travelling at more than the speed of light- which is impossible.
So they must be in space that is moving away from us.
Again this is an example of a thing I understand, but you don't. Because you are the one with D K syndrome here.
When we observe a far away galaxy with high redshift, that redshift can only tell us about its velocity relative to our location.When it tells us that the velocity is greater than the speed of light, you know that one of your assumptions is wrong.
If this calculation is correct, then the BBT with its limited age of 13.8 BY should be set in the garbage.But you can't show that it is correct.
We can certainly show that you got some previous calculations wrong because you assumed that the hubble ratio was constant.
5. Redshift -And if the red shift indicates a speed above C something has gone wrong.
Redshift is all about velocity and Only about Velocity!!!
This is the meaning of real science law!
Please prove it by real science law!see above
In the BBT Math our scientists have transformed that redshift into distance and age.No.
We have measured the distance.
Do you understand that?
It's a measurement- not some thing from the theory.
The measurement would be true regardless of what theory you used. (The interesting thing is that the stuff which is further away is moving away from us faster. So, if you go far enough the recession velocity must exceed C- which is a problem.
And, if you know how far away something is and you know the speed of light then you know how long ago whatever you see actually happened.
That's just common sense.
So far there is no prove that our REAL finite Universe can hold its radiation from a very limited time durationYes there is.
You can measure that radiation, so we know it is there.
We are saying it has been around for about 13 B years.
You are saying two things
It has been there forever- because you say the age is infinite, but you also say it couldn't still be there after 13 billion years.
Do you see the problem there?
You have contradicted yourself.
The BBT has a very simple explanation.
It has taken us that long to reach us because it has been racing across a universe which is expanding.
On the journey, it has been "stretched out" which is why it's now 2.7K
They also can't explain what kind of force could stop that ultra high inflation.Whatever caused it ran out.
Therefore, the idea of the inflation in the BBT should be considered as the Biggest imagination which had ever been set by scientist.Do you not realise it's not something we made up; it's something we saw?
It is an observation.
If we do so, we would find that Redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity.Nobody has actually said otherwise.
But please explain why, for things that are measured as being further away, the red shift, and thus the velocity, is bigger?
Because that means that the whole universe is rushing away from us. practically nothing has been observed with a blue shift.
And if it is infinitely old and is moving away from us, how come it is still here?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 07:50:28
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:16:11Nobody has actually said otherwise.
If we do so, we would find that Redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity.
This is real science!
Red shift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity!!!
No.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:16:11And if the red shift indicates a speed above C something has gone wrong.
5. Redshift -
Redshift is all about velocity and Only about Velocity!!!
This is the meaning of real science law!
As we all agree that redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity, then if the redshift indicates a speed above C then the speed is above C.
Why is it so difficult for you to accept and agree in the real evidence that we clearly observe?
We have deeply discussed this issue before.
Einstein gave us the Relativity formula.
That formula works perfectly at a local space time.
Therefore it is not accepted to see locally anything that move faster than the speed of light.
So, in any local space time in the whole infinite Universe - nothing can move faster than the seed of light.
However, a far away space time has no obligation for our local space time.
Therefore, galaxies in that far away space time could move much faster than the speed of light with reference to us, but no one of them would be able to move faster than the speed of light with reference to any nearby galaxy in its local space time.
I do recall that Krypid or Halc had offered an article which fully confirms that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location
So, do you understand the meaning of real science?
No, This is incorrect.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:16:11No.
In the BBT Math our scientists have transformed that redshift into distance and age.
We have measured the distance.
Do you understand that?
In one hand our scientists are using the redshift for measuring the velocity:
https://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/Lecture21.html
In astrophysics, we use z = (Dl/lo) as the redshift, so velocities are related
to redshift simply by
v = cz."
However, on the other hand they use the reference in the redshift in order to estimate the distance of this galaxy in the maximal "visible universe" size of 4.17Gpc:
d = (c/100 h) [(z + 1)2 - 1]/[(z + 1)2 + 1]
= (3 x 105/100 h) = 3.00/h Gpc = 4.17 Gpc. (Size of visible universe)
I claim that this formula is just incorrect.
It is forbidden to use the z in order to calculate its distance.
In the BBT formula which I have presented, our scientists are using the redshift in order to estimate distance.
We can certainly show that you got some previous calculations wrong because you assumed that the Hubble ratio was constant.First - if you call something constant - then in real science it is expected that it will be constant.
But as expected in our BBT imagination Universe a constant can't be a constant while you all are very happy...
Second - Hubble constant is a severe violation in Einstein formula, therefore, you would never ever find any constant value for this constant to be used in that formula which should represents our Universe.
Therefore, this constant can't be considered as a real constant.
Hence, I claim that Hubble constant is NONSENCE!!!
We shouldn't use it in any formula.
That constant is the BIGGEST mistake of the modern science!
Einstein had set a cosmic constant in his formula.
Latter on he had stated that this was its biggest mistake.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20181030a/full/
“Einstein remarked to me many years ago that the cosmic repulsion idea was the biggest blunder he had made in his entire life.”
Unfortunately, our scientists have used that specific cosmic repulsion constant which as the Hubble constant.
This is forbidden!!!
As Einstein has claimed that this cosmic constant is the Biggest mistake of his life, then all the 100,000 BBT scientists must understand that it is his biggest mistake of his life!
How do they dare to violate Einstein formula and also still call it Einstein Formula?
Any scientist which accept this severe violation in Einstein formula can't be considered as scientist.
How do you dare to carry the name of Einstein while you all violate his will???
You tell me that due to Einstein relativity Nothing can move faster than the speed of light, while on the other hand you totally ignore his request for NOT adding that constant in his formula.
Shame on you and shame to all the BBT scientists which accept that severe violation.
I call you all "BBT scientists" as any scientist that accept the idea of adding the Hubble constant in Einstein formula can't be considered as real scientist.
So - all of you have to take a decision.
If you carry the name of Einstein, then please take out the Hubble constant from Einstein formula and set it in the garbage.
If you can't do so, then please don't carry Einstein name for nothing any more!!!
From now on we all must agree that the Hubble constant is a clear contradiction with Einstein will.
Therefore, as the whole BBT is based on that constant, once you set this Hubble constant in the garbage, the BBT would follow it to the garbage.
Is it clear to you?
CMBR
How can you claim such nonsense?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:16:11Yes there is.
So far there is no prove that our REAL finite Universe can hold its radiation from a very limited time duration
You can measure that radiation, so we know it is there.
The idea that we get CMBR doesn't prove that your understanding about its source is correct!
We are saying it has been around for about 13 B years.
Sorry - you have to prove how a radiation with a limited time duration of only 60 MY (that had been emitted 13.4 BY ago) could stay with us forever and ever.
This radiation travels at the speed of light, so you technically can't hold it forever.
The BBT has a very simple explanation.
It has taken us that long to reach us because it has been racing across a universe which is expanding.
On the journey, it has been "stretched out" which is why it's now 2.7K
As you claim that it is so easy to explain that radiation, let me offer you the following example:
Let's assume that I point a laser in your direction (while I stay at a fixed point).
That laser beam light duration is for only 60 Sec (instead of 60 MY) and its amplitude is A.
I hope that we all agree that if you also stay at a fixed point - you should see it for only 60 Second with an amplitude which is relative to your distance from that laser source..
Now, what would happen if you are moving away from that laser source at the speed of light (after getting the light for 30Sec)?
So, do you consider that you would see the current laser radiation or the rest 30 sec or forever and at what amplitude?
So, try to explain how the idea that you are moving away from the laser source at the speed of light could "stretched out" the laser amplitude forever and ever.
You are free to move yourself in space at the speed of light or ask the space to take you at the speed of light.
In any case, after moving away from the laser source in the speed of light for only 13.4 days (instead of Billion 13.4 BY in the BBT), what might be the amplitude of the radiation from that laser beam that you should get?
Try to explain how could you get any radiation while you moving away from that source at the speed of light.
And if it is infinitely old and is moving away from us, how come it is still here?If you won't violate Einstein formula by that Hubble constant.
If you would know that there is no way to "stretched out" the CMBR in our real Universe
If you would base your knowledge ONLY on real science
You would know that what we see is what we have
So the CMBR represents the radiation in our current real Universe.
As I have stated, the amplitude in the CMBR and the BBR tells us the real size and shape of our Universe.
Please be aware that CMBR was exactly the same 100,000,000 Trillion Years ago and it will be the same in the next 100,000,000... Trillion years.
This is real science!!!
So, once we set the Hubble constant (which isn't constant) and all related BBT math which is based on that constant in the garbage, we can discuss real science..
Let me reuse your following statement:
Again, this is an example of things you don't know but which I do know.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2020 09:02:51
No.And, of course, that's impossible.
As we all agree that redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity, then if the redshift indicates a speed above C then the speed is above C.
If it was the other way round, and the supporters of BBT were glibly saying it moves faster than light you would be the first to claim that was absurd.
Yet you accept it.
And then you tell the lie that your "Theory D" hypothesis is consistent with the laws of physics.
Perhaps we should invent a name for this class of people who ignore the rules of nature in order to support your view.
We can call them "theory dim scientists".
As far a I can tell you are the only "theory dim scientist".
I do recall that Krypid or Halc had offered an article which fully confirms that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our locationBecause space is expanding.
Sorry - you have to prove how a radiation with a limited time duration of only 60 MY (that had been emitted 13.4 BY ago) could stay with us forever and ever.It is inthe universe.
Where else could it go?
There isn't any way for it to leave the universe.
So obviously, it is still here (Until it hits something).
Why do you think I need to prove that?
There isn't anywhere else it could be, is there?
How can you claim such nonsense?The same is true of your "alternative" idea- with the problems that you need to explain how something so cold emitted so much light.
The idea that we get CMBR doesn't prove that your understanding about its source is correct!
Let's assume that I point a laser in your direction (while I stay at a fixed point).OK
That laser beam light duration is for only 60 Sec (instead of 60 MY) and its amplitude is A.
I hope that we all agree that if you also stay at a fixed point - you should see it for only 60 Second with an amplitude which is relative to your distance from that laser source..
Now, what would happen if you are moving away from that laser source at the speed of light (after getting the light for 30Sec)?
So, do you consider that you would see the current laser radiation or the rest 30 sec or forever and at what amplitude?
So, try to explain how the idea that you are moving away from the laser source at the speed of light could "stretched out" the laser amplitude forever and ever.
The frequency of visible light is about 500 THz
So, in each second the electromagnetic field goes up and down 500,000,000,000,000 times and, in 60 seconds it will oscillate through 60 times as many cycles.
That's 3 x 10^ 15 peaks and troughs.
Now, imagine that I am moving away from you at nearly the speed of light and that the radiation, when it reaches me has been stretched out into the microwave region at about 1GHz.
I still see the full set of 3 x 10^ 15 peaks and troughs, but there's now a much longer (a nanosecond) interval between each one.
So it now takes 6 million seconds for them all to reach me.
That's about a month.
Now, the original "flash" of the universe will have been a lot longer than a minute so there's no problem with the radiation arriving here over a very long period of time.
It is forbidden to use the z in order to calculate its distance.Why?
In the BBT formula which I have presented, our scientists are using the redshift in order to estimate distance.WHat else would they use.
Also, it's not the only way in which we measure distances, and the measurements agree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova
So, if the red shift works for those, and the universe is homogeneous- as you claim there's nothing to stop the red shift working at other distances, is there?
And since it works, we should use it- rather than listening to the "theory dim scientists"
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 14:21:00
QuoteQuote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 09:00:59First - if you call something constant - then in real science it is expected that it will be constant.
We can certainly show that you got some previous calculations wrong because you assumed that the Hubble ratio was constant.
But as expected in our BBT imagination Universe a constant can't be a constant while you all are very happy...
Second - Hubble constant is a severe violation in Einstein formula, therefore, you would never ever find any constant value for this constant to be used in that formula which should represents our Universe.
Therefore, this constant can't be considered as a real constant.
Hence, I claim that Hubble constant is NONSENCE!!!
We shouldn't use it in any formula.
That constant is the BIGGEST mistake of the modern science!
Einstein had set a cosmic constant in his formula.
Latter on he had stated that this was its biggest mistake.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.3.20181030a/full/
“Einstein remarked to me many years ago that the cosmic repulsion idea was the biggest blunder he had made in his entire life.”
Unfortunately, our scientists have used that specific cosmic repulsion constant which as the Hubble constant.
This is forbidden!!!
As Einstein has claimed that this cosmic constant is the Biggest mistake of his life, then all the 100,000 BBT scientists must understand that it is his biggest mistake of his life!
How do they dare to violate Einstein formula and also still call it Einstein Formula?
Any scientist which accept this severe violation in Einstein formula can't be considered as scientist.
How do you dare to carry the name of Einstein while you all violate his will???
You tell me that due to Einstein relativity Nothing can move faster than the speed of light, while on the other hand you totally ignore his request for NOT adding that constant in his formula.
Shame on you and shame to all the BBT scientists which accept that severe violation.
I call you all "BBT scientists" as any scientist that accept the idea of adding the Hubble constant in Einstein formula can't be considered as real scientist.
So - all of you have to take a decision.
If you carry the name of Einstein, then please take out the Hubble constant from Einstein formula and set it in the garbage.
If you can't do so, then please don't carry Einstein name for nothing any more!!!
From now on we all must agree that the Hubble constant is a clear contradiction with Einstein will.
Therefore, as the whole BBT is based on that constant, once you set this Hubble constant in the garbage, the BBT would follow it to the garbage.
Is it clear to you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2020 18:03:02
Why do you ignore the message from Einstein about his biggest mistake of adding a constant (Hubble constant) in his formula?Because we have evidence.
Why do you try to use logical fallacies- such as "argument by authority" which just get you laughed at?
Post by: puppypower on 11/11/2020 20:09:32
Since energy has to be conserved; Energy Conservation, than this implies there is an increasing pool of dead energy, associated with entropy, that is not net reusable by the universe. This accumulating pool of dead energy has a connection to the unidirectional flow of time to the future. Time does not cycle like a clock, because the past had more useable energy in play, than does the present or the future. Different points in time cannot replace each other, but can only go forward to places of less usable energy due to the second law.
This dead pool of accumulating energy creates a problem for all the existing theoretical traditions connected to the universe. None of these take into the account the dead pool of energy, associate with the second law. For example, the cyclic or infinite universe theories both assume the wrong energy balances since the dead pool implies the future cannot be the same as the past, but rather the universe will eventually have no useable energy and only dead pool energy. The universe has one life, unless dead pool energy is somehow released again.
The question is, how would one describe dead pool energy? We know ir comes from entropy increasing. Entropy is a state variable meaning for any given state of matter, there is a given amount of measurable entropy. Dead pool energy, if energy is conserved, would be analogous to living memories of past entropic states.
The past is over, but the past still has a connection to the present, by the foundation it laid and the trajectory it created. For example, A galaxy can be hundreds of millions of light years in size and all appear coordinated. This seems odd since the speed of light is too slow to coordinate a large galaxy in real time using gravity. Yet coordination happens, due to a trajectory from the past; dead pool memory of previous entropic states.
The energy signals we receive from the early universe do not represent the present state of the universe, but come from previous states of the universe that no longer exist. These previous states had an impact on the trajectory to the present. We have no clue of the material present beyond what is next to us. It appears we are confusing dead pool energy with the current useable energy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 20:58:12
Sorry - there is not even one evidence to confirm the BBT imagination.Why do you ignore the message from Einstein about his biggest mistake of adding a constant (Hubble constant) in his formula?Because we have evidence.
So, let's try to understand those "evidences"
1. BBT Math
As the Hubble constant is a severe violation in Einstein formula, that constant should be set in the garbage.
Once you do so, the whole BBT math is useless.
2. Distance vs. Redshift
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28As we all agree that redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity, it can't be used to evaluate any sort of distance.
It is forbidden to use the z in order to calculate its distance.
Why?
Therefore, it is forbidden to use the redshift in any formula for distance calculation!
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28In the following article it is stated:
In the BBT formula which I have presented, our scientists are using the redshift in order to estimate distance.
WHat else would they use.
Also, it's not the only way in which we measure distances, and the measurements agree.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cepheid_variable
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova
So, if the red shift works for those, and the universe is homogeneous- as you claim there's nothing to stop the red shift working at other distances, is there?
And since it works, we should use it- rather than listening to the "theory dim scientists"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_Ia_supernova
"The similarity in the absolute luminosity profiles of nearly all known Type Ia supernovae has led to their use as a secondary standard candle in extragalactic astronomy.[49] Improved calibrations of the Cepheid variable distance scale[50] and direct geometric distance measurements to NGC 4258 from the dynamics of maser emission[51] when combined with the Hubble diagram of the Type Ia supernova distances have led to an improved value of the Hubble constant."
However, NGC 4258 is located at a distance of only 23.7 ± 1.5 Mly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messier_106
So, our scientists try to improve the Hubble constant based on relatively nearby galaxy.
That is a severe mistake.
https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/what-is-a-redshift
In the following redshift/distance diagram we clearly see that at a distance of 15 MPC (virgo cluster) some galaxies are moving at 500 Km/s and other at almost 2000 Km/s
So, there is no real correlation between distances to redshift for galaxies which are located at a distance above 15MPC.
Therefore, the Hubble constant might be Ok for nearby galaxy, but it surly can't give a correct estimation for far away galaxies.
Therefore, the following formula is just incorrect:
https://web.njit.edu/~gary/321/Lecture21.html
Hubble found a linear relationship between distance and redshift
v = cz = Hod
There is no linear relationship between distance to redshift.
I have just proved it and it goes worst as the distance is increasing.
3. CMBR
Well, if you move exactly at the speed of light you won't get any radiation from that laser beam.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28OK
Let's assume that I point a laser in your direction (while I stay at a fixed point).
That laser beam light duration is for only 60 Sec (instead of 60 MY) and its amplitude is A.
I hope that we all agree that if you also stay at a fixed point - you should see it for only 60 Second with an amplitude which is relative to your distance from that laser source..
Now, what would happen if you are moving away from that laser source at the speed of light (after getting the light for 30Sec)?
So, do you consider that you would see the current laser radiation or the rest 30 sec or forever and at what amplitude?
So, try to explain how the idea that you are moving away from the laser source at the speed of light could "stretched out" the laser amplitude forever and ever.
The frequency of visible light is about 500 THz
So, in each second the electromagnetic field goes up and down 500,000,000,000,000 times and, in 60 seconds it will oscillate through 60 times as many cycles.
That's 3 x 10^ 15 peaks and troughs.
Now, imagine that I am moving away from you at nearly the speed of light and that the radiation, when it reaches me has been stretched out into the microwave region at about 1GHz.
I still see the full set of 3 x 10^ 15 peaks and troughs, but there's now a much longer (a nanosecond) interval between each one.
So it now takes 6 million seconds for them all to reach me.
That's about a month.
Now, the original "flash" of the universe will have been a lot longer than a minute so there's no problem with the radiation arriving here over a very long period of time.
Therefore, you have stated that you move nearly the speed of light:
Now, imagine that I am moving away from you at nearly the speed of lightAt that case you might get some radiation, but it would be so low that you would never be able to detect it.
If you are moving at 1/2c than at the maximal, you would double the time that you can see that radiation.
However, as you are located further away the radiation should drop dramatically.
So, even after few Millisecond, you won't be able to detect any real radiation.
Therefore, if we are moving at the speed of light with reference to the Recombination Era radiation, we won't get any radiation for that era.
If we move at almost the speed of light, we might get some but it would be so dramatically low and actually undetectable.
If we move at 1/2 c than we might get the radiation - but only for 60 My * 2 = 120 MY.
In any case, as we increasing distance to that Era, it s very clear that the energy of the radiation should drop dramatically and after just few years or MY we won't be able to detect any radiation energy
Therefore, the idea that even after 13.4 BY we can still detect a radiation from that era is a clear imagination.
In a finite Universe some galaxies must be located near the edge of the Universe.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28It is inthe universe.
Sorry - you have to prove how a radiation with a limited time duration of only 60 MY (that had been emitted 13.4 BY ago) could stay with us forever and ever.
Where else could it go?
There isn't any way for it to leave the universe.
So, as the galaxies at this space time can't move faster than the speed of light, the radiation at that aria must cross the edge.
If the finite Universe has no edge, than it should be considered as infinite.
4. Faster than the speed of light
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28Yes it is possible!
No.
As we all agree that redshift means velocity and ONLY velocity, then if the redshift indicates a speed above C then the speed is above C.
And, of course, that's impossible.
Relativity is only related to relatively local space time.
Therefore, Galaxies at a different space time can move faster than the speed of light with reference to each other.
I have already deeply explained it
4. Expansion
NoQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:50:28Because space is expanding.
I do recall that Krypid or Halc had offered an article which fully confirms that far away galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light with reference to our location
It is due to different space time and not due to the expansion in space as the space is fixed forever and ever!!!
I have asked you before and I ask you again
Show the science formula that permits the idea of space expansion.
Please do not use the BBT math imagination.
Only real science law!
Conclusion
As Einstein has stated that it is forbidden to add the cosmological constant in his formula, then the Hubble constant can't be used in his formula.
As we drop that constant in the garbage, the BBT isn't valid any more.
Hence, there is no need to continue the discussion about the BBT imagination
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/11/2020 21:22:47
BBT MathWe already pointed out that you were doing the wrong maths because the hubble ratio isn't a constant.
As we all agree that redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity, it can't be used to evaluate any sort of distance.Nonsense.
Therefore, it is forbidden to use the redshift in any formula for distance calculation!
We know it works; so we use it.
So, our scientists try to improve the Hubble constant based on relatively nearby galaxy.What else should they use?
That is a severe mistake.
Dance?
At that case you might get some radiation, but it would be so low that you would never be able to detect it.Bollocks.
If the laser is sending out some energy then I will receive that energy.
OK because it's spread over a longer time, the intensity is lower but then, the intensity of the CMBR is pretty low.
That's not actually a problem if you understand science.
I see you are struggling with it.
So, there is no real correlation between distances to redshift for galaxies which are located at a distance aboveYou don't know what a correlation is, do you?
That data is strongly correlated- even if you don't want to admit it.
So, even after few Millisecond, you won't be able to detect any real radiation.The energy was sent out.
I can detect energy when it reaches me.
So if you say it doesn't arrive, you need to explain where it went.
Again, you simply fail to grasp the conservation laws. Why not learn science?
Hubble found a linear relationship between distance and redshiftWhich one do you mean?
...
There is no linear relationship between distance to redshift.
He did get a stack of prizes for it you know... Don't you think they checked...?
Yes it is possible!The use of an exclamation mark does not permit you to travel faster than light.
If the finite Universe has no edge, than it should be considered as infinite.If you really think the finite thing should be considered infinite, you are a fool.
If we move at almost the speed of light, we might get some but it would be so dramatically low and actually undetectable.We are looking at the radiation from an arc lamp the size of the universe, and we can barely see it because it has been stretched out until it looks like the "thermal " radiation from something in liquid helium.
We do get some. It is "dramatically low" but because proper scientists are doing the work rather than "theory dim scientists" they can measure it.
As Einstein has stated that it is forbiddenHe is dead. He does not have a say in it.
there is no need to continue the discussion about the BBT imaginationNo reason except that practically everything you say is wrong or impossible.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/11/2020 04:10:44
As long as you use his formula and carry his name, then you can't ignore his will.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 20:58:12He is dead. He does not have a say in it.
As Einstein has stated that it is forbidden
So, do you confirm that he has stated that the cosmology constant was his biggest mistake.
Yes Or No?
If yes - than we shouldn't add any constant to his formula.
Therefore - even as he doesn't live today - we must accept his will and take that constant out from his formula.
If we keep it - we can't call it Einstein formula.
In any case, I have tried to get better understanding on this issue:
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/17/einsteins-greatest-blunder-was-really-a-blunder
In this article we understand the history of that cosmologic constant.
Einstein has used it in order to solve the idea of static Universe.
"He proposed that there was an intrinsic energy to space itself, a cosmological constant, responsible for this. This cosmological constant would push back with exactly the force needed to counteract gravity on these large scales, and would lead to the Universe being static."
So, Einstien has used that cosmological constant as intrinsic energy to space itself - in order to get a static Universe.
Latter on he had found that it was a severe mistake and therefore he eliminated that constant.
However, our scientists are using today this forbidden constant to solve the expansion of the Galaxies problem.
Hence, instead of using that constant as intrinsic energy to space itself they used it for the Hubble constant.
The outcome is very clear as stated-
"The cosmological constant may have come back, but it has nothing to do with the reasons Einstein proposed for its existence, nor is it of anywhere near the same magnitude that Einstein suggested. Sometimes old ideas come back in new forms to solve new puzzles"
So, as our scientists are using that constant not for the reasons Einstein proposed for its existence, and nor is it of anywhere near the same magnitude that Einstein suggested, that Hubble constant is a clear contradiction with Einstein will,
Therefore, that constant should be set in the garbage and the sooner is better.
In any case, if our scientists insist to use that forbidden constant in Einstein formula, while it clearly doesn't represent the original idea of intrinsic energy to space itself and nor is it of anywhere near the same magnitude that Einstein suggested - than please
They shouldn't call that formula as - Einstein formula
As long as our scientists use that Hubble constant in his formula and call it Einstein formula - they clearly carry Einstein Name for nothing!!!
This isn't real science - It is the BBT science!
So you are using a constant which isn't constant.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 20:58:12We already pointed out that you were doing the wrong maths because the hubble ratio isn't a constant.
BBT Math
That one more evidence why that constant shouldn't be used in Einstein formula.
Therefore, the BBT math which is based on this constant should be set in the garbage.
You miss my intention.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 11/11/2020 20:58:12If you really think the finite thing should be considered infinite, you are a fool.
If the finite Universe has no edge, than it should be considered as infinite.
I claim that a Universe without edge or Unbounded Universe MUST be infinite even if we call it "unbounded finite Universe" or a "finite universe without edge"!!!
So, as our scientists claim that our universe has no edge or unbounded - our Universe MUST be infinite!!!
Post by: Xeon on 13/11/2020 15:58:27
If you didn't understand the Big Bang theory when it was explained to you in all of your other threads, you're not going to understand it in this one either.Is your answer educational ?
Actually , most of you don't understand the big bang either . If you understood the theory you'd know that the theory is incomplete , stating the universe formed from a hot dense state without explanation of how this hot dense state was formed . Perhaps you can shed some light on this process ?
Boo to your reply sir.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/11/2020 16:30:24
then you can't ignore his will.What a stupid notion...
Of course I can.
Also, While it's clear that Newton was wrong, NASA scientists used newtonian physics to put a man on the moon.
So, do you confirm that he has stated that the cosmology constant was his biggest mistake.He said that- or , at least, he's reported to have said it.
Yes Or No?
If yes - than we shouldn't add any constant to his formula.
Which means he was wrong.
Either he was wrong the first time, or he was wrong the second time.
It's not possible from his work to find out which.
But it is possible to find out by making measurements and observations.
We have done that.
The universe is expanding and it does not matter what a dead man thought.
However, our scientists are using today this forbidden constantIt isn't "forbidden" in any sensible way.
Therefore, that constant should be set in the garbage and the sooner is better.You are proposing to put evidence in the garbage.
Science is not going to do that...
So, Einstien has used that cosmological constant as intrinsic energy to space itself - in order to get a static Universe.Yes.
Latter on he had found that it was a severe mistake and therefore he eliminated that constant.
And so Einstein recognised that we do not have a static universe.
It's expanding.
And your idea- that it is infinitely old, implies that it is static. I.e. that it's "the same as it always was" so, per Einstein, you are wrong.
What point did you think you were making?
That one more evidence why that constant shouldn't be used in Einstein formula.It isn't.
Hubble's constant (measured in1929) was not known when Einstein did his work published in 1917.
I claim that a Universe without edge or Unbounded Universe MUST be infiniteYou are still wrong.
The surface of the earth is finite, but unbounded.
They shouldn't call that formula as - Einstein formulaOK, if it makes you happier, you can name it after this guy- whose work is based on Einsteins, and showed that you can't have a steady state universe without fudging it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Friedmann#Relativity
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/11/2020 05:16:10
The facts are very clear to all of us - including to YOUQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:10:44He said that- or , at least, he's reported to have said it.
So, do you confirm that he has stated that the cosmology constant was his biggest mistake.
Yes Or No?
If yes - than we shouldn't add any constant to his formula.
Which means he was wrong.
Either he was wrong the first time, or he was wrong the second time.
It's not possible from his work to find out which.
1. Einstein had first set his formula without any constant
2. Later on, he had added the cosmologic constant in order to to support his vision for static Universe
https://scienceblogs.com/startswithabang/2013/05/17/einsteins-greatest-blunder-was-really-a-blunder3. In order to support in the BBT idea, other scientists have used that cosmological constant as the Hubble constant.
In this article we understand the history of that cosmologic constant.
Einstein has used it in order to solve the idea of static Universe.
"He proposed that there was an intrinsic energy to space itself, a cosmological constant, responsible for this. This cosmological constant would push back with exactly the force needed to counteract gravity on these large scales, and would lead to the Universe being static."
So, Einstein has used that cosmological constant as intrinsic energy to space itself - in order to get a static Universe.
Einstein had stated that it was his biggest mistake.
I hope that we all agree to those facts
Now this is my understanding:
Einstein didn't agree with the BBT as he believed in the idea of static Universe.
Therefore, when he had noticed that the science community is using his constant for to support the BBT - he was very upset and stated that it was his biggest mistake.
4. However there is one more stage in this story.
At older age, he considered to reuse that constant in order to support the idea of new created particles
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
So, Einstein fully supported the understanding that new particles should be created as time goes on!!!
This idea contradicts the BBT and fully supports Theory D as "Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant".
Therefore - from now on we must agree on the following facts
1. Einstein didn't accept the BBT
2. I have full approval from Einstein to claim that new particles could be created in our Universe.
However, as I already know you quite well, you would reject those facts.
So are you going to prove the following statement from Einstein?
If the fact don't fit the theory - Chang the facts
https://www.quotesuniverse.com/quote/35
Could it be that he had used this idea in order to show his frustration from the BBT?
Yes PleaseQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:10:44OK, if it makes you happier, you can name it after this guy- whose work is based on Einsteins, and showed that you can't have a steady state universe without fudging it.
They shouldn't call that formula as - Einstein formula
From now on - our scientists can't use Einstein name for nothing!
They can use his formula and change it as they wish, but they can't call it Einstein formula any more.
Actually, in one of the articles that I have found it was stated that our scientists are using today that constant for the dark energy. It was also stated that the impact of the dark energy constant is 70% in that formula.
So, if that is correct then it proves that our scientists are clearly not using the constant according to Einstein will.
In any case - our scientists can do whatever they wish - but please they can't call it Einstein formula any more.
Sorry - you are wrong!!!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:10:44You are still wrong.
I claim that a Universe without edge or Unbounded Universe MUST be infinite
The surface of the earth is finite, but unbounded.
A surface has 2D.
However, our real space is 3D and ONLY 3D.
Hence, it is very clear that you can band 2D in a 3D and get a surface without end.
However, there is no way to band a 2D surface in a 2D surface in order to get it as unbounded surface.
Therefore, there is no way to band a 3D space in a 3D space, as there is no way to band a 2D surface in a 2D surface.
I hope that we also agree that there is no 4D space. Therefore, without a 4D space there is no way to band a 3D space!!!
Therefore, as long as our real space is based only on 3D (and there is no 4D space) there is no way to get unbounded Universe in a finite Universe.
Unbounded Universe in a real 3D means only - Infinite Universe!!!!
Post by: evan_au on 14/11/2020 10:12:01
Quote from: Dave Lev
1. Einstein had first set his formula without any constantMathematically, Integration always produces a constant.
2. Later on, he had added the cosmologic constant in order to to support his vision for static Universe
- Part of solving the integration is finding some way to identify the value of this constant.
- And it's true, defining the constant is usually the second part of solving the integration
- Physicists at the time thought the universe was static & eternal, so Einstein plugged in a finely-balanced value that could have made the universe static and eternal.
The general theory of relativity was published in 1915. The expansion of the universe was discovered by Hubble in 1929, so Einstein had no basis for assigning a different value to the constant.
Quote
3. In order to support in the BBT idea, other scientists have used that cosmological constant as the Hubble constant.It was the Belgian priest & physicist Lemaitre who identified the possibility within Einstein's equations for a beginning to an expanding universe.
- As a Christian, he was not so tied to the idea of an eternal universe as most of his colleagues at the time.
- His hypothesis was later shown to be correct by Hubble's observations of distant galaxies - and that is when Einstein realized he had made a mistake in defining the constant.
You can have an expanding universe with a zero cosmological constant.
- After Hubble's observations, most astronomers just assumed the cosmological constant was zero.
- So you definitely don't use the Cosmological constant as Hubble's constant.
Today (after about the year 2000), the Cosmological Constant has been used to model the changes in the Hubble "constant" over the life of the universe.
Quote
our scientists are clearly not using the constant according to Einstein willMathematics says there will be a constant (which may be zero).
- Einstein died in 1955.
- The accelerating expansion of the universe was discovered about 1990.
-So, clearly, Einstein could not assign a value to the cosmological constant that would account for the accelerating expansion of the universe.
- But what today's scientists are doing is entirely consistent with the mathematics that Einstein used.
Quote
responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded
This sounds like Hoyle's model of a steady-state universe, rather than anything espoused by Einstein.
Despite having named the Big Bang, Hoyle never believed in the Big Bang. He preferred to believe in an eternal universe.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang
Quote
I hope that we also agree that there is no 4D space.Einstein showed that time adds another dimension to 3D space, such that measurements by different observers still make sense in a 4D spacetime.
- This does not hold true in a purely 3D space.
- String theorists see reasons to suppose that there may be 10 or more dimensions.
I suggest that you just get used to the 4 dimensions you can experience directly, without worrying about any more...
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/11/2020 13:52:42
However, our real space is 3D and ONLY 3D.Plainly wrong, there are 4,
left and right,
forward and back
up and down and
time.
You can't say we should worship at the altar of Einstein, and then dismiss one of his greatest works.
The facts are very clear to all of us - including to YOUYou have that backwards. Here's what Wiki says
1. Einstein had first set his formula without any constant
2. Later on, he had added the cosmologic constant in order to to support his vision for static Universe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
"Einstein originally introduced the concept in 1917[2] to counterbalance the effects of gravity and achieve a static universe, a notion which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept in 1931 after Hubble's confirmation of the expanding universe."
That constant which he abandoned is the thing he described as his greatest mistake.
He had introduced it as a fudge factor, to produce a static universe.
When he found out about Hubble's work, he realised that the constant wasn't needed.
That's when he abandoned it.
So, do you now see that you have completely misunderstood the Einstein episode?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/11/2020 02:08:22
It was the Belgian priest & physicist Lemaitre who identified the possibility within Einstein's equations for a beginning to an expanding universe.Thanks for your excellent explanation.
- As a Christian, he was not so tied to the idea of an eternal universe as most of his colleagues at the time.
- His hypothesis was later shown to be correct by Hubble's observations of distant galaxies - and that is when Einstein realized he had made a mistake in defining the constant.
You can have an expanding universe with a zero cosmological constant.So, the Cosmological constant is used just for the acceleration in the expansion as discovered in 1998.
- After Hubble's observations, most astronomers just assumed the cosmological constant was zero.
- So you definitely don't use the Cosmological constant as Hubble's constant.
today (after about the year 2000), the Cosmological Constant has been used to model the changes in the Hubble "constant" over the life of the universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe
The accelerating expansion of the universe is the observation that the expansion of the universe is such that the velocity at which a distant galaxy is receding from the observer is continuously increasing with time.
However, as Einstein have stated that this cosmological constant is his biggest mistake, then I still claim that we shouldn't use it.
Therefore, the outcome due to Einstein formula without that constant is that there is no acceleration in the expansion of the galaxies in our Universe.
However, our scientists insist that there is acceleration:
So, let's look at the following image
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerating_expansion_of_the_universe#/media/File:Lambda-Cold_Dark_Matter,_Accelerated_Expansion_of_the_Universe,_Big_Bang-Inflation.jpg
If I understand it correctly, the acceleration is due to the limited age of the Universe which is 13.7 BY.
As based on Einstein formula (without the constant) there is no room for acceleration, why can't we just use that observation to understand the real size of our Universe?
So, if based on Hubble law we clearly see a correlation between redshift and distance, why can't we just take the higher redshift to a longer distance?
In other words - if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?
I have one more question:
Do we use the galaxies expansions in Einstein formula or the space expansion?
As long as we agree that Einstein and Hoyle supports the idea of new partials creation that is OK with me.QuoteQuoteThis sounds like Hoyle's model of a steady-state universe, rather than anything espoused by Einstein.
responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded
Despite having named the Big Bang, Hoyle never believed in the Big Bang. He preferred to believe in an eternal universe.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Hoyle#Rejection_of_the_Big_Bang
ThanksQuoteQuoteEinstein showed that time adds another dimension to 3D space, such that measurements by different observers still make sense in a 4D space-time.
I hope that we also agree that there is no 4D space.
- This does not hold true in a purely 3D space.
- String theorists see reasons to suppose that there may be 10 or more dimensions.
The space in our Universe is a purely three-dimensional Euclidean space.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-dimensional_space
"In physics and mathematics, a sequence of n numbers can be understood as a location in n-dimensional space. When n = 3, the set of all such locations is called three-dimensional Euclidean space (or simply Euclidean space when the context is clear). It is commonly represented by the symbol ℝ3.[1][2] This serves as a three-parameter model of the physical universe (that is, the spatial part, without considering time), in which all known matter exists."
I suggest that you just get used to the 4 dimensions you can experience directly, without worrying about any more...Well, we can always add one more mathematical dimension.
If we add time, it would be called as Space-time.
It will give us excellent mathematical tool. However, it won't add one more dimension in our real Euclidean space.
I know that Einstein had also try to understand the impact of 5D in his mathematical calculation.
So, theoretically, we can add unlimited dimensions as we wish.
However, our real universe is only based on three-dimensional Euclidean space which should go up the infinity.
Post by: evan_au on 15/11/2020 09:17:33
Quote from: Dave Lev
Einstein formula without that constantMathematically, the constant is present.
But mathematically, it's value may be zero (if that value is supported by the observational evidence).
Quote
the outcome due to Einstein formula without that constant is that there is no acceleration in the expansion of the galaxies in our UniverseNot quite.
With the Cosmological Constant = 0, there is a force on the expanding universe which produces a deceleration (which is a form of acceleration, just a negative one...).
- In the 1990s, several teams were looking at redshift vs distance of distant galaxies, in the hope of measuring this deceleration
- Both teams were surprised to see that in fact there was an acceleration
- The observational evidence showed that the assumption that "the cosmological constant = 0" was wrong (ie the hypothesis that had held sway for the previous 50 years had to be updated)
- If new, contradictory evidence appears, you need to reconsider your assumptions - that's just good science (it would make for better politics too...)
More recent, more extensive surveys suggest that a deceleration was present up to about 5 billion years after the big bang, but acceleration dominates today.
Quote
if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?If you are talking about where they are now, that sort of extrapolation may be feasible
- bearing in mind that "where" is a measure of distance, and "now" is a measure of time
- and both are strongly interlinked in 4D spacetime
- especially when spacetime is warped by a huge mass (like the whole universe)
But if you are talking about where they were when they emitted the light that we see now, that doesn't work so well.
- It has to do with the behavior of objects as they approach the speed of light
- Fortunately, that is something we can study on Earth
- The LHC can accelerate protons up to 6.5 TeV.
- The input to the LHC is the SPS, which can accelerate protons up to 0.45TeV. At this energy, the protons are travelling at almost the speed of light.
- The LHC increases this energy by a factor of 15 - but the speed of the protons does not increase by a factor of 15. In fact, their speed hardly increases at all
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Design
Quote
I have one more question:The Hubble constant only applies on very large scales - bigger than a galaxy, and bigger than a cluster of galaxies.
Do we use the galaxies expansions in Einstein formula or the space expansion?
So the expansion of the universe has no observable effect at the level of a galaxy which is strongly bound by its own gravitation.
(Unless the "Big Rip" hypothesis turns out to be true - this would eventually pull apart galaxies, the Solar System, the Earth and our atoms. It is currently considered plausible, but has no direct measurements to support it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip)
Quote
As long as we agree that Einstein and Hoyle supports the idea of new particals creation that is OK with me.Einstein was very careful to ensure conservation of energy in his theory of Relativity. He would not have approved of matter suddenly appearing; after all, Einstein was the one who originated the iconic E=mc2.
Hoyle , however, was willing to sacrifice conservation of energy to maintain the idea of an eternal universe.
So I think Hoyle & Einstein differed greatly on this.
- Hoyle's steady state theory is generally seen as a "last gasp" for the eternal universe.
- Einstein was convinced that the universe had a compact start as soon as he saw Hubble's experimental results (it wasn't actually called a Big Bang until Hoyle gave it that name in 1949).
Quote
The space in our Universe is a purely three-dimensional Euclidean spaceExcept where it isn't, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
There are black holes in our universe, and things get really twisted inside a black hole's event horizon.
- No matter how far you travel in a straight line, you don't exit the event horizon.
- And yet the event horizon may only be 10km across (when measured from the outside).
- That is definitely not a 3D Euclidean space!
- It's a bit like Dr Who's Tardis - bigger on the inside than the outside!
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2020 10:30:48
However, our scientistsFixed that for you.insist that there ishave measured the acceleration:
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2020 10:32:37
In other words - if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?Because that's not what the measurements of red shift and distance tell us.
You can't ignore the evidence just because you don't like it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/11/2020 11:38:43
Many thanks for your clear explanations.
I do appreciate all your efforts
Thanks!!!QuoteQuoteIf you are talking about where they are now, that sort of extrapolation may be feasible
if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?
- bearing in mind that "where" is a measure of distance, and "now" is a measure of time
- and both are strongly interlinked in 4D space-time
- especially when spacetime is warped by a huge mass (like the whole universe)
Although - I still claim that there is no 4D space...
But if you are talking about where they were when they emitted the light that we see now, that doesn't work so well.Well, it is all about the current Theory.
- It has to do with the behavior of objects as they approach the speed of light
- Fortunately, that is something we can study on Earth
- The LHC can accelerate protons up to 6.5 TeV.
- The input to the LHC is the SPS, which can accelerate protons up to 0.45TeV. At this energy, the protons are travelling at almost the speed of light.
- The LHC increases this energy by a factor of 15 - but the speed of the protons does not increase by a factor of 15. In fact, their speed hardly increases at all
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Design
Based on the BBT, the age of the Universe is only 13.8 BY
Therefore - you claim about "where they were when they emitted the light that we see now"
If we chose a different theory - then we can overcome this limitation.
Therefore, as long as we see our universe through the BBT filter, then we surly have several key obstacles.
Because that's not what the measurements of red shift and distance tell us.No!!!
You have already confirmed that the Hubble law is based on relatively short distance.(In the range of MPC).
Do we really can measure the correct distance up to 13BLY away?
In any case - it is very clear to me that we must accept the Hubble law and accept the idea that:
if redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY a redshift of 2 represents a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 represents a distance of 60 BLY.
Therefore - the expansion is fixed at any distance!!!
With the Cosmological Constant = 0, there is a force on the expanding universe which produces a deceleration (which is a form of acceleration, just a negative one...).
- In the 1990s, several teams were looking at redshift vs distance of distant galaxies, in the hope of measuring this deceleration
- Both teams were surprised to see that in fact there was an acceleration
- The observational evidence showed that the assumption that "the cosmological constant = 0" was wrong (ie the hypothesis that had held sway for the previous 50 years had to be updated)
- If new, contradictory evidence appears, you need to reconsider your assumptions - that's just good science (it would make for better politics too...)
More recent, more extensive surveys suggest that a deceleration was present up to about 5 billion years after the big bang, but acceleration dominates today.
Wow.
Thanks for your breakthrough information!!!
So, if I understand you correctly, based on Einstein formula (while the cosmological constant=0), the Universe had to "decelerated' its expansion.
Therefore, "In the 1990s, several teams were looking at redshift vs distance of distant galaxies, in the hope of measuring that deceleration".
However, as they have discovered that the Universe is actually accelerated - why our science community didn't stop for one moment and try to find better understanding for this unexpected discovery?
Why instead of believing in Einstein math, they have changed the Math to meet the BBT theory?
Remember the message from Einstein:
if
If the facts don't fit the theory - Chang the factsSo, it was expected that our scientists would stop and try to find the error in their theory.
https://www.quotesuniverse.com/quote/35
Instead they have reused that cosmological constant.
This was a severe mistake.
Therefore, I still claim that if based on Einstein formula the Universe has to decelerated - then the Universe must decelerated.
It is very clear to me that there is no decelerated or accelerated in the expansion.
The expansion in our Universe is fixed!
Therefore, our Job it to find the theory which could explain why a Universe that should decelerate its expansion doesn't obey to Einstein Math and keep on at the same fixed expansion (again - without the BBT filter)
Sorry, I don't understand from your answer if we use Einstein formula on the expansion on galaxies or expansion on space.QuoteQuoteThe Hubble constant only applies on very large scales - bigger than a galaxy, and bigger than a cluster of galaxies.
I have one more question:
Do we use the galaxies expansions in Einstein formula or the space expansion?
So the expansion of the universe has no observable effect at the level of a galaxy which is strongly bound by its own gravitation.
(Unless the "Big Rip" hypothesis turns out to be true - this would eventually pull apart galaxies, the Solar System, the Earth and our atoms. It is currently considered plausible, but has no direct measurements to support it. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip)
Please offer a direct answer.
QuoteQuoteEinstein was very careful to ensure conservation of energy in his theory of Relativity. He would not have approved of matter suddenly appearing; after all, Einstein was the one who originated the iconic E=mc2.
As long as we agree that Einstein and Hoyle supports the idea of new partials creation that is OK with me.
Hoyle , however, was willing to sacrifice conservation of energy to maintain the idea of an eternal universe.
So I think Hoyle & Einstein differed greatly on this.
- Hoyle's steady state theory is generally seen as a "last gasp" for the eternal universe.
- Einstein was convinced that the universe had a compact start as soon as he saw Hubble's experimental results (it wasn't actually called a Big Bang until Hoyle gave it that name in 1949).
I have offered a clear indication that at older age Einstein did believe in new particles creation:
At older age, he considered to reuse that constant in order to support the idea of new created particles
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
So, Einstein fully supported the understanding that new particles should be created as time goes on!!!
This idea contradicts the BBT and fully supports Theory D as "Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant".
QuoteI fully agree that in some extreme conditions there could be banding in space (as BHs).
The space in our Universe is a purely three-dimensional Euclidean space
Except where it isn't, eg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity#Perihelion_precession_of_Mercury
There are black holes in our universe, and things get really twisted inside a black hole's event horizon.
- No matter how far you travel in a straight line, you don't exit the event horizon.
- And yet the event horizon may only be 10km across (when measured from the outside).
- That is definitely not a 3D Euclidean space!
- It's a bit like Dr Who's Tardis - bigger on the inside than the outside!
However, that banding works locally.
If you believe that the whole Universe is a one big BH than we could consider to use of BH formulas also for the Universe.
However, we clearly know that this isn't the case.
Therefore, at a very specific areas in the infinite space we should find local bending due to very high gravity force, but in the open infinite Universe outside the BHs there is no banding in the 3D space.
Hence - our infinite Universe must be a 3D space.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2020 12:07:57
You have already confirmed that the Hubble law is based on relatively short distance.No, I have not.
But I have asked you how, in an homogeneous model of the universe it would change with distance.
Do we really can measure the correct distance up to 13BLY away?We can measure it out to about 130 million light years.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817
And to about 1.7 billion light years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_150101B
So your claim is wrong, and your claim that I agreed with it is wrong.
Why do you have to make all these false claims?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2020 12:19:45
Thanks for your breakthrough information!!!If it was a breakthrough, it was thirty years ago.
You claim to understand the physics, but you keep being forced to admit that you didn't even know what the physics is.
You keep massively screwing up
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:16:10
The facts are very clear to all of us - including to YOU
1. Einstein had first set his formula without any constant
2. Later on, he had added the cosmologic constant in order to to support his vision for static Universe
You have that backwards. Here's what Wiki says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
"Einstein originally introduced the concept in 1917[2] to counterbalance the effects of gravity and achieve a static universe, a notion which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept in 1931 after Hubble's confirmation of the expanding universe."
That constant which he abandoned is the thing he described as his greatest mistake.
He had introduced it as a fudge factor, to produce a static universe.
When he found out about Hubble's work, he realised that the constant wasn't needed.
That's when he abandoned it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/11/2020 17:28:15
So, the maximal distance that we can really measure is 1.7BLY.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:38:43We can measure it out to about 130 million light years.
Do we really can measure the correct distance up to 13BLY away?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817
And to about 1.7 billion light years
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GRB_150101B
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GW170817
GRB 150101B is a gamma-ray burst (GRB) that was detected on 1 January 2015
The GRB was determined to be 1.7 billion light-years (0.52 Gpc) from Earth
Redshift ?? 0.093[4]
So, with a redshift of 0.093 or about 0.1 this GBR is located at a distance of 1.7Bly
Therefore, based on Hubble law, redshift 1 should indicate a distance of 17 BLY while redshift 10 should be 170BLY.
How can you prove that there shouldn't be a correlation between redshift to distance??
You claim to understand the physics, but you keep being forced to admit that you didn't even know what the physics is.BC
It is very clear to me that you have one mission - to stop any idea which contradicts the BBT
Therefore, you do whatever it takes to confuse me.
I have already presented your tactics.
You just west our time for nothing.
Let me discuss with other people that are willing to share real science with me.
Please - stay away from my threads. I do not wish to continue the discussion with You.
Post by: Halc on 15/11/2020 17:28:20
I know of no coordinate system that puts an object with redshift 10 at 60 BLY away. Such a distant object is simply outside the visible universe and thus cannot be seen at all.Quoteif redshift of 1 represents a distance of 6BLY why a redshift of 2 Can't represent a distance of 12BYL while a redshift of 10 Can't represent a distance of 60 BLY?If you are talking about where they are now, that sort of extrapolation may be feasible
- bearing in mind that "where" is a measure of distance, and "now" is a measure of time
- and both are strongly interlinked in 4D spacetime
- especially when spacetime is warped by a huge mass (like the whole universe)
The distance to an object is very dependent on how the distance is measured. Without specification of how the distance is measured, the figure is essentially meaningless. A galaxy with redshift 10 might be said to be 30 BLY away (current proper distance along lines of constant cosmological time). There is no simple algebraic formula to convert redshift to distance. I get mine from graphs that plot the relationship from various solutions to Einstein’s field equations.
Quote
But if you are talking about where they were when they emitted the light that we see now, that doesn't work so well.I disagree with the relevance of local particle speeds when talking about recession rates. The speed and energy of a proton in the LHC is expressed using a Minkowski coordinate system in which velocities add the relativistic way, and no proton can move at >= c. Such a coordinate system is completely misrepresentative of the large scale geometry of the universe where change in proper separation of objects over time (not to be confused with regular velocity, despite the similar units) is very much observed at rate far in excess of c.
- It has to do with the behavior of objects as they approach the speed of light[
- Fortunately, that is something we can study on Earth
- The LHC can accelerate protons up to 6.5 TeV.
- The input to the LHC is the SPS, which can accelerate protons up to 0.45TeV. At this energy, the protons are travelling at almost the speed of light.
- The LHC increases this energy by a factor of 15 - but the speed of the protons does not increase by a factor of 15. In fact, their speed hardly increases at all
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_Hadron_Collider#Design
So if we’re talking about “where they were when they emitted the light”, again using the coordinate system of past proper distance along lines of constant cosmological time, we find that distance actually decreases beyond a certain value of redshift (about 1.85). So for example, light we see today redshifted by 2 was probably emitted about 5.6 BLY from here (proper distance at constant cosmological time), but light from the galaxy with redshift 11 (like GN-z11) was emitted from about half that distance away at the time. The difference is measuring proper distance to that galaxy now vs at the time of emission.
So, the maximal distance that we can really measure is 1.7BLYNo website said that. The maximum distance that we can measure depends on how you do the measurement. I mean, what's the distance between London and Paris? Has anybody ever actually stretched a tape measure between the two? You can't see one from the other, so shining a light and timing the round trip doesnt work either. So what method are we using to measure this theoretical 'max distance'? The answer depends on that.
I contend that since no light that has ever been 6 BLY away has ever reached us, that seems to be a ceiling on max distance. Anything beyond that is necessarily extrapolation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2020 17:40:17
So, the maximal distance that we can really measure is 1.7BLY.No
At best, you might say the furthest we have measured SO FAR is 1.7 billion light years.
But the point is that the Hubble law still works.
And you have yet to address the idea that if it works here, why shouldn't it work "far away"?
How can you prove that there shouldn't be a correlation between redshift to distance??I'm not trying to.
We use redshift (among other things) to measure distance.
We can only do that because there is a correlation.
It's not a linear correlation.
Do you still not understand that?
BCIt may be "clear" to you, but it is wrong.
It is very clear to me that you have one mission
You have invented it.
Therefore, you do whatever it takes to confuse me.I just keep pointing out facts.
What confuses you is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
I have already presented your tactics.No
You have invented some sort of tactic, and pretended that it has anything to do with me.
You are simply wrong, but refuse to accept it.
.
Let me discuss with other people that are willing to share real science with me.Nobody on this site is agreeing with you.
That's because we do science, and you make up nonsense.
Please - stay away from my threads. I do not wish to continue the discussion with You.No
When you signed up to the site you agreed to discuss things.
The fact that it takes you months to answer a question means that you lied when you did that.
if you want to set up a website where everybody but me is invited that's fine by me .
But, on this site, you don't get to decide what and where I post.
If you don't like it, do us all a favour and leave.
Seriously, why do you think that nobody here agrees with your ideas?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/11/2020 17:51:45
I know of no coordinate system that puts an object with redshift 10 at 60 BLY away. Such a distant object is simply outside the visible universe and thus cannot be seen at all.The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.
Please try to ignore the BBT filter for just one moment.
Do you confirm that an object with a redshift of 0.1 is really located at 1.7 BLY?
If you accept the Hubble law that
V(velocity)= H0 (Hubble constant) * D(distance)
So, if redshift 0.1 represents V1 why redshift 1 couldn't represent 10* V1?
Therefore, by increasing the velocity by 10 we also increase the distance by 10.
Hence, don't you agree that without the BBT, the distance to an object with redshift 1 should be 10 times the distance to an object with redshift 0.1.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/11/2020 17:57:14
The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.No, odd as it may seem to to you, it's based on what we can seen.
We really can only see so far.
This is at odds with your claim.
Post by: evan_au on 15/11/2020 20:34:38
Quote from: Dave Lev
The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.You have it backwards.
The BBT understanding is based on the Visible Universe.
Quote
If you believe that the whole Universe is a one big BH than we could consider to use of BH formulas also for the Universe.With what we know of Hubble's law, the universe started off in a very compact state.
However, we clearly know that this isn't the case.
With this much mass in such a small space, it definitely would have formed a black hole.
Note: This is not based on the Visible Universe, because with present techniques, we can't directly image events earlier than the CMBR.
- However, scientists have analyzed ripples in the CMBR to extrapolate events which occurred earlier in the universe.
- And the conditions for black hole formation are certainly present.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/11/2020 05:35:51
With what we know of Hubble's law, the universe started off in a very compact state.This isn't fully correct
Hubble's law only tells us about the ratio between distances to redshift:
V (velocity) = H0 * D
While
V = Z (redshift) * c (speed Light)
That's all
However, our scientists have used "extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0":
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173
Ho, is about 70 km/s/Mpc (where 1 Mpc = 106 parsec = 3.26 × 106 light-y). The inverse of the Hubble Constant is the Hubble Time, tH = d/v = 1/Ho; it reflects the time since a linear cosmic expansion has begun (extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0); it is thus related to the age of the Universe from the Big-Bang to today. For the above value of Ho, tH = 1/Ho ∼14 billion years."
This expansion is the biggest mistake of the modern science as it leads them to dead end.
We must set this extrapolation in the garbage. The sooner is better.
So, all I'm asking is to unleash ourselves from that wrong extrapolation and try to set the facts in front of our Eyes.
Let's focus only on real observation and real science formulas as:
Hubble Law
Einstein formulas (without the cosmological constant)
Redshift & Doppler effect.
Any other real science formula.
Eliminate any understanding from that wrong extrapolation (or the BBT filter).
Real data from our visible Universe.
Once we do so, we would be able to find the simple solution for our Universe.
Are you ready for that???
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2020 10:57:04
Since "new stuff" can not be made and we can still see stuff, it can not have existed forever.
Because, if it had, it would all have gone away by now.
That's the important bit.
And you seem not to understand it.
The fact that we can use observations and maths to show that the universe is 14 billion years old is just a deduction about how long "forever" would need to be.
The extrapolation doesn't change the fundamental observation.
The universe is expanding and the expansion must have started some time.
If you think that is wrong, then explain why- without breaking the conservation laws.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2020 11:00:12
This expansion isthe biggest mistake of the modern science as it leads them to dead end.what we actually observe in the real world.
That's your problem.
You are arguing that a fact- confirmed by countless measurements and many people and groups- is wrong.
And you are claiming that your idea- which breaks the laws of physics - is right.
Do you see why nobody agrees with you?
Post by: Halc on 16/11/2020 13:59:28
The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.OK
Please try to ignore the BBT filter for just one moment.
Quote
Do you confirm that an object with a redshift of 0.1 is really located at 1.7 BLY?No. There is no correlation between distance and redshift at all outside of the 'BBT filter'. Redshift is due to a combination of relative motion and relativistic time dilation, neither of which is necessarily related to distance.
Quote
If you accept the Hubble law thatWe do not have a Hubble law. We discarded BBT remember? You must discard any laws that come from it.
Quote
So, if redshift 0.1 represents V1 why redshift 1 couldn't represent 10* V1?I suppose if you fall back to Newtonian mechanics falsified 150 years ago, you might get a linear relation like that. But now you very much have a universe that does not correspond to the one we observe.
Quote
Therefore, by increasing the velocity by 10 we also increase the distance by 10.Nope. You said 10*V1, which is not a distance. There's no Hubble law in your no-BBT universe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/11/2020 17:48:05
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:51:45OK
The Visible Universe is based on the BBT understanding.
Please try to ignore the BBT filter for just one moment.
Hubble law is correct by 100%QuoteQuoteWe do not have a Hubble law. We discarded BBT remember? You must discard any laws that come from it.
If you accept the Hubble law that
I have stated that only the extrapolation is incorrect:
However, our scientists have used "extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0":
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173
Ho, is about 70 km/s/Mpc (where 1 Mpc = 106 parsec = 3.26 × 106 light-y). The inverse of the Hubble Constant is the Hubble Time, tH = d/v = 1/Ho; it reflects the time since a linear cosmic expansion has begun (extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0); it is thus related to the age of the Universe from the Big-Bang to today. For the above value of Ho, tH = 1/Ho ∼14 billion years."
This expansion is the biggest mistake of the modern science as it leads them to dead end.
We must set this extrapolation in the garbage. The sooner is better.
I wonder which "scientist" had confirmed that kind of wrong calculation?
In any case as Hubble law is correct, than his following formulas are correct:
Hubble's law only tells us about the ratio between distances to redshift:Therefore:
V (velocity) = H0 * D
While
V = Z (redshift) * c (speed Light)
That's all
V = Z c = H0 D
D = Z c / H0
Therefore, there is direct relationship between D (distance) to Z (redshift)
Hence, if redshift 0.1 represents distance of 1.7 BLY, then by definition redshift of 1 represents a distance of 17 BLY.
There is no correlation between distance and redshift at all outside of the 'BBT filter'.Yes there is full linear relation between distances to redshift due to Hubble law as this law is correct.
The BBT filter is based on incorrect assumption of "extrapolation"
That extrapolation and the BBT understanding that the age of the Universe at t=0 is 14 BY should be set in the garbage.
Redshift is due to a combination of relative motion and relativistic time dilation, neither of which is necessarily related to distance.As that understanding is due to BBT, then this whole issue should join the BBT at the garbage.
QuoteI have proved that even by Hubble law there is a linear relation between Redshift to distance to velocity.
So, if redshift 0.1 represents V1 why redshift 1 couldn't represent 10* V1?
I suppose if you fall back to Newtonian mechanics falsified 150 years ago, you might get a linear relation like that.
But now you very much have a universe that does not correspond to the one we observe.it is all due to the severe mistake of the extrapolation.
Shut down the extrapolation/BBT and you get back that linear relation!!!
QuoteAs I have stated - Hubble law is 100% correct and valid in any Universe.
Therefore, by increasing the velocity by 10 we also increase the distance by 10.
Nope. You said 10*V1, which is not a distance. There's no Hubble law in your no-BBT universe.
Therefore, by increasing the redshift by 10, we increase the velocity by 10 and therefore, we increase the distance by 10.
A galaxy with a redshift of 13 should be located at a distance of:
13 * 17GLY = 221 GLY
With regards to the CMBR
The redshift of the CMBR is 1100
Therefore, we get the CMBR from a minimal sphere which its radius is about:
1100 * 1.7 G = 1,870 GLY = 1.87 Trillion LY
That is the minimal size of the Universe which sets the main impact of the CMBR in our universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/11/2020 17:52:40
What we know is that all the stuff we see is moving away from us.
Since "new stuff" can not be made and we can still see stuff, it can not have existed forever.
Because, if it had, it would all have gone away by now.
That's the important bit.
And you seem not to understand it.
The fact that we can use observations and maths to show that the universe is 14 billion years old is just a deduction about how long "forever" would need to be.
The extrapolation doesn't change the fundamental observation.
The universe is expanding and the expansion must have started some time.
If you think that is wrong, then explain why- without breaking the conservation laws.
Post by: Halc on 17/11/2020 01:39:04
Hubble law is correct by 100%You seem unaware of what that law is.
Kindly inform us, with reference.
Quote
I have stated that only the extrapolation is incorrectThe law is an extrapolation, not a law about what is observered, but one about (given a recession velocity) where a galaxy actually is now, not where it appears.
However, our scientists have used "extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0"That's the simplest arithmetic. If two objects are increasing their separation at a rate of 10 parsecs per century and are currently 1.4 billion parsecs apart, then, barring significant acceleration, they were very close to each other 140 million centuries ago. The whole theory hangs on that simple relation.
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173
Ho, is about 70 km/s/Mpc (where 1 Mpc = 106 parsec = 3.26 × 106 light-y). The inverse of the Hubble Constant is the Hubble Time, tH = d/v = 1/Ho; it reflects the time since a linear cosmic expansion has begun (extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0); it is thus related to the age of the Universe from the Big-Bang to today. For the above value of Ho, tH = 1/Ho ∼14 billion years."
Quote
This expansion is the biggest mistake of the modern science as it leads them to dead end.Yes, I notice anything that makes sense gets thrown in the garbage with you. We've come to expect it.
We must set this extrapolation in the garbage. The sooner is better.
Hubble's law only tells us about the ratio between distances to redshift:Funny, but I see no mention of redshift in that.
V (velocity) = H0 * D
Quote
WhileReference please. This only works in Newtonian physics. Special relativity gives an entirely different relation that has been verified in the lab, and even SR is not applicable to cosmological scales since the universe is not Minkowskian. The cosmological relation between V and Z derives from various solutions to Einstein's field equations. I use the charts published, and which I've posted before. The v=cz line is nowhere near reality except at very low speeds where Newtonian mechanics is a simple approximation.
V = Z (redshift) * c (speed Light)
The relation between V and D (distance) is also not linear until the extrapolation (which you deny above) is done. The empirical numbers tell a different story, since objects with sufficiently fast recession rates appear closer than objects with slower recession rates. This is exactly as the model predicts.
Quote
No. That understanding is due to GR theory, not BBT.Redshift is due to a combination of relative motion and relativistic time dilation, neither of which is necessarily related to distance.As that understanding is due to BBT, then this whole issue should join the BBT at the garbage.
Quote
As I have stated - Hubble law is 100% correct and valid in any Universe.Where was that galaxy 14 billion years ago then?
...
A galaxy with a redshift of 13 should be located at a distance of:
13 * 17GLY = 221 GLY
Quote
With regards to the CMBRHow would we see it at all with 1.87 trillion light years of stars and other matter in the way? I know you deny basic stellar dynamics where stars actually consume fuel and burn themselves out after a few millions to billions of years, so I'll skip the bit about why there's any stars left at all.
The redshift of the CMBR is 1100
Therefore, we get the CMBR from a minimal sphere which its radius is about:
1100 * 1.7 G = 1,870 GLY = 1.87 Trillion LY
Post by: puppypower on 17/11/2020 12:13:01
In terms of Einstein's concept of relative reference, this is only valid for the visual signals we get, It is not valid for the matter that created the signals. The matter is confined by the conservation of energy. If had a train and a man at the station they can appear to be in relative motion. This is true of the visual signals, but not for the matter since the energy balance is not the same in both situations. The train has more mass and more kinetic energy for the same relative motion. This is why we needed to add dark matter and dark energy. The energy balance created by relative reference was not working out. It needed fudge.
Say we were at the start of the big bang. Since al the matter of the universe was made from her beginning materials, our position in space and time should overlap everything else at the beginning. The oldest observations already came and went since energy moves faster than matter. How can we still see something that came and went a fraction of a second after the bang!
One explanation is the energy circled back and what we are seeing is an echo. The problem with that is the original energy, should echo first and not last, which means it has echoed many time to give the impression of vast distances and time. This could also explain why these signals are not all in one spot even though we started with a singularity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/11/2020 12:27:20
This is why we needed to add dark matter and dark energy.Not really.
. How can we still see something that came and went a fraction of a second after the bang!Quite easily.
Even if you take the simplistic model of an explosion with a "middle".
radiation from "on the far side of the middle" would take a long time to get here.
The real answer is that while matter can't outpace light through space, space itself can expand, and that delays and red shifts the light.
One explanation is the energy circled back and what we are seeing is an echo.What did it reflect from?
God's shaving mirror?
The problem with that is the original energy, should echo first and not last,Which is another reason to abandon the idea.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/11/2020 11:35:46
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_lawQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:48:05You seem unaware of what that law is.
Hubble law is correct by 100%
Kindly inform us, with reference.
"Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at speeds proportional to their distance."
So, if our scientists call it Hubble law, why I can't call it at the same name?
2. Extrapolation
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:35:51That's the simplest arithmetic. If two objects are increasing their separation at a rate of 10 parsecs per century and are currently 1.4 billion parsecs apart, then, barring significant acceleration, they were very close to each other 140 million centuries ago. The whole theory hangs on that simple relation.
However, our scientists have used "extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0"
https://www.pnas.org/content/112/11/3173
Ho, is about 70 km/s/Mpc (where 1 Mpc = 106 parsec = 3.26 × 106 light-y). The inverse of the Hubble Constant is the Hubble Time, tH = d/v = 1/Ho; it reflects the time since a linear cosmic expansion has begun (extrapolating a linear Hubble Law back to time t = 0); it is thus related to the age of the Universe from the Big-Bang to today. For the above value of Ho, tH = 1/Ho ∼14 billion years."
The law is an extrapolation, not a law about what is observered, but one about (given a recession velocity) where a galaxy actually is now, not where it appears.Well, extrapolation might work only if you have clear information about the maximal size and shape of the Universe.
About 100 Years ago, our scientists have considered that we are living in a finite compact Universe. They were sure that Universe has a very limited size and bounded (with clear edge)
Therefore, it was quite clear why they have used the idea of extrapolation at that time (and got the BBT idea).
However, today we know that the Universe has no edge.
If today our Universe has no edge then also 1B years ago, 5 BY, 10BY or even 15 years ago it had no edge.
Theoretically, if we could go back in time and observe the Universe with our current technology, we would surly see that the farthest galaxy that we see today is closer.
However, we might see other furthest galaxies that we don't see them today any more.
Therefore, without clear knowledge about the current maximal size and shape of our universe and without understanding the correct current location of the furthest galaxy in our Universe - we can't set any sort of extrapolation.
There is also severe difference between small scale and large scale.
In the large scale we see that galaxies are moving away from us.
However, in local scale we clearly see that galaxies are moving in all directions.
For example - Andromeda is moving directly to the MY galaxy (while our galaxy cross the space at about 600Km/s).
It is expected that Andromeda should collide with the Milky way in about two billion years from now.
Therefore, by using extrapolation, two billion years ago it was twice further from us and 14 Billion years ago it was 7 times further away.
Therefore, how can we claim that all the galaxies were close together 14 Billion years ago?
Our scientists can claim that it is due to Gravity. However, the Milky Way and Andromeda are very massive galaxies, so it is not realistic that they would be affected by gravity of smaller galaxies.
If we discuss about gravity – let's look at Triangulum Galaxy. It is located today quite close to Andromeda and actually moving directly away from that galaxy.
Based on the same idea of extrapolation – in the past those galaxies were quite closer, or even collide with each other.
So how could it be that Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy for breakfast when it was nearby? How the gravity push them apart?
Hence, If you wish to set extrapolation for large scale, why don't you do it also for small scale?
Let me use one more example:
Let's assume that we look at ships as they cross the Atlantic Ocean.
Let's assume that we have no idea about the size of the ocean or the planet but we can measure the velocity and direction of each ship.
Based on that data and extrapolation we can try to estimate from where they are coming and to where they are going.
However, if we don't know the real size and shape of our planet, this data woun't helps us.
In the same token, the data about the direction and velocity of galaxies won't help us without clear information about the size and shape of the Universe!!!
As the Universe is unbounded then at any direction that we might look there is almost unlimited no of galaxies. We can consider it as unbounded rope with unbounded no of galaxies.
As we run the time back, we actually pull back that rope with its unlimited no. of galaxies.
So, how do we that if we go back to 14 BY ago, the length of this rope would be exactly zero?
We also need to understand that the galactic view that we see in our current location should be similar at any location in the Universe. That is correct also for a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).
So, if we could jump over there we should see similar view as we see from our planet.
The nearby galaxies are moving in all direction at relatively low velocities (in the range of only few hundred Km per sec), while there are further galaxies in all directions and some of them are located 221 Gly away.
Therefore, theoretically we can jump again and again by 221 GLY in a direct line (each time to the furthest galaxy) without any end. Therefore, after 10 Jumps we can get to a galaxy that is located 2210 Gly away and carry a redshift of 130 with regards to our location
We can't see it any more from our planet as it is far away, but we might get its radiation as integrated "white noise radiation" in the CMBR.
Therefore, I would expect that the redshift of the CMBR (which is based on the radiation of billions over billions galaxies around us) would include wide spectrum of redshifts (while the strogest redshift is 1100).
After all of that information - it is our obligation to solve the enigma of the size and shape of the unbounded Universe including the issue of small scale before we try to make any sort of extrapolation.
3. Redshift:
Redshift is all about velocity!!!QuoteQuoteReference please. This only works in Newtonian physics. Special relativity gives an entirely different relation that has been verified in the lab, and even SR is not applicable to cosmological scales since the universe is not Minkowskian. The cosmological relation between V and Z derives from various solutions to Einstein's field equations. I use the charts published, and which I've posted before. The v=cz line is nowhere near reality except at very low speeds where Newtonian mechanics is a simple approximation.
While
V = Z (redshift) * c (speed Light)
The redshift is based on Dopler effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
"The Doppler effect (or the Doppler shift) is the change in frequency of a wave in relation to an observer who is moving relative to the wave source.[1] It is named after the Austrian physicist Christian Doppler, who described the phenomenon in 1842."
So, when we see an object with a redshift - Its redshift is a signature for its velocity.
Hence, the redshift is the most important information that we can observe at each galaxy, object or radiation
"The Doppler effect for electromagnetic waves such as light is of great use in astronomy and results in either a so-called redshift or blueshift. It has been used to measure the speed at which stars and galaxies are approaching or receding from us; that is, their radial velocities."
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/11/2020 12:52:11
Redshift is all about velocity!!!Perhaps we have finally reached the root of your lack of understanding.
The redshift is based on Dopler effect:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_effect
You are looking at the wrong wiki page.
The right one is here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativistic_Doppler_effect
And that's why you are mistaken (as I have repeatedly pointed out) in thinking that the reshift is a linear function.
I'd still like you to explain something really simple which doesn't involve complicated maths.
If almost everything in the universe is going away from us, and it always has been (so you claim), for an infinite time, how come it is still here?
Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?
Post by: puppypower on 18/11/2020 14:54:16
This is why we needed to add dark matter and dark energy.Not really.. How can we still see something that came and went a fraction of a second after the bang!Quite easily.
Even if you take the simplistic model of an explosion with a "middle".
radiation from "on the far side of the middle" would take a long time to get here.
The real answer is that while matter can't outpace light through space, space itself can expand, and that delays and red shifts the light.One explanation is the energy circled back and what we are seeing is an echo.What did it reflect from?
God's shaving mirror?The problem with that is the original energy, should echo first and not last,Which is another reason to abandon the idea.
Say we start with the BB singularity. It represents all the matter and energy that will become our universe. Since everything is overlapping as a singularity, if we were part of it, we could see everything simultaneously. Since we are part of the singularity, there will also be echo because of the limits imposed by the singularity. It cannot be called as singularity and allow signals to leave. That would need to be called something else such as a leaky singularity.
The question becomes what was beyond the singularity. Was it empty space? The answer appears to be no, since empty space will make the singularity leaky. The other alternative, is beyond the singularity is the speed of light reference. The singularity is different from the speed of light reference, since it contains the beginning of inertial space and time, and matter cannot go there so it stays contained.
Energy moves at the speed of light. However, energy is not entirely in the speed of light reference. It also has finite attributes in space and time; wavelength and frequency. These finite attributes do not exist in the speed of light reference, since at the speed of light, all measure of space and time become limiting and homogeneous. The speed of light reference, beyond the inertial singularity, will create a barrier and echo chamber for any andall inertial attributes.
Post by: alancalverd on 18/11/2020 16:09:05
Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?
It probably has, but what we observe is what was there then!
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/11/2020 18:54:12
Nope, that doesn't work.Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?
It probably has, but what we observe is what was there then!
In an infinite amount of time- which is the fairy tale the OP tells- the light would have left long ago.
Say we start with the BB singularity.Do you understand that the CMBR is not the light from the "big bang"?
It is the light from the recombination event when the universe cooled down enough for hydrogen atoms to form.
... the speed of light reference. ... the speed of light reference,Until you actually explain what that means- and you have been asked plenty of times, you should not clutter up other threads with it.
Stop hijacking this meaningless nonsense by Dave lev, with your meaningless nonsense.
Go start a thread called "this is what the speed of light reference means..." or something.
Post by: Halc on 19/11/2020 03:20:06
. Hubble LawI’m not protesting what you call it. What you just said contradicts these statements, which prompted my comment about your not knowing what that law says:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_lawQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:48:05You seem unaware of what that law is.
Hubble law is correct by 100%
Kindly inform us, with reference.
"Hubble's law, also known as the Hubble–Lemaître law,[1] is the observation in physical cosmology that galaxies are moving away from the Earth at speeds proportional to their distance."
So, if our scientists call it Hubble law, why I can't call it at the same name?
Hubble's law only tells us about the ratio between distances to redshift
Quote
a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).The law, as quoted from the wiki page there, make zero mention of redshift, so it does not in fact tell us about the ratio between distances to redshift.
Quote
About 100 Years ago, our scientists have considered that we are living in a finite compact Universe. They were sure that Universe has a very limited size and bounded (with clear edge)Reference please.
Quote
However, today we know that the Universe has no edge.Reference please.
Quote
Theoretically, if we could go back in time and observe the Universe with our current technology, we would surly see that the farthest galaxy that we see today is closer.How far back? Yesterday? Sure, furthest galaxy X was closer. However, we might see other furthest galaxies that we don't see them today any more.[/quote]Only if they cease emitting light, which seems very unlikely for a young galaxy. So nonsense. More galaxies come into view with time, they don’t blink out.
Quote
It is expected that Andromeda should collide with the Milky way in about two billion years from now.More than twice that time, but yes.
Quote
Therefore, by using extrapolation, two billion years ago it was twice further from us and 14 Billion years ago it was 7 times further away.These are close enough to have mutual attraction on each other. Extrapolating backwards thus must take into account this acceleration (and all other significant masses nearby) that you are ignoring here.
Quote
Therefore, how can we claim that all the galaxies were close together 14 Billion years ago?What else do you suggest? Something receding today at 0.4c was moving towards us last Tuesday? How are you going to account for that kind of acceleration.
Quote
However, the Milky Way and Andromeda are very massive galaxies, so it is not realistic that they would be affected by gravity of smaller galaxies.Nobody suggests otherwise, unless there’s a helluva lot of small galaxies, and they’re mostly on one side and not the other.
Quote
a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).Again, where do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/11/2020 06:18:05
This assumption could be the biggest mistake of the modern science.QuoteQuoteThese are close enough to have mutual attraction on each other.
Therefore, by using extrapolation, two billion years ago it was twice further from us and 14 Billion years ago it was 7 times further away.
We all know how gravity really works.
So let's verify the facts:
Andromeda:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy
Distance 2.54 ± 0.11 Mly
Andromeda Mass (1.5±0.5)×10^12[9] M☉
Redshift z = −0.001001(minus sign indicates blueshift)[1]
Helio radial velocity −301 ± 1 km/s[2]
Milky Way -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way
Mass (0.8–1.5)×10^12 M☉
Velocity - The Milky Way as a whole is moving at a velocity of approximately 600 km per second with respect to extragalactic frames of reference.
Based on those facts:
How could it be that those two galaxies (with all their massive mass - about 1.5×10^12 M☉ each) which are located so far away could have any sort of gravity impact on each other?
Don't you agree that if they should collide in about 2 BY then in the past they were much further away?
So, first we have to understand how far away they had been 5By, or 10 By ago.
So, why can't we assume that in the past the distance could be higher than 10Mly or even than 20 Mly
Then we can try to prove how from that ultra far location they could set any sort of mutual gravity attraction.
Please use the following formula for gravity:
F = G M1 M2 / R^2
How could it be that the milky way is crossing the space at 600Km/s due to this mutual gravity attraction?
How could it be that Andromeda is approaching the MY at a velocity of 300 Km/sec due to the mutual gravity attraction?
There is one more key issue:
If those supper massive galaxies have a mutual gravity attraction, this atraction should be increased as they come closer and closer.
Do we see any change in there velocities as they come closer?
You have totally ignore my message about Triangulum Galaxy:
i
let's look at Triangulum Galaxy. It is located today quite close to Andromeda and actually moving directly away from that galaxy.
Based on the same idea of extrapolation – in the past those galaxies were quite closer, or even collide with each other.
So how could it be that Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy for breakfast when it was nearby? How the gravity push them apart?
Hence, If you wish to set extrapolation for large scale, why don't you do it also for small scale?
This galaxy is much closer to Andromeda.
As it is moving away from Andromeda, then in the past it was much closer.
So, try to verify the distance between Andromeda to Triangulum Galaxy 10 By ago
Then Try to use the gravity formula and find that 10 By ago, the gravity force between Andromeda to Triangulum Galaxy was much stronger than Andromeda to the Milky way.
This might be even valid for today data.
So, how could it be that due to relatively high mutual gravity attraction Triangulum Galaxy is moving away from Andromeda while the Milky way with much less mutual gravity attraction is moving in the direction of Andromeda?
Sorry -
The following idea that : "These are close enough to have mutual attraction on each other." is totally unrealistic.
Those galaxies are moving in space due to their momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
"In Newtonian mechanics, linear momentum, translational momentum, or simply momentum (pl. momenta) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object. It is a vector quantity, possessing a magnitude and a direction.":
As there is no friction in space, and as they are (almost) no affected by any sort of attraction by any nearby small galaxy, those massive galaxies keep their constant momentum in space
Just by chance Andromeda and MY are moving to each other!.
So, all the massive galaxies are crossing the space due to their momentum.
However, we can clearly say that the small galaxies are affected by the gravity force of the nearby big galaxies.
As Triangulum Galaxy is moving away from Andromeda, it is clear that in the past it was part of Andromeda.
Hence, this galaxy had been ejected from Andromeda.
Once you understand that key issue, you would understand how the Universe really works.
So, we must understand first how the Universe works in small scale and then try to find a solution for large scale.
Our science community ignores the small scale and therefore fails to understand how our universe really works.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/11/2020 08:42:08
I'd still like you to explain something really simple which doesn't involve complicated maths.
If almost everything in the universe is going away from us, and it always has been (so you claim), for an infinite time, how come it is still here?
Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?
Post by: evan_au on 19/11/2020 09:49:05
Quote from: Dave Lev
Don't you agree that if they should collide in about 2 BY then in the past they were much further away?The Milky Way and Andromeda are part of our Local Cluster of galaxies, which our bound together by mutual gravitation, and are orbiting their common barycenter.
So, first we have to understand how far away they had been 5By, or 10 By ago.
So, why can't we assume that in the past the distance could be higher than 10Mly or even than 20 Mly
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group
But each galaxy has its own "peculiar motion" (random velocity) - some will be away from us, and some will be towards us. It just so happens that Andromeda has a velocity that is towards the Milky Way Galaxy (us).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity#Cosmology
The expansion of the universe is so slight on the scale of a galaxy cluster that it will not disrupt the local cluster (not with the current rate of expansion).
Because these local galaxies are in orbit around each other, their average separation today is pretty much the same as it was 1 BYA or 5 BYA.
Quote
If those supper massive galaxies have a mutual gravity attraction, this atraction should be increased as they come closer and closer.It was only in the 1920s that it became accepted that Andromeda was an "island universe", separate from our own galaxy.
Do we see any change in there velocities as they come closer?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy#Distinction_from_other_nebulae
So we have been observing Andromeda as a separate galaxy for about a century.
- Andromeda and the Milky Way galaxy will collide in about 5 BY. Their speed will increase as they get closer - say, in 2 billion years.
- But the change in velocity over the past century is miniscule, as the distance has hardly changed in the past century (as a percentage of the total distance).
There is another complication: We can measure the radial velocity quite accurately, but we can't measure the "sideways" velocity nearly as accurately.
- So while we are sure that Andromeda is heading towards us at the moment, we can't tell if it will hit us or miss us
- If it is a direct hit, almost all the stars will pass between each other, since both galaxies are mostly empty space. But clouds of hydrogen in each galaxy will collide with each other, which should produce a nice light show...
- Neither galaxy is a solid object, so even if there isn't a direct collision, the closer edges of the two galaxies will be distorted by their close approach.
People have tried to simulate what might happen. This one assumes an initial "miss", followed by several more direct collisions:
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/11/2020 17:25:05
The Milky Way and Andromeda are part of our Local Cluster of galaxies, which our bound together by mutual gravitation, and are orbiting their common barycenter.Where do you see in that articale a confirmation for the idea that The Milky Way and Andromeda are bounded together by mutual gravitation, and are orbiting their common barycenter.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Local_Group
This is a pure imagination.
Both galaxies are moving in a direct line and at a constant velocity.
So, how can you claim for any sort of "orbiting their common barycenter"
Prove please it!
Please be aware that the total mass of the My and Andromeda is estimate at the range of (0.8–1.5)×10^12 M☉.
So, they should act as some sort of binary star:
https://courses.vcu.edu/PHY-rhg/astron/html/mod/021/s3.html
"In a binary system, two objects orbit about their common center of mass like this"
Do we really see that kind of orbiting?
But each galaxy has its own "peculiar motion" (random velocity) - some will be away from us, and some will be towards us. It just so happens that Andromeda has a velocity that is towards the Milky Way Galaxy (us).That by itself proves that the Milky Way and Andromeda aren't bounded together by mutual gravitation, and aren't orbiting any kind of common barycenter.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peculiar_velocity#Cosmology
The expansion of the universe is so slight on the scale of a galaxy cluster that it will not disrupt the local cluster (not with the current rate of expansion).So far our scientists didn't see any sort of expansion in the space of the Universe.
All we see is an expansion of the galaxies and that all.
As the BBT is incorrect then the idea of expansion in space is also incorrect.
Because these local galaxies are in orbit around each other, their average separation today is pretty much the same as it was 1 BYA or 5 BYA.If there average separation was the same as it was 1BYA or 5BYA than it also should be the same in the next 5 BY.
Our scientists claim that they are going to collide in about 2BY. Therefore, the estimation that the average separation was the same in the past is also imagination.
Please be aware that when you claim for Orbiting around
- Andromeda and the Milky Way galaxy will collide in about 5 BY. Their speed will increase as they get closer - say, in 2 billion years.Sorry, if they orbiting around a center of mass, they shouldn't collide at all.
- But the change in velocity over the past century is miniscule, as the distance has hardly changed in the past century (as a percentage of the total distance).In real orbiting system the objects should change their directions and the velocities.
As we don't see and change in the direction of those galaxies in the past century and as they are moving head to head - they aren't orbiting around any sort of center of mass.
If it is a direct hit, almost all the stars will pass between each other, since both galaxies are mostly empty space.That message by itself proves that our scientists don't have even a basic clue how galaxies really work.
Do you know that for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside?
So, as the MW galaxy cross the space at 600 Km sec it coiled with almost unlimited no of stars in the open space.
If those stars could pass into the galaxy, why don't we see them?
Sorry, the gravity of the MW pushes any star and any galaxy that stands in its path.
Nothing can penetrate into the galaxy.
So, the MW and Andromeda are moving head to head due to their momentum and not due to any sort of orbital gravity force.
Therefore, as we go back in the past there would be located further and further away.
14 By ago, they were much further than 5 By ago.
Therefore, the idea that 14 BY ago all the galaxies/matter were at a singularity point is just unrealistic.
Andromeda proves that the BBT is imagination!
What is your advice about Triangulum Galaxy?
et's look at Triangulum Galaxy. It is located today quite close to Andromeda and actually moving directly away from that galaxy.
Based on the same idea of extrapolation – in the past those galaxies were quite closer, or even collide with each other.
So how could it be that Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy for breakfast when it was nearby? How the gravity push them apart?
Hence, If you wish to set extrapolation for large scale, why don't you do it also for small scale?
Dave, you keep missing this.Well, I have already informed you that I do not wish to continue the discussion with you.I'd still like you to explain something really simple which doesn't involve complicated maths.
If almost everything in the universe is going away from us, and it always has been (so you claim), for an infinite time, how come it is still here?
Why hasn't our receding universe left yet?
However, as you ask so nicely and as I have already answered this issue, I feel that I should reply to your message with the following quote:
At older age, he considered to reuse that constant in order to support the idea of new created particlesSo, it is all about the creation on new matter.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
So, Einstein fully supported the understanding that new particles should be created as time goes on!!!
This idea contradicts the BBT and fully supports Theory D as "Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant".
Therefore - from now on we must agree on the following facts
1. Einstein didn't accept the BBT
2. I have full approval from Einstein to claim that new particles could be created in our Universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/11/2020 17:27:24
So, it is all about the creation on new matter.So, your idea only works if we ignore the conservation law.
It would make more sense to ignore your idea, wouldn't it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/11/2020 17:36:39
No.So, it is all about the creation on new matter.So, your idea only works if we ignore the conservation law.
It would make more sense to ignore your idea, wouldn't it?
You don't have to argue with me.
Now you face Mr Einstein.
He had confirmed the idea of new created particles in our Universe:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
So, if you still think that he is wrong with this idea, then it is your problem.
I fully agree with him that it is feasible!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/11/2020 18:52:17
So, if you still think that he is wrong with this ideaIt's not that I think it is wrong.
It's that I can prove it is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
The problem that you face is that it's quite common for dead scientists to have been wrong, but almost impossible for a dead mathematician to be wrong.
Maths doesn't depend on observations.
So, unless you really don't think science has progressed in the last hundred years or so...
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/11/2020 11:15:46
It's not that I think it is wrong.What do you wish to prove with this nonsense?
It's that I can prove it is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
The problem that you face is that it's quite common for dead scientists to have been wrong, but almost impossible for a dead mathematician to be wrong.How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles:
Maths doesn't depend on observations.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bangEinstein is using his cosmological constant for the creation of new particles in order to overcome the conservation law.
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
Those new particles are created at the accretion disc of a Black hole.
The ratio between a particle to a Black hole is in less than 1/10000...100
Therefore, the cosmologic constant in this case is virtually zero.
However, our scientists are using the same cosmologic constant for a dark energy that is needed to set the acceleration in the space expansion of the Universe.
It is estimated that the dark energy ratio in the total mass/energy of the Universe is 70% while the real matter is only 4%.
So, if we compare the requested dark energy to a BH energy/mass it is clear that the ratio is 1* 100...000
Hence, the cosmological constant should be significantly high in order for the dark energy to bypass the conservation energy law.
So, how do you dare to carry the conservation law for nothing?
So, your idea only works if we ignore the conservation law.Why when it comes to the dark energy that is created out of nothing you don't care about the conservation law?
Why you don't care that the dark energy is created out of nothing while it is 17.5 (70%/4%) times higher than the total real matter/mass in our whole Universe.
So, while the BBT imagination had delivered only the real matter (which represents only 4% of the total energy in our Universe), you and our scientists wish to believe that Einstein' cosmological constant should deliver 70% from that total energy.
There is one more key issue:
Our scientists claim that the space itself is increasing.
They have told us that even when the Universe was very small and highly concentrated the space expansion/inflation could overcome the Ultra gravity of that small universe.
Now they tell us that somehow a new imagination that is called Dark matter should set antigravity in order to accelerate the space expansion of the Universe.
So, please would you kindly tell us if that space expansion is affected by gravity or not?
If it is not affected, then the dark matter with its antigravity can't accelerate the space expansion.
Hence, you should set the dark matter in the garbage.
If it is affected - then 14 BY ago while the Universe was very small and dense with Ultra high gravity force - the expansion and the inflation couldn't work at all.
So, please try to find a solution for this contradiction.
The problem that you face is that it's quite common for dead scientists to have been wrong, but almost impossible for a dead mathematician to be wrong.Einstein is dead but his wisdom, knowledge and formulas are the base for our current understanding.
So, this dead scientist had offered us a living science.
Currently, our living scientists believe in a dead science.
Einstein had stated that the BBT is wrong. Therefore this BBT should be considered as a Dead science.
Einstein had stated that the overall density of matter had to stay constant in an expanding Universe
Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)Therefore - the density in our Universe MUST stay constant forever and ever. Hence, the CMBR of our current universe would stay the same forever and ever. That should be correct 100 By ago and 100 BY in the future.
Einstein had stated that the cosmological constant is responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expands
the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expandedTherefore, new matter must be created in our Universe.
Who are you Mr BC to claim that Einstein is Wrong.
You and all of those BBT believers are wrong!!!
Shame on you!
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/11/2020 12:05:13
What do you wish to prove with this nonsense?It's not nonsense; but you are too far down the DK river to recognise that the problem is your lack of understanding.
What it proves is that mass/ energy is conserved.
So THE MATHS PROVES THAT YOU ARE WRONG.
How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles:It takes no "daring" to point out that someone was wrong. It just takes proof, and I have presented that. It is not my fault that you can not understand it.
Why when it comes to the dark energy that is created out of nothing you don't care about the conservation law?I already answered that.
It is related to the asymmetry of the start of the universe.
Again, it's not my fault that you don't understand.
So, please would you kindly tell us if that space expansion is affected by gravity or not?Yes.
and the inflation couldn't work at all.You made that claim without evidence.
I shall dismiss it the same way.
You are wrong.
Einstein had stated that the BBT is wrong. Therefore this BBT should be considered as a Dead science.
This is absurd.
You talk about "Einstein's greatest mistake"; then you present him as if he is infallible.
It's very simple.
The maths shows he was wrong.
Mass/ energy is conserved.
Your idea is impossible.
It's not that I am saying that Einstein is wrong. Nobody cares about my opinion or yours.
The universe is saying he is wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/11/2020 09:01:54
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm
"No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. And scientists are grappling with even deeper questions. If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from? How did the universe "know" how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life? "
So, you and the 10,000 BBT scientists claim that they know – however, you all clearly don't know.
Einstein knew the answer for that.
Unfortunately you all reject his clear explanation.
Therefore, I would like to highlight several Key contradictions in the BBT with regards to the energy or "Energy conservation"
Let's try to understand the total energies in our Universe based on the BBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_energy
"the best current measurements indicate that dark energy contributes 69% of the total energy in the present-day observable universe. The mass–energy of dark matter and ordinary (baryonic) matter contributes 26% and 5%, respectively,"
Hence:
Ordinary (baryonic) matter contributes - 5%
Dark matter contributes - 26%
Dark energy contributes - 69%
So, if we compare the Dark matter/energy to the ordinary matter we get the following:
Ordinary matter = 1 OM
Dark Matter = 26/5 = 5.2 * OM
Dark Energy = 69/5 = 13.8 * OM
1. Ordinary Matter - OM
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1204.4186.pdf
"The origin of matter remains one of the great mysteries in physics"
The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since this does not seem to have been the case, it is likely some physical laws must have acted differently or did not exist for matter and antimatter.
So, our scientists claim that "The origin of the Ordinary matter remains one of the great mysteries in physics"
That Ordinary matter had been delivered out of nothing and free of charge at the Moment of the bang that took place 14By ago.
At that time more than 99.9..9 of the new created particles pair at the Big bang moment have eliminated each other due to the idea that one is matter and the other is antimatter.
So, the OM (Ordinary matter) in the entire Universe represents just the 0.00..1 from the energy at the first moment of the Big Bang.
Therefore - it is clear that the energy that was needed for the BBT to create the whole Ordinary matter in our entire Universe was bigger by 10...0 times from the total energy in that OM.
I wonder how any scientist could accept this idea?
However, as it is free of charge then our scientists has no problem with that
2. Dark Matter = 26/5 = 5.2 * OM
https://www.forbes.com/sites/jillianscudder/2017/05/22/astroquizzical-dark-matter-formed/?sh=4d0a67a354dd
if dark matter was present so early in the Universe, it probably was formed in the big bang. At the very least, it couldn’t have been formed later,"
So, the dark matter had been created at the Big Bang moment.
Therefore, we can claim that at the Big Bang the total energy/gravity in the infinite compact Universe is equal to
OM + Dark Matter = 1 OM + 5.2OM = 6.2OM
BC claims that the expansion is affected by Gravity:
So, how the expansion of the space (or the inflation process) could work while the gravity of 6.2 OM is located almost at that infinite compact Universe?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:15:46Yes.
So, please would you kindly tell us if that space expansion is affected by gravity or not?
If dark energy should accelerate the expansion in space while it represents antigravity, how could it be that a gravity of 6.2 OM that are concentrated at infinite compact early Universe couldn't prevent the expansion?
This is one more key contradiction in the BBT.
3. Dark Energy = 69/5 = 13.8 * OM
BC claims that it is due to asymmetry of the start of the universe.
However, the asymmetry issue is all about matter and antimatter.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:15:46I already answered that.
Why when it comes to the dark energy that is created out of nothing you don't care about the conservation law?
It is related to the asymmetry of the start of the universe.
https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem
"The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe. But today, everything we see from the smallest life forms on Earth to the largest stellar objects is made almost entirely of matter. Comparatively, there is not much antimatter to be found. Something must have happened to tip the balance. One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter."
So, how that asymmetry could create any sort of dark energy?
How could it be that the dark energy is located exactly at the correct locations in the Universe inorder to set the uniform accelaration expansion in space.
In any case, you wish to believe that at the Big Bang moment a total energy of OM + Dark matter which represents a gravity of 6.2 OM had been set together with a Dark energy which represents antigravity energy of 13.8 OM comes for free, while you ignore the the 13.8OM antigravity of the dark energy is significantly higher than the OM and even from the OM + dark matter.
So, if there was dark energy at the Early Universe with its ultra antigravity - Not even a single galaxy or a single star could be created.
Sorry.
I prefer to stay with Einstein theory.
Einstein had stated that the BBT is wrong. Therefore this BBT should be considered as a Dead science.Therefore, based on Einstein new matter must be created in our Universe.
Einstein had stated that the overall density of matter had to stay constant in an expanding Universe
Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant
Therefore - the density in our Universe MUST stay constant forever and ever. Hence, the CMBR of our current universe would stay the same forever and ever. That should be correct 100 By ago and 100 BY in the future.
Einstein had stated that the cosmological constant is responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expands
The constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded.
So, Einstein is just "someone" for you and you also claim that he is wrong.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:15:46It takes no "daring" to point out that someone was wrong. It just takes proof, and I have presented that. It is not my fault that you cannot understand it.
How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles:
So THE MATHS PROVES THAT YOU ARE WRONG.The math that our scientists are using is based on Einstein formula and on its cosmological constant.
They are using that constant to confirm the dark energy which is equal in its energy to 13.8 OM.
However, when Einstein by himself wish to use that constant for the creation of new particles (while each particle represents 0.000....00001% of OM energy - then you raise the energy conservation flag and claim that Einstein is wrong.
Sorry - This isn't science.
You take the whole energy of the Universe for free, add the dark matter and the dark energy exactly at the correct locations, at the correct densities and at the requested time frame in order to get the requested results.
So, during the era of recombination, the dark energy might be a big problem - therefore you ignore it.
You only call for its help 5 By ago.
This isn't science - this is a dream.
Einstein theory and wisdom represents the real meaning of real science.
He had stated that the BBT is wrong, therefore the BBT is wrong.
Based on Einstein Theory: New particles are created at the accretion disc of the BH with our without your confirmation.
I have no intention to argue with you about the New created particles process as it based on Einstein wisdom & Theory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/11/2020 12:29:11
So, you and the 10,000 BBT scientistsIt's more like 8,000,000 scientists on one side and you on the other.
Yet you think you are right...
Do you see why we are laughing at you?
Einstein knew the answer for that.No he didn't. He had an opinion, but that's all.
Unfortunately you all reject his clear explanation.Because we have proven that it is wrong. Once again, we are talking about tegh observation that, to every complex problem there is a solution which is simple obvious... and wrong.
Therefore, I would like to highlight several Key contradictions in the BBT with regards to the energy or "Energy conservation"You are only highlighting your own misunderstanding.
The Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter.Exactly the same is true of any idea of the continuous creation of matter.
You have just destroyed your own idea.
It is unfortunate that you lack the understanding to recognise this (even though it has been made clear to you before).
So, how that asymmetry could create any sort of dark energy?Nobody ever said it did.
They are two different problems.
We don't really know where darke energy came from. We don't know why there is more matter than antimatter.
It would be better if you understood the theory you are arguing against but- as usual- your D K syndrome kicks in and you presume that you are better than the rest of the world and magically do not need to learn.
At that time more than 99.9..9 of the new created particles pair at the Big bang moment have eliminated each other due to the idea that one is matter and the other is antimatter.We don't know that.
So, the OM (Ordinary matter) in the entire Universe represents just the 0.00..1 from the energy at the first moment of the Big Bang.
It is possible that the universe only created normal matter.
Once you accept that the symmetry must have been broken you have to accept that you don't know how severely broken it was.
Also, if "most" of the universe was destroyed in the way you suggest, then it must have been converted to energy- an unimaginably large amount of energy.
It would mean that the universe would have been extraordinarily hot. Every single particle would have enough energy to raise it to very near the speed of light.
Why is matter still here?
Where has that energy gone?
So we can certainly question the idea that most of the early universe was annihilated.
Or we can say that's what kicked off the expansion of the universe which we can still see today.
BC claims that it is due to asymmetry of the start of the universe.No I don't.
But again, you aren't well enough informed to understand what I said, but you are deluded enough about your ability that you think you understand.
However, the asymmetry issue is all about matter and antimatter.No, that's a separate issue (it also kills your idea,but it's a different death).
The symmetry which kills your idea is about time.
But you don't understand it and dismissed it as nonsense.
Here it is again.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
It proves, mathematically, that the creation of mass/ energy is impossible in our universe.
The math that our scientists are using is based on Einstein formulaNo.
The maths that science is relying on is based on the work of Emmy Noether.
It was written before Einstein's work was published.
And if he had read (and understood) it, he would have realised that it proved that he was wrong.
I have no intention to argue with you about the New created particles process as it based on Einstein wisdom & Theory.Two problems; firstly it doesn't solve the matter/ antimatter problem.
Secondly, it only works until the BH evaporates. At that point all it has done is turn the mass of the BH into other particles and antiparticles (and radiation).
That process then stops because there is no longer a BH there.
So it can not possibly be the source of matter creation in the universe.
But that's science and you are going to stick with pathetically misplaced hero worship like this.
He had stated that the BBT is wrong, therefore the BBT is wrong.
Post by: Halc on 21/11/2020 13:36:22
So my post 67 seemed to be one of these, any your reply 68 (a tiny bit of which is below) is one of those rants, used as a diversion to steer the conversation away from the obvious contradiction in your own assertions.
Quote
a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).Yet again, where (approximately is fine) do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?
You will evade this answer again, because it results in a direct contradiction with your assertions.
A bit concerning Andromeda, we are in fact moving in a direction away from it. That 630 km/sec is mostly in a direction opposite that of Andromeda. But it is moving faster in a similar direction and catching up with us. It’s the predator, we’re the prey.
Velocity - The Milky Way as a whole is moving at a velocity of approximately 600 km per second with respect to extragalactic frames of reference.Yes, but not not towards Andnromeda.
Based on those facts:
How could it be that those two galaxies (with all their massive mass - about 1.5×10^12 M☉ each) which are located so far away could have any sort of gravity impact on each other?[/quote]They’re quite close (only 2.5 MLY away), and gravity has no limit to its impact. The 630 km/sec is due to much more distant gravitational masses (Virgo, 65 MLY away), the great attractor (250 MLY) and most importantly, the Shapley attractor, 250 MLY away.
Quote
How could it be that Andromeda is approaching the MY at a velocity of 300 Km/sec due to the mutual gravity attraction?It is approaching us at more like 110 km/sec,
around twice the orbital speed of Mercury, which isn’t that much.
I found an incredible map of all the major galaxies under the general influence of the Virgo supercluster. Instead of the usual 2D map you find, this one is fully 4D. You can see the curved path of the Milky way, and Andromeda coming in from the side a ways and cutting close behind us. It will miss on its first pass, with the merger not completing for another 20-30 billion years.
https://earthsky.org/space/detailed-map-galaxy-orbits-local-supercluster
Click on the 4D map at the top and play with it. I’ve never seen better. You can rotate and zoom it.
What is missing is all the components that made up the various galaxies. No mergers are depicted. It treats each known galaxy as a point mass. Hence there not being any initial galaxies near Virgo (the red mass) since they’ve since been absorbed and we don’t know about them today.
We’re the yellow galaxy, and Andromeda is the green one. Don’t know what the purple one represents.
In the following article from Harvard it is stated:These questions seem to presume the very naive bias that the universe is an object created in time, rather than time being part of it. This unnamed author asks such questions seeming to steer the reader away from those biases and to answers that don’t make those assumptions, but you don’t quote that part I see.
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/seuforum/bb_whycare.htm
"No one knows how the first space, time, and matter arose. And scientists are grappling with even deeper questions. If there was nothing to begin with, then where did the laws of nature come from?”
Quote
“How did the universe "know" how to proceed? And why do the laws of nature produce a universe that is so hospitable to life? "Again, the question is asked and answered, but you omit that part. Eternal inflation theory answers this question, and the observation is strong evidence for the theory.
The article is a sort of base cosmology 101 preface that gets into no meat at all.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/11/2020 04:03:06
QuoteWell, I have already informed you that we must understand how the Universe works at small scale before we discuss about large scale:
a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).
Yet again, where (approximately is fine) do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?
You will evade this answer again, because it results in a direct contradiction with your assertions.
So, we must understand first how the Universe works in small scale and then try to find a solution for large scale.So, please - I promise to answer that question as soon as we clearly understand how it works in small scale.
Our science community ignores the small scale and therefore fails to understand how our universe really works.
However, in order to do so, we must understand how Triangulum/Andromeda Galaxies system works.
So, please read the following and advice:
You have totally ignore my message about Triangulum Galaxy:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 18/11/2020 11:35:46Hence, If you wish to set extrapolation for large scale, why don't you do it also for small scale?
let's look at Triangulum Galaxy. It is located today quite close to Andromeda and actually moving directly away from that galaxy.
Based on the same idea of extrapolation – in the past those galaxies were quite closer, or even collide with each other.
So how could it be that Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy for breakfast when it was nearby? How the gravity push them apart?
This galaxy is much closer to Andromeda.
As it is moving away from Andromeda, then in the past it was much closer.
So, try to verify the distance between Andromeda to Triangulum Galaxy 10 By ago
Then Try to use the gravity formula and find that 10 By ago, the gravity force between Andromeda to Triangulum Galaxy was much stronger than Andromeda to the Milky way.
This might be even valid for today data.
So, how could it be that due to relatively high mutual gravity attraction Triangulum Galaxy is moving away from Andromeda while the Milky way with much less mutual gravity attraction is moving in the direction of Andromeda?
Sorry -
The following idea that : "These are close enough to have mutual attraction on each other." is totally unrealistic.
Those galaxies are moving in space due to their momentum.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum
"In Newtonian mechanics, linear momentum, translational momentum, or simply momentum (pl. momenta) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object. It is a vector quantity, possessing a magnitude and a direction.":
As there is no friction in space, and as they are (almost) no affected by any sort of attraction by any nearby small galaxy, those massive galaxies keep their constant momentum in space
Just by chance Andromeda and MW are moving to each other!.
So, all the massive galaxies are crossing the space due to their momentum.
However, we can clearly say that the small galaxies are affected by the gravity force of the nearby big galaxies.
As Triangulum Galaxy is moving away from Andromeda, it is clear that in the past it was part of Andromeda.
Hence, this galaxy had been ejected from Andromeda.
Once you understand that key issue, you would understand how the Universe really works.
Therefore, do you agree that in the past Triangulum Galaxy was very close to Andromeda?
If so, How close?
Why in the early days when they were very close together, due to stronger Gravity force, Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy?
A bit concerning Andromeda, we are in fact moving in a direction away from it. That 630 km/sec is mostly in a direction opposite that of Andromeda. But it is moving faster in a similar direction and catching up with us. It’s the predator, we’re the prey.Thanks for this great reply.
It is approaching us at more like 110 km/sec,
around twice the orbital speed of Mercury, which isn’t that much.
You actually confirm that Andromeda and MW do not orbit around any sort of center of mass.
So, they are not bonded by gravity force.
I found an incredible map of all the major galaxies under the general influence of the Virgo supercluster. Instead of the usual 2D map you find, this one is fully 4D. You can see the curved path of the Milky way, and Andromeda coming in from the side a ways and cutting close behind us. It will miss on its first pass, with the merger not completing for another 20-30 billion years.Well, that video shows that our scientists don't know how galaxies systems really works in local scale.
https://earthsky.org/space/detailed-map-galaxy-orbits-local-supercluster
Click on the 4D map at the top and play with it. I’ve never seen better. You can rotate and zoom it.
When Andromeda would be close enough to the Milky way (but not in a direct collision as they should miss the first path), they would shift away from each other. There will be no second path.
So, please wait with your question about that galaxy with a redshift of 13 and let's focus on Triangulum/Andromeda Galaxies system.
Post by: evan_au on 22/11/2020 10:14:48
Quote from: Dave Lev
Our scientists claim that they are going to collide in about 2BY. Therefore, the estimation that the average separation was the same in the past is also imagination.The first thing to say is that a galaxy is not a point object, it is an extended object.
- For stars in the arms of a galaxy, or planets in a Solar System, you can pretty much treat them as point objects (unless they come so close as to have a direct collision)
- But a galaxy can be disrupted by passing near another galaxy - we see this with the many stellar streams passing through our own galaxy, which are the disrupted remnants of dwarf galaxies that got too close.
The second thing is that orbital motion is governed by conservation of angular momentum.
- If two galaxies are to merge, the black holes at the center of these galaxies must shed a lot of angular momentum
- They do this by flinging many stars into the dark of intergalactic space, and you can see this in the simulation of the collision.
If you consider the Milky Way and Andromeda in isolation (say, in the frame of reference of their barycenter), and calculate the average separation of the stars in the Milky way galaxy and Andromeda galaxy, you will find that:
- The angular momentum remains constant throughout the collision
- the average separation of stars remains roughly constant during the collision.
If you now consider the Local Cluster in isolation (say, in the frame of reference of the Local Cluster's barycenter), and calculate the average separation of the galaxies, you will find that:
- The angular momentum remains constant throughout their orbits (including the motion of the Triangulum Galaxy)
- the average separation of galaxies remains roughly constant.
- That will include some small galaxies that are ejected from the Local Cluster, and some that merge with each other
I could extend that to Super Clusters too, but you get the idea...
Quote
Sorry, if they orbiting around a center of mass, they shouldn't collide at all.Galaxies aren't point objects, they are diffuse objects.
- So even if they come close (which the Milky way & Andromeda will), they will be disrupted, and provided their relative velocity doesn't exceed their mutual escape velocity, their central black holes will (eventually) coalesce.
- In the process, the current spiral structure of both galaxies will be totally disrupted, and we will end up with something that looks more like an elliptical galaxy.
Quote
How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particlesBecause it looks like Einstein didn't really believe it either, or he would have published it.
It's fine that he thought through this scenario, and I am sure he would have talked it through will colleagues.
- But in the end, he didn't go through with publishing it
- Whether he rejected it himself, or others persuaded him doesn't really matter - it didn't pass muster
Quote
So, how the expansion of the space (or the inflation process) could work while the gravity of 6.2 OM is located almost at that infinite compact Universe?It all has to do with the initial velocity.
1. If you try to fire a rocket into Earth orbit, and don't give it enough velocity, it will fall back straight away
2. If you give it just the right velocity (and angular momentum), it will go into orbit
3. If you give more than enough initial velocity (greater than escape velocity), it will continue outward forever (ignoring atmospheric friction)
The same 3 scenarios apply at the scale of the whole universe (and Dark Matter is part of the whole universe, so it doesn't change the situation)
- The red-shift researchers in the 1990s were trying to work out which of these 3 scenarios was the correct one for the whole universe
- To their great surprise, they came up with a 4th scenario... Dark Energy
And Einstein's equations explain this, too (once you feed the new measurements into Einstein's equations and solve for the cosmological constant using the new data).
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/11/2020 10:38:49
Well, I have already informed you that we must understand how the Universe works at small scale before we discuss about large scale:Yes, for example, on the small scale we know that the creation of matter is impossible.
So we know that your idea is actually wrong.
We even have a mathematical proof of it.
And you ignore this and carry on with your fairy tale of continuous creation.
Why is that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/11/2020 17:35:54
Thanks for that excellent explanation.QuoteQuoteIt all has to do with the initial velocity.
So, how the expansion of the space (or the inflation process) could work while the gravity of 6.2 OM is located almost at that infinite compact Universe?
1. If you try to fire a rocket into Earth orbit, and don't give it enough velocity, it will fall back straight away
2. If you give it just the right velocity (and angular momentum), it will go into orbit
3. If you give more than enough initial velocity (greater than escape velocity), it will continue outward forever (ignoring atmospheric friction)
The same 3 scenarios apply at the scale of the whole universe (and Dark Matter is part of the whole universe, so it doesn't change the situation)
- The red-shift researchers in the 1990s were trying to work out which of these 3 scenarios was the correct one for the whole universe
- To their great surprise, they came up with a 4th scenario... Dark Energy
So, our scientists have fully confirmed that none of the 3 scenarios is correct
However, what is the real meaning of "dark energy". Do we see it? Do you have an example for matter with antigravity?
The dark energy idea is one more evidence that the BBT is wrong and our scientists can't really fit it to our universe. Therefore, they are using that unrealistic idea which is called Dark energy.
And Einstein's equations explain this, too (once you feed the new measurements into Einstein's equations and solve for the cosmological constant using the new data).Sorry, Einstein has told Us that the cosmological constant was his biggest mistake.
Why do you ignore that message?
In any case, even if you wish to add a constant, this constant should have a minor impact on the formula.
However - in order for the dark energy to work, its energy should be 13.5 times higher than the Ordinary matter.
So, using this constant for an energy which should create unrealistic activity as negative gravity and at that high amplitude (13.5times the OM) is really unrealistic.
QuoteWell, the history is very clear:
How do you dare to reject Einstein Explanation about new creation particles
Because it looks like Einstein didn't really believe it either, or he would have published it.
It's fine that he thought through this scenario, and I am sure he would have talked it through will colleagues.
- But in the end, he didn't go through with publishing it
- Whether he rejected it himself, or others persuaded him doesn't really matter - it didn't pass muster
Now you face Mr Einstein.So, you agree that: "It's fine that he thought through this scenario, and I am sure he would have talked it through will colleagues."
He had confirmed the idea of new created particles in our Universe:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
So, if you still think that he is wrong with this idea, then it is your problem.
I fully agree with him that it is feasible!!!
Therefore, it proves that Einstein estimated that new particles creation is feasible.
He even gave us the idea to use the cosmological constant for that:
so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
However, I assume that he didn't publish it as he couldn't offer real theory which could replace the BBT.
Therefore, as long as you accept the history that Einstein knew that new particles creation is feasible - is good enough for me.
Yes, for example, on the small scale we know that the creation of matter is impossible.The history proves that Einstein new that it is feasible.
So we know that your idea is actually wrong.
So, we know that it is feasible.
We even have a mathematical proof of it.In one hand our scientists are using the cosmological constant in Einstein formula against his will, in a magnitude of 13.5OM for "dark energy" which should generate antigravity while we don't have a clue about it.
On the other hand, while the history proves that Einstein fully supported the idea of new created matter by using that cosmological constant (but at very low amplitude based on the ratio between Particle to OM) - you reject this message from Einstein.
Sorry - you have to accept Einstein message even if it had been given when he was older.
In any case, so far all of you had totally ignore my question about Triangulum.
Please answer the following:
do you agree that in the past Triangulum Galaxy was very close to Andromeda?
If so, How close?
Why in the early days when they were very close together, due to stronger Gravity force, Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/11/2020 17:50:59
Sorry, Einstein has told Us that the cosmological constant was his biggest mistake.
Why do you ignore that message?
I'm not ignoring it; but you are.
He told us that he made a mistake.
So we know that he can be mistaken about thing.
So, if he said something which we know is wrong, we should accept that he was wrong.
Einstein is not God. He made mistakes.
The dark energy idea is one more evidence that the BBT is wrong and our scientists can't really fit it to our universe. Therefore, they are using that unrealistic idea which is called Dark energy.
No.
Until about 1990 the BBT worked well enough to explain what was observed.
The leading alternative- continuous creation didn't.
But, with better data and more detailed observations, in about 1990 we saw that there was something else going on.
We called that "something" dark energy.
We still don't know the details of what it is but the models won't work properly without it, so...
Do we see it?yes we do. we see it as the departure of the older models and the current data.
Do you realize that trying to fit a continuous generation model would still need something like DE to make it work?
If you don't agree. show us your model- all of it, in detail.Show the calculations of the brightness and the spectrum of the background radiation, show us the calculations for the relative abundances of H, He and Li in the universe.
Show us the maths.
The history proves that Einstein new that it is feasible.No
So, we know that it is feasible.
He thought it was feasible.
Emmy Noether proved it was not.
Do you not understand the difference?
EINSTEIN WAS VERY CLEARLY WRONG IF HE BELIEVED IN SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF MATTER.
Post by: evan_au on 22/11/2020 19:04:26
Quote from: Dave Lev
So, it is all about the creation on new matter.The Steady State model died by the 1960s (apart from a few hold-outs like Fred Hoyle), because it didn't fit the facts:
- The Steady State model suggested that matter would be formed between the expanding galaxies, which would then condense into new galaxies, so that old and new galaxies would coexist together. However, ultra-bright Quasars are seen only in the distant universe = early universe, so new galaxies were not being formed.
- The Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation is a relic of a time when the universe was hot enough to ionize Hydrogen. That is clearly not the case today.
See:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady-state_model#Observational_tests
Quote
Sorry, the gravity of the MW pushes any star and any galaxy that stands in its path.On the contrary, there are many galaxies which we see in the process of colliding and or merging. Galaxies are mostly empty space, and don't possess a force field like on Star Trek.
Nothing can penetrate into the galaxy.
See the collection of images here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interacting_galaxy#Galaxy_collision
Or this collection at Google (https://www.google.com/search?q=image+galaxy+collision&rlz=1C1GCEU_en-GBAU819AU820&sxsrf=ALeKk02iZxxQX9Ip0774hAPNh8M5nTojpw:1606071699379&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjT-f-o65btAhXrzTgGHRRcCOQQ_AUoAXoECAUQAw&biw=1110&bih=684)
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/11/2020 19:13:51
Galaxies aren't point objects, they are diffuse objects.As you all have so high confidence in understanding how gravity works on galaxies and you clearly see the future of Andromeda and MW, why is it so difficult to answer my question about the early times of Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxies?
- So even if they come close (which the Milky way & Andromeda will), they will be disrupted, and provided their relative velocity doesn't exceed their mutual escape velocity, their central black holes will (eventually) coalesce.
- In the process, the current spiral structure of both galaxies will be totally disrupted, and we will end up with something that looks more like an elliptical galaxy.
do you agree that in the past Triangulum Galaxy was very close to Andromeda?
If so, How close?
Why in the early days when they were very close together, due to stronger Gravity force, Andromeda didn't eat Triangulum Galaxy?
Let me help you with the following:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21428674-800-vast-hydrogen-bridge-connects-two-galaxies/
"IT’S a bridge like no other. The intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link."
Based on this data, the distance between Andromeda to Triangulum is about 782,000 Ly.
The size of Andromeda is more than 100,000 Ly. Therefore, they are quite close to each other.
That Hydrogen Bridge shows that those galaxies were close together in the past.
You have stated that when two spiral galaxies come closer they should be disrupted. So how could it be that both galaxies still keep their spiral shape?
How could it be that their central black holes didn't coalesce due to gravity when they were nearby in the past, while you are so sure that this is the destiny of the MW and Andromeda as they will come closer?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/11/2020 19:51:33
why is it so difficult to answer my question about the early times of Andromeda and Triangulum Galaxies?We did.
It's just that you didn't understand it.
The galaxies are mainly empty space.
If you had two swarms of bees that were "on a collision course" would you expect them to actually bounce off each other, or would you expect them to pass through each other?
Post by: evan_au on 23/11/2020 20:00:53
Quote from: New Scientist
The intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link.A galaxy in isolation is surrounded by clouds of gas - some of it blasted out by the galaxy's supermassive black hole, some of it neutral Hydrogen falling into the galaxy from intergalactic space to fuel new stars. And the invisible Dark Matter halo.
- When two galaxies pass close together, that outer fringe of Hydrogen and Dark Matter is affected more strongly than the disk of the galaxy, which is in turn affected more than the galactic bulge.
- What you are seeing is the drawn-out thread of Hydrogen.
- I imagine that the article will go on to say that this is a hint that the Dark Matter halo is also drawn out into a long thread.
- Many galaxies are surrounded by a halo of stars ejected by previous galactic mergers, and these are probably included in this thread. But they are extremely hard to see since their luminosity is so low.
This suggests that the Triangulum galaxy did pass close to Andromeda, but not close enough to disrupt the disk very much, and not enough to disrupt the galactic bulge, and definitely not enough to merge the supermassive black holes (on this flyby).
- As I have said before, while we can measure the radial velocities accurately, we can't measure the transverse velocity nearly as accurately, so it's hard to plot the past trajectory in 3 dimensions.
- The Gaia spacecraft is monitoring some stars outside our galaxy (including some in Andromeda and some in nearby dwarf galaxies), and this will greatly improve measurements of this transverse motion
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_(spacecraft)#Significant_results
My summary: The Triangulum Galaxy was not emitted from the Andromeda galaxy, but it did pass close enough to disrupt its halo.
- Andromeda and Milky Way galaxy look like they are approaching close enough that their mutual gravity will deflect their direction of movement, and draw them together over the next 5-15 billion years, through multiple collisions, stopping and coming back for another collision. This is what you expect to see with gravitationally bound galaxies within a local cluster.
- We will have more precise measurements of this motion after Gaia's final data release occurs, around 2023.
None of this changes the fact that for distant galaxies (outside superclusters) are red-shifted at a rate that increases with distance. This implies (if you extrapolate backwards in time) that the universe started as a compact object which then expanded - what we now call "The Big Bang".
So the Triangulum Galaxy and the upcoming merger of Andromeda and the Milky Way is a (school of) red herring which has nothing to do with the Big Bang, which is the title of the thread.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/11/2020 19:23:30
- What you are seeing is the drawn-out thread of Hydrogen.why do you change the real meaning of that that Hydrogen Bridge.
It is stated: "The intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link."
As all the intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link it proves that Andromeda and Triangulum were very close together.
You have stated that spiral galaxies should be disrupted by passing near another galaxy.
But a galaxy can be disrupted by passing near another galaxy - we see this with the many stellar streams passing through our own galaxy, which are the disrupted remnants of dwarf galaxies that got too close.In this case, the long Hydrogen bridge that exists between the two galaxies proves that they were very near by.
"Triangulum may be home to 40 billion stars"
So, based on your explanation we have to see the impact of the disruption due to the near by Andromeda galaxy.
However, we don't see any disruptions. Not in Andromeda and not in Triangulum.
In the following article it is even stated that Triangulum was a satellite of the Andromeda Galaxy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangulum_Galaxy
"The galaxy is the smallest spiral galaxy in the Local Group and is believed to be a satellite of the Andromeda Galaxy"
Therefore, as a satellite, Triangulum was orbiting around Andromeda in the past and they were bounded by gravity.
It is also stated:
"As mentioned above, M33 is linked to M31 by several streams of neutral hydrogen[51] and stars,[51] which suggests that a past interaction between these two galaxies took place from 2 to 8 billion years ago"
So, it is very clear that Triangulum Galaxy was emitted from the Andromeda galaxy.
Therefore, why do you claim that:
My summary: The Triangulum Galaxy was not emitted from the Andromeda galaxy, but it did pass close enough to disrupt its halo.That galaxy is key evidence that Triangulum had been emitted from Andromeda.
Therefore, it is actually the Baby of Andromeda.
Mighty spiral galaxy as Andromeda can produce new particles, new stars, new BH and even new dwarf galaxies.
Andromeda is the Mother Galaxy.
All the stars, gas clouds, clusters, dwarf galaxies around this mighty galaxy including Triangulum are the direct babies of that galaxy.
This galaxy is moving faster than the Milky way.
A bit concerning Andromeda, we are in fact moving in a direction away from it. That 630 km/sec is mostly in a direction opposite that of Andromeda. But it is moving faster in a similar direction and catching up with us. It’s the predator, we’re the prey.As the Milky way cross the space at 600 Km sec, while Andromeda is moving 110Km/s faster, then in total its velocity is about 710 Km/sec.
It is approaching us at more like 110 km/sec,
around twice the orbital speed of Mercury, which isn’t that much..
Triangulum also moves in our direction at higher velocity:
"A velocity of 190 ± 60 km/s relative to the Milky Way"
Our scientists consider that there is a possibility for the MW collide with this galaxy:
"Two other possibilities are a collision with the Milky Way before the Andromeda Galaxy arrives"
In the following image we even see that it still orbits around the Andromeda:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Collision_paths_of_our_Milky_Way_galaxy_and_the_Andromeda_galaxy.jpg
Conclusion:
Triangulum was part of Andromeda.
This galaxy was a satellite of the Andromeda Galaxy. It was orbiting around Andromeda and continues to orbit.
Therefore, it was emitted from Andromeda.
This proves that triangulum is the Baby galaxy of Andromeda
It is not the only baby.
All the dwarf galaxies around Andromeda are direct products of Andromeda and all are drifting outwards. In the same token - all the dwarf galaxies around the Milky way had been created by the Milky way.
In order to achieve it - New particles must be created at the accretion disc of the SMBH.
Einstein had confirmed this activity.
Once you understand that observation - you actually can fully understand how our real universe works at small scale and large scale.
EINSTEIN WAS VERY CLEARLY WRONG IF HE BELIEVED IN SPONTANEOUS GENERATION OF MATTER.You are very wrong!!!
Einstein didn't tell us how and where new particles are created.
He just told us that it is real. He gave us the formula for that.
I have found the correct location for the new particle creation which is the accretion disc.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 22/11/2020 17:35:54Based on the following it seems that Emmy Noether proves that energy may not be conserved “locally” but everything works out when the space is sufficiently large:
The history proves that Einstein new that it is feasible.
So, we know that it is feasible.
No
He thought it was feasible.
Emmy Noether proved it was not.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics
A problem had cropped up in Albert Einstein’s new theory of gravity, general relativity, which had been unveiled earlier in the year. It seemed that the theory did not adhere to a well-established physical principle known as conservation of energy, which states that energy can change forms but can never be destroyed. Total energy is supposed to remain constant. Noether, a young mathematician with no formal academic appointment, gladly accepted the challenge.
She resolved the issue head-on, showing that energy may not be conserved “locally” — that is, in an arbitrarily small patch of space — but everything works out when the space is sufficiently large.
So, Emmy Noether supports the idea that energy may not be conserved “locally” as Einstein had offered.
The meaning of that is that in local aria new particles could be created.
In any case
As Einstein had stated that new particles could be created - then even if all the BBT scientists (including you) will claim that Einstein is wrong - it won't Help you.
Einstein message is correct forever and ever!!!
New particles are created at any BH accretion disc at any given moment with or without your permission!!!
Those new created particles would keep the density of the Universe forever and ever as Einstein had stated.
Post by: evan_au on 24/11/2020 20:38:48
Quote from: Dave Lev
Therefore, as a satellite, Triangulum was orbiting around Andromeda in the past and they were bounded by gravity.It sounds like you are drawing a false analogy from "Satellites in Earth orbit were launched from Earth. Therefore the Triangulum Galaxy in orbit around Andromeda Galaxy must have been launched from Andromeda Galaxy."
...
So, it is very clear that Triangulum Galaxy was emitted from the Andromeda galaxy.
Cosmologists are unsure how supermassive black holes reached their current size. They think that part of the story is that in the denser early universe, mergers of nearby early galaxies was quite common.
We see this process continuing at a slower rate today (in our less-dense universe) within local clusters of galaxies which are bound together gravitationally. With the Gaia data, we should be able to better predict the timing of Andromeda merging with the Milky Way, and whether Triangulum will merge first, or whether it will escape this train wreck, surviving for a later collision.
Quote
I have found the correct location for the new particle creation which is the accretion disc.It is true that Stephen Hawking predicted particle creation at the event horizon of a black hole, at the inner edge of an accretion disk.
- But these are not new particles, but the quantum residue of matter that previously fell into the black hole.
- And the rate of production at a black hole is far too low to make up for the expansion of the universe (in fact, it is far lower than the infalling radiation from the CMBR, let alone infalling matter from the accretion disk)..
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2020 20:53:05
Based on the following it seems that Emmy Noether proves that energy may not be conserved “locally” but everything works out when the space is sufficiently large:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics
The whole universe is "at large" i.e. in the class where your idea is wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2020 20:56:52
The meaning of that is that in local aria new particles could be created.No, it is not.
What it means is that you can "borrow and lend" energy and mass locally, but you aren't allowed to have them leave the "local" area. So, for example, you can't use them to create a universe.
Did you not realise that I could be aware of this story and still say you were wrong?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/11/2020 20:58:35
Einstein message is correct forever and ever!!!Get a room.
Post by: evan_au on 25/11/2020 07:53:46
Quote from: Dave Lev
As all the intergalactic void between the Andromeda and Triangulum galaxies is spanned by a 782,000-light-year-long hydrogen link it proves that Andromeda and Triangulum were very close together.Have a look at the mice galaxies: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020506.html
...So, it is very clear that Triangulum Galaxy was emitted from the Andromeda galaxy.
You will see that in this case, the two galaxies are joined by a visible stream of stars, and there is a corresponding stream of stars extending far beyond both galaxies.
- The galaxy at the left has a rather distorted spiral structure (the one of the right is seen edge-on, so we can't see very much of its spiral structure).
- This is what happens when two galaxies pass very close to each other - stars get dragged out of their normal path around the galaxy
Now compare the Triangulum galaxy: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap191231.html
It has a regular spiral shape, with very little distortion.
- The article you quoted indicates that there is a hydrogen bridge (and dark matter bridge) between Triangulum and Andromeda. Both of them are invisible to telescopes.
- This shows that the Andromeda and Triangulum did not approach very closely, as stars have not been torn away from both galaxies
- Even though Triangulum is probably in orbit around Andromeda, it is so far away that it's own gravity is much stronger than the disturbance of Andromeda, leaving the spiral arms undistorted
- At best, the outer halo of Andromeda and Triangulum overlapped, forming the Hydrogen bridge.
These couple of pictures from NASA show that Triangulum was not emitted from Andromeda.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/11/2020 17:11:05
Did you not realise that I could be aware of this story and still say you were wrong?In order to support your BBT imagination you are ready to do whatever it takes to confuse me.
Einstein had stated that the BBT is wrong and new particles should be created in order to keep the density of the Universe as the galaxies expand.
Therefore, you claim that he is wrong.
You have stated that the "Emmy Noether theory" is a proof for your wrong imagination and this is a lie.
In the article it is clearly stated that her theory fully supports Einstein understanding with regards to conservation of energy,:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physicsTherefore, your with the "local" or without it - it is very clear that "Emmy Noether theory" doesn't contradicts Einstein Theory/Understanding.
"A problem had cropped up in Albert Einstein’s new theory of gravity, general relativity, which had been unveiled earlier in the year. It seemed that the theory did not adhere to a well-established physical principle known as conservation of energy, which states that energy can change forms but can never be destroyed. Total energy is supposed to remain constant. Noether, a young mathematician with no formal academic appointment, gladly accepted the challenge".
Hence, you clearly lie when you have stated that "Emmy Noether theory" contradicts Einstein.
In any case, I'm not going to argue with you about Einstein as he is the greatest scientist in the last century.
The whole astronomy science is based on his formulas.
So, we all must accept his clear understanding & messages.
As Einstein had confirmed that the BBT is wrong - then the BBT is wrong!!!
As Einstein had stated that new particles are created in order to keep the density of the Universe - Then new articles are created.
Unfortunately, Einstein had passed away before finding the explanation how this new created particles could explain the expansion in the galaxies while keeping the density of the Universe..
My job is to explain that last missing section in Einstein theory.
This missing section is called -
Galaxy over galaxy (or if you wish: Rocket over rocket)
This missing section fully explains our entire Universe in small scale and in large scale.
No need for Dark matter and no need for Dark energy.
We all should set those dark ideas including all the BBT imagination at the garbage and open our mind for Einstein Theory
Yes, I'm going to stay at Einstein Room as he is fully correct.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:23:30Get a room.
Einstein message is correct forever and ever!!!
Anyone who really cares about real science must stay at that room.
As you claim that Einstein is incorrect, As you lie to support your unrealistic ideas - please stay away from this room and from my threads.
You aren't welcome anymore!
Cosmologists are unsure how supermassive black holes reached their current size. They think that part of the story is that in the denser early universe, mergers of nearby early galaxies was quite common.Those unsure Cosmologists should join us in Einstein Room.
Once they accept the idea of new creation particles - they will know how suppermassive black holes reached their current size without eating any matter for outside.
They would know that new particles pair are created near the event of horizon. Both with positive Mass but with carry negative charged with regards to each other.
They would know how that the supper massive BH eats one particle out of the two and ejects the other one to the accretion disc. Therefore, it is called - picky eater.
So it isn't a picky eater as it is eating 50% from all the new particles that it generates.
That 50% of the falling in particles converts a tinny BH into a Supper massive BH over time.
Therefore, the accretion disc should be called as the Excretion disc.
Our scientists would know why most of the Hydrogen atoms in the galaxy are located near the SMBH (mainly in those giant gas clouds as G1-G6).
They would know that the new stars that are formed in those gas clouds are drifting outwards.
In this process, they set the shape of the spiral arms.
No need for dark matter for that.
The OM is good enough to support any spiral galaxy.
It is true that Stephen Hawking predicted particle creation at the event horizon of a black hole, at the inner edge of an accretion disk.Stephen Hawking theory is wrong.
- But these are not new particles, but the quantum residue of matter that previously fell into the black hole.
There is no negative mass in the real Einstein Room.
Therefore, this theory should also join the BBT in the way to the garbage.
- And the rate of production at a black hole is far too low to make up for the expansion of the universe (in fact, it is far lower than the infalling radiation from the CMBR, let alone infalling matter from the accretion disk)..The production rate of new created particles in all the BH that are located in Einstein Universe perfectly fit the steady real universe.
The CMBR is a direct outcome from the galaxies radiation in our Universe.
Based on Hubble law we know that the faster the galaxy moves the farther it is located.
The far away galaxies are moving much faster than the speed of light. Due to relativity, we can still see them while they are residing at redshift 13 which means - 13 times the speed of light.
However, at some ultra high velocity above the speed of light, we can't see them any more.
At that stage we only can get some a faint radiation from those far away galaxies.
Hence, the CMBR is the sum of the radiation from all the galaxies around us.
That CMBR carries a redsfit of 1100. Therefore, we mainly gets the CMBR radiation from a sphere that is relevant to that velocity.
Galaxies which are located further away can't have any more significant impact on the CMBR.
Therefore, even if in one size the length of the universe might be longer than the other side, as there is a limit for the radius of the radiation in the CMBR, we get it at the same amplitude in all directions.
For more information - please read my Thread about Theory D.
Have a look at the mice galaxies: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap020506.htmlYes, that is the excellent example for a collision between two galaxies.
You will see that in this case, the two galaxies are joined by a visible stream of stars, and there is a corresponding stream of stars extending far beyond both galaxies.
- The galaxy at the left has a rather distorted spiral structure (the one of the right is seen edge-on, so we can't see very much of its spiral structure).
- This is what happens when two galaxies pass very close to each other - stars get dragged out of their normal path around the galaxy
As you can see the smaller galaxy is losing significant portion of its stars as it comes closer to the main galaxy.
Now compare the Triangulum galaxy: https://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap191231.htmlSo, we do not observe any distortion in both galaxies while the Hydrogen Bridge is between the two galaxies.
It has a regular spiral shape, with very little distortion.
- The article you quoted indicates that there is a hydrogen bridge (and dark matter bridge) between Triangulum and Andromeda. Both of them are invisible to telescopes.
- This shows that the Andromeda and Triangulum did not approach very closely, as stars have not been torn away from both galaxiesNO!!!
That hydrogen bridge which is located between the galaxies shows their way in the past. So, it proves that those galaxies have moved away from each other. Therefore, as the bridge is connected between the galaxies it clearly proves that they were absolutely close to each other!!!
Hence, in the past they were very close to each other, without any sort of negative distortion on each one of them.
- Even though Triangulum is probably in orbit around Andromeda, it is so far away that it's own gravity is much stronger than the disturbance of Andromeda, leaving the spiral arms undistortedThis is correct only for the current location.
However, in the past they were very close together, therefore it is expected to see a severe distortion.
As we can't see any distortion it proves that Triangulum had emitted from Andromeda while it was quite small and young, as all the other dwarf galaxies around Andromeda and the MW.
Over time it had been increased its mass due to the new particles creation by its SMBH.
- At best, the outer halo of Andromeda and Triangulum overlapped, forming the Hydrogen bridge.No as Triangulum is relatively smaller galaxy and not so efficient yet. Therefore, some of its new created Hydrogen atomes had been emitted to space and set that Hydrogen Bridge.
So, that Hydrogen Bridge had been created by Triangulum and not by Andromeda.
These couple of pictures from NASA show that Triangulum was not emitted from Andromeda.Those pictures show the current position of the galaxies.
However, the Hydrogen Bridge is the Ultimate evidence that the two galaxies were nearby in the past.
I would like to highlight that if today those galaxy would come again together, they would set a severe distortion.
The following image is very important:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Collision_paths_of_our_Milky_Way_galaxy_and_the_Andromeda_galaxy.jpg
It shows that Triangulum is currently located further away from the MW while it still orbits around Andromeda.
However, due to that orbital momentum we know that it is moving faster in our direction.
At some point, it would be disconnected from Andromeda and cross the space by its own.
At that moment its velocity would be the combined velocity vector of Andromeda + the final emitted vector.
Therefore, any galaxy that cross the space had been emitted from it mother galaxy.
That is the base of galaxy over galaxy or rocket over rocket.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2020 19:13:19
Yes, I'm going to stay at Einstein Room as he is fully correct.
No
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-23-biggest-mistakes
Chronology of Einstein’s Mistakes
1905 Mistake in clock synchronization procedure on which Einstein based special relativity
1905 Failure to consider Michelson-Morley experiment
1905 Mistake in transverse mass of high-speed particles
1905 Multiple mistakes in the mathematics and physics used in calculation of viscosity of liquids, from which Einstein deduced size of molecules
1905 Mistakes in the relationship between thermal radiation and quanta of light
1905 Mistake in the first proof of E = mc2
1906 Mistakes in the second, third, and fourth proofs of E = mc2
1907 Mistake in the synchronization procedure for accelerated clocks
1907 Mistakes in the Principle of Equivalence of gravitation and acceleration
1911 Mistake in the first calculation of the bending of light
1913 Mistake in the first attempt at a theory of general relativity
1914 Mistake in the fifth proof of E = mc2
1915 Mistake in the Einstein-de Haas experiment
1915 Mistakes in several attempts at theories of general relativity
1916 Mistake in the interpretation of Mach’s principle
1917 Mistake in the introduction of the cosmological constant (the “biggest blunder”)
1919 Mistakes in two attempts to modify general relativity
1925 Mistakes and more mistakes in the attempts to formulate a unified theory
1927 Mistakes in discussions with Bohr on quantum uncertainties
1933 Mistakes in interpretation of quantum mechanics (Does God play dice?)
1934 Mistake in the sixth proof of E = mc2
1939 Mistake in the interpretation of the Schwarzschild singularity and gravitational collapse (the “black hole”)
1946 Mistake in the seventh proof of E = mc2
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2020 19:16:28
Those pictures show the current position of the galaxies.LOL
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/11/2020 19:17:57
he CMBR is a direct outcome from the galaxies radiation in our Universe.Why is it completely the wrong "colour"?
The galaxies emit light. The CMBR is microwave.
Post by: evan_au on 26/11/2020 07:16:27
Quote from: Dave Lev
So, it is very clear that Triangulum Galaxy was emitted from the Andromeda galaxy.Astronomy has the concept of the "Roche Limit":
...Therefore, any galaxy that cross the space had been emitted from it mother galaxy.
- If a small body is held together by its own gravity
- And strays too close to a more massive body (closer than the Roche limit)
- Then the smaller body's gravity is no longer enough for it to be held together, and the smaller body is torn apart.
- It was originally applied to planets and moons; it could explain how an ice moon like Enceledus could get turned into ice rings around Saturn, for example.
- It can't be applied to human-made artificial satellites, because these are held together by bolts and rivets, which are stronger than the gravity of the space probe,
- But it can be applied to galaxies, which are held together by their gravity
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit
If the Triangulum galaxy, as a smaller galaxy was ever within the Roche Limit of Andromeda, then it would have been torn apart, and would not be recognizable as the spiral galaxy that it is today.
This leaves us with a choice of possible explanations. Two of the obvious choices are:
1. If the Triangulum galaxy started off as a tiny galaxy, emitted from Andromeda, then it would have started off inside the Roche limit of Andromeda, and would never have made it out.
2. However, if the Triangulum Galaxy had started out as a fully-formed independent galaxy with its own spiral structure, then it could last many billions of years in orbit around Andromda, or taking a complex path through our local cluster. It would retain its shape and content, provided it didn't stray inside the Roche Limit of a bigger galaxy.
Just by looking at images of the Triangulum Galaxy, we can see that it has never been inside the Roche Limit of a bigger galaxy.
- A Hydrogen thread linking Triangulum and Andromeda suggests that at some point, the outer reaches of the halo around Triangulum entered the Roche Limit of Andromeda galaxy, but the galactic disk never did.
- Clearly the speculation of little galaxies being emitted from big galaxies is flawed, as they would be destroyed by the gravitational field of the larger galaxy before they could escape..
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/11/2020 08:38:52
Astronomy has the concept of the "Roche Limit"It's important to recognise that this isn't just a concept.
It's the way that physics says that matter will behave.
And, it is also what we observe in reality
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet_Shoemaker%E2%80%93Levy_9
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/11/2020 17:13:21
Just by looking at images of the Triangulum Galaxy, we can see that it has never been inside the Roche Limit of a bigger galaxy.As you represent the current knowledge of our scientists - it shows that they have no clue how spiral galaxy really works.
So, let me start by focusing on G Star density in the Spiral Arm:
http://www.solstation.com/stars3/100-gs.htm
"As many as 512 or more stars of spectral type "G" (not including white dwarf stellar remnants) are currently believed to be located within 100 light-years or (or 30.7 parsecs) of Sol -- including Sol itself. Only around 64 are located within 50 light-years (ly), while some 448 are estimated to lie between 50 and 100 light-years -- a volume of space that is seven times as large as the inner sphere within 50 ly of Sol. "
Based on this article:
In a sphere of 100 LY there are 512 G stars, while In a sphere of 50 LY there are 64 G stars.
Our scientists ignore this data, as they don't really understand its real meaning.
However, this data is the MOST important data about the spiral arm.
Let's set a simple calculation:
The volume of 100LY is 8 times bigger than the volume of 50 LY.
512 /8 = 64 G star
Therefore
The average density of G star per any 50 Ly in our aria is 64 stars.
Our scientists see that information - but they think that it is just due to random chance.
Sorry - there is no random chance in the spiral arm.
This density is vital to keep the stars in the arm.
So, we are bonded by gravity to Orion arm and that fixed density of stars keeps us in the arm.
Our scientists came with the imagination of "Density wave theory".
They assume that stars could move in and out from the arm.
They are very wrong about it.
In order for a star to stay in the spiral arm it must be located at an aria with a fixed density.
We are lucky that the Sun still hold itself in the Orion Arm due to that G stars density..
Outside the arm there are relatively big arias with zero stars density.
Therefore, any star that will dare to more outwards from the arm would be kicked away from the spiral arm and from the galactic disc at ultra high velocity.
However, between the arms we might find gateways and bridges of star. That is feasible as long as they keep the requested density.
So, we are located at a distance of 28 KLY from the galactic center.
At this location the thickness of the arm is about 1000LY.
As we look inwards - the arm gets thicker. At the Ring the thickness of the arm is about 3000LY
As we look outwards - the arm get thinner. At the most outwards the thickness is only 400LY.
Our scientists can't explain those densities and thickness.
They clearly know that a SMBH with only 4*10^6 Sun mass can't hold by OM gravity a star at a distance of 28KLY and they are fully correct.
However, as they couldn't explain how Newton gravity force of the ordinary matter could work at spiral galaxy - they came with the imagination that is called - Dark matter.
I hope that we all agree that there is no dark matter in our real Universe.
The dark matter is just a simple statement that our scientists really DON'T KNOW how the spiral galaxy works.
So, the fixed density & thickness proves that there is an order in the spiral galaxy. Each star holed itself in the arm by local gravity forces.
This is a key element in the spiral galaxy.
However, this isn't good enough as we also need to explain the fixed orbital velocity of the star at almost any radius - starting at the ring up to the last point of the arm.
To achieve that fixed (or almost fixed) orbital velocity (at about 220Km/s) stars MUST migrate outwards.
Therefore, as the stars migrate outwards they also move backwards. This creates the Unique shape of the spiral arm.
Therefore, the Idea of the density wave is a pure fiction.
Hence, the Dark matter and the density wave should meet each other at the garbage.
So, we have proved that stars must migrate outwards in order to keep a constant orbital velocity and the spiral shape.
However, as all stars are drifting outwards - new stars must be created at the center of the galaxy.
In order to create new stars - new particles and molecular must be created.
So, the fixed density of the G stars and the thickness in spiral arms are a clear indications that new particles are created by the SMBH as Einstein had stated!!!
This leaves us with a choice of possible explanations. Two of the obvious choices are:Actually there is a third option
1. If the Triangulum galaxy started off as a tiny galaxy, emitted from Andromeda, then it would have started off inside the Roche limit of Andromeda, and would never have made it out.
2. However, if the Triangulum Galaxy had started out as a fully-formed independent galaxy with its own spiral structure, then it could last many billions of years in orbit around Andromda, or taking a complex path through our local cluster. It would retain its shape and content, provided it didn't stray inside the Roche Limit of a bigger galaxy.
3. Triangulum galaxy started off as a tiny BH. Please be aware that just at the center of the Milky Way our scientists observed more than 10,000 BH. All of those BH must migrate outwards. Due to the nature of new created particles, each one of them will increase its mass over time. So, that Tiny Triangulum' BH which had been born near the Andromeda' SMBH found its way outwards from the galaxy. As it drifts outwards it gains more and more mass. At some point it was holding a dwarf galaxy that was orbiting around it Mother - Andromeda. Over time as it moves further away it gains more mass and now it is a Spiral galaxy boy with about 40 B stars.
His Mother - Andromeda looks at him from 782,000 LY and she is very proud from her baby.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/11/2020 17:49:21
. All of those BH must migrate outwards.Things no not fall upwards.
Due to the nature of new created particles, each one of them will increase its mass over time.That is impossible due to the conservation laws.
So, that Tiny Triangulum' BH which had been born near the Andromeda' SMBH found its way outwards from the galaxyNo
Things fall down, not up.
As it drifts outwards it gains more and more mass.That's still a breach of the conservation laws.
Telling the same fairy tale twice does not make it true.
Over time as it moves further away it gains more massA third repeat does not help.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/11/2020 10:04:22
Quote from: Dave Lev on 26/11/2020 17:13:21
. All of those BH must migrate outwards.
Things no not fall upwards.
Well, as there is no dark matter in our real Universe, any star that is located at the spiral arm must hold itself there by gravity.
Therefore, as long as you would believe in that imagination that is called dark matter, you won't understand where is upwards and where is down wards.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 26/11/2020 17:13:21That is impossible due to the conservation laws.
Due to the nature of new created particles, each one of them will increase its mass over time.
It is impossible that as a scientist you keep rejecting Einstein Theory!!!
Einstein had fully confirmed the Idea of New Particle Creation or in short.
This Theory should be called - ENPC Theory (Einstein New Particle Created)
You don't have to argue with me.
Now you face Mr Einstein.
He had confirmed the idea of new created particles in our Universe:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)"
"As for why Einstein was so intent on maintaining the use of his discarded lambda, the constant represents the energy of empty space — a powerful notion — and Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
So, if you still think that he is wrong with this idea, then it is your problem.
I fully agree with him that it is feasible!!!
This Theory is the based for the entire Universe.
It gives perfect answer for any observation in small and in large scale.
From now on I have no intention to argue with you any more about the ENPC theory as this theory is Einstein Theory. .
However, you are more than welcome to offer any sort of observation that based on your understanding should knock down that Einstein Theory.
So, as Einstein ENPC theory explains the entire Universe at very small scale and at very large scale, let's compare it to the BBT
A. Spiral galaxy
In order to explain the spiral galaxy our scientists are using two main imaginations which are called - Dark matter and Density wave.
Let's see how those imaginations could help for the spiral galaxy shape
1. 3KPC Ring - Those two imaginations theories and the BBT can't offer any explanation for this ring in the spiral galaxy.
2. Bar - Same issue. Those two imagination ideas can't explain it
3. Fixed density of G stars at the spiral arms - Those two imaginations also can't explain it
4. Thickness of the Arm (3,000Ly at the Ring and only 400 Ly at the further most location of the arm) - Same answer. Those two imaginations can't explain this observation.
5. SMBH is a picky eater - Those two imaginations and the BBT can't really explain how could it be that the SMBH is so massive while it ejects outwards most of its food.
6. Ultra high Hydrogen concentration near the SMBH - Those two imaginations and the BBT can't explain why most of the free Hydrogen in the whole galaxy is concentrated near the SMBH.
7. Spiral shape - in order to show that the density wave could create the spiral shape our scientists have used a simulation which starts at a very thin and concentrated disc full with stars. That starting point is imagination. In real Universe the galaxy can't start from that point. In any case, it takes several cycles to achieve the image of the spiral. However, as they continue with the simulation, the spiral shape breaks down. So, just for a very short brief of time they have got the spiral shape. Therefore it is clear that the dark matter and the density wave imaginations including the BBT can't offer real explanation to the spiral shape.
Dark matter - Our scientists didn't find any real observation for that imagination. As they have no clue how spiral galaxy works, they just invent an idea of dark matter while for almost each galaxy they need to use a special formula of that imagination.
How long are you going to believe in that fiction?
A third repeat does not help.A third repeat does not help. Einstein Theory is the Ultimate answer for our Universe as it gives perfect fit to ANY observation.
So again - please feel free to show any contradiction.
In any case, let's close the small scale understanding based on Andromeda and Triangular
The following image represents the Highlight of the new born galaxy activity in our Universe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Collision_paths_of_our_Milky_Way_galaxy_and_the_Andromeda_galaxy.jpg
We clearly see that Triangulum still orbits around its mother - Andromeda while they are located at 782,000 Ly away from each other.
They are still connected to each other by umbilical cord that we call Hydrogen bridge
That umbilical cord flows Triangulum as it still orbits around Andromeda and drifts away from it.
Therefore, we can claim the following:
Van - Velocity vector of Andromeda as it cross the open space.
Vtr - Velocity vector of Triangulum
While
Vtr = Van + Vtr-c
Vtr-c = The current orbital velocity vector of Triangulum around Andromeda.
At some point of time Triangulum would be totally disconnect from its Mother and cross the open space with the last orbital momentum that it might get from Andromeda.
At that time we would be able to claim that Triangulum is crossing the space at the following velocity:
Vtr = Van + Vtr-f
Vtr-f = Final drifting velocity of Triangulum from Andromeda.
Therefore
Any galaxy in the Universe is based on its mother velocity + the ejected velocity.
The current distance between Triangulum to Andromeda is 782,000LY.
Let assume that when the distance would be 1 M LY Triangulum would be totally disconnect from the gravity of his mother - Andromeda
That distance is called D-f (Final distance to disconnect from the Mother gravity force)
At that moment we can claim that:
Vtr = Van + Vtr-f.
We know that Van = 700Km/s
Let's assume that Vtr-f = 200Km/s (and it is exactly in the same direction as Van velocity vector)
Hence
Vtr = 700Km + 200Kms = 900 Km/sec
If Vtr-f is in the opposite direction of Van
Then
Vtr = 700 - 200 = 500 Km/s
So, we clearly see that galaxies are moving in space as Rocket Over Rocket.
The direction of the final ejection would set the total final velocity ofa galaxy.
Hence
In the Future, the baby galaxy (let's call it Ba galaxy) of Triangulum would cross the space at
Vba = Vtr + Vba-f = Van + Vtr-f + Vba-f
Hence, the Velocity of Andromeda would be the base on the entire density of baby galaxies over babies to come.
The final ejection from a baby galaxy from its Mother would set the final velocity vector of a galaxy.
However, we still need to understand how long it took to Triangulum in order to evolve from a tiny BH which had been born near the core of its Mather - Andromeda.
This time is called - Tgl (The time that it takes to form full Spiral galaxy from a tiny BH)
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/11/2020 10:06:26
QuoteQuoteAgain, where do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?
a galaxy with redshift of 13 that is moving away from us at a velocity of 13 times the speed of light. (Based ob Hubble law this galaxy is located at 221Gly away from us).
Let's go back in time up to the Infinity.
Let's assume that due to a Big Bang one tiny BH had been created in the empty infinite Universe.
Let's also assume that the velocity vector of that first BH with regards to the space was zero.
Based on Einstein ENPC Theory, that BH would increase its mass over time.
At some point it would become a massive spiral galaxy with large no of baby galaxies around it.
Each one of those new born galaxies would be ejected randomly to different direction.
So, each baby galaxy will be ejected from his mother at a velocity which is Vab-f
In order for him to be mature, the minimal time that is requested is Tgl.
At the time its distance to his mother would be D-f (based on Andromeda Triangulum example that distance is 1Mly)
In order to understand how our universe works in large scale, let's assume that at least one baby galaxy is ejected at the same direction as its mother.
Let's also assume that the final ejection velocity vector is fixed for all the new born galaxies.
So, after the second Generations grandchild Galaxy would move away from his grandmother galaxy (which is considered as the first galaxy) at a velocity which is equal to 2 * Vba-f.
The minimal time that is needed to set that grandchild is equal to 2 * Tgl.
However, the distance from the first galaxy is based on the following formula:
D(distance for the second generation) = Tgl * Vba-f + 2* D-f
The age of the Universe at that time would be = 2* Tgl
So, after n Generations we get a universe with the following feature:
Universe Age = n * Tgl
V(velocity of the n baby with regards to the first galaxy) = n * Vba-f.
D(Distance of the last baby with regards to the first galaxy) = (n-1)Tgl^ (n * Vba-f) + n* D-f
As D-f = 1Mly
D(Distance of the last baby with regards to the first galaxy) = (n-1)Tgl^ (n * Vba-f) + n* 100Mly
That formula represents the expansion of galaxies in space.
After 10,000 generations -
Age = 10,000 * Tgl
V(velocity of the n baby with regards to the first galaxy) = 10,000 * Vba-f.
If Vba-f = 200Kms/sec than
V = 10,000* 200Km/s = 2BKm/s
D(Distance of the last baby with regards to the first galaxy) = (9,999)Tgl^ (10,000 * Vba-f) + 10,000* 100Mly
D = (9,999)Tgl^ (10,000 * Vba-f) + 10Bly
Now, let's go back to Halc question:
Quote
Again, where do you think that galaxy was 14 billion years ago?
Well, Hubble law is just estimation.
a galaxy with a redshift of 13 is surly moving away at velocity which is 13 times the speed of light.
However, the correct distance to that galaxy is not clear to us.
It is based on the following formula.
D(Distance of the last baby with regards to the first galaxy) = (n-1)Tgl^ (n * Vba-f) + n* D-f
However, that is the distance to the first galaxy.
As all the galaxies in the Universe might be created from that single first BH/galaxy, and all of them are moving randomly to any direction it is very difficult to estimate the real distance to that specific galaxy relative to our location.
So, if is is moving 13 times the speed of light, then 14 By ago it was closer by 13*14BLY with regards to its current location.
However, as we don't know how far it is located today, we can't know how far it was 14 By ago
Post by: evan_au on 28/11/2020 10:43:30
Quote from: Dave Lev
let's assume that at least one baby galaxy is ejected at the same direction as its mother.This assumption violates the observation that the Triangulum galaxy is in orbit around the Andromeda galaxy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2020 11:53:19
Well, as there is no dark matter in our real UniverseIf you are going to say that, you have to provide a credible alternative to explain the observations of things like spiral galaxies.
All you have done is post nonsense.
Einstein Theory is the Ultimate answer for our Universe as it gives perfect fit to ANY observation.Sure.
So again - please feel free to show any contradiction.
If that theory fitted the data, we would be using it.
It doesn't.
So the "observation" you ask for is simply- "The Universe".
The biggest most obvious contradiction is that it breaks the conservation of energy/ mass.
You keep trying to pretend that isn't a problem but it is.
It's mathematically proven to be true.
So you need to show an error in Noether's maths (and you aren't going to do that, because you don't understand it.
You really should stop now.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/11/2020 18:26:13
You have missed the following image from NasaQuote from: Dave Levlet's assume that at least one baby galaxy is ejected at the same direction as its mother.This assumption violates the observation that the Triangulum galaxy is in orbit around the Andromeda galaxy.
Please look again at that image. We clearly see the expected circular movment of Triangulum around Andromeda in the time to come. That circular movment represents the orbital momentum of Triangulum around Andromeda.
n any case, let's close the small scale understanding based on Andromeda and Triangular
The following image represents the Highlight of the new born galaxy activity in our Universe.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/16/Collision_paths_of_our_Milky_Way_galaxy_and_the_Andromeda_galaxy.jpg
We clearly see that Triangulum still orbits around its mother - Andromeda while they are located at 782,000 Ly away from each other.
I have already did as follow:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:04:22If you are going to say that, you have to provide a credible alternative to explain the observations of things like spiral galaxies.
Well, as there is no dark matter in our real Universe
All you have done is post nonsense.
Once they accept the idea of new creation particles - they will know how suppermassive black holes reached their current size without eating any matter for outside.
They would know that new particles pair are created near the event of horizon. Both with positive Mass but with carry negative charged with regards to each other.
They would know how that the supper massive BH eats one particle out of the two and ejects the other one to the accretion disc. Therefore, it is called - picky eater.
So it isn't a picky eater as it is eating 50% from all the new particles that it generates.
That 50% of the falling in particles converts a tinny BH into a Supper massive BH over time.
Therefore, the accretion disc should be called as the Excretion disc.
Our scientists would know why most of the Hydrogen atoms in the galaxy are located near the SMBH (mainly in those giant gas clouds as G1-G6).
They would know that the new stars that are formed in those gas clouds are drifting outwards.
In this process, they set the shape of the spiral arms.
No need for dark matter for that.
The OM is good enough to support any spiral galaxy.
So how it really works?
1. New born stars
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)"
The aria near the SMBH is full with gas cloud, new born stars and BH The central bulge is pack with Billions of new born stars and dust. We clearly see the new born star forming activity in the gas cloud G1-G6 near the SMBH.
2. Stars outside the galaxy - for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside. Actually, there are more stars outside the galaxies than in the galaxies. All of those stars could be created only in the galaxy.
Hence, over time all the stars which had been created in the Bulge near the SMBH would be ejected outwards from the galaxy.
3. Binary star system - Braycenter
Our scientists claim that based on clear observation all the new born stars in the gas clouds (as G1 to G6) share a braycenter with at least one more star. So, it is exected that also our Sun should have a twin star/BH and they orbit around their Braycenter.
4. Rotational Curve
In order to understand how the siral galaxy works, let's understand the data of the Rotational Curve
Let's look at the following diagram:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Decomposition-of-the-rotation-curve-of-the-Milky-Way-into-the-components-bulge-stellar_fig4_45893184
A. Bulge - Up to 1KPC
At that stage each star orbits at different direction and at relatively high velocity. Most of the orbital cycles are elliptical.
We see that at the bar the dispersion in the orbital velocity of the stars is quite minimal. The radius of the Bulge is 1KPC which is equivalent to 3,000Ly
B. 3KPC ring. At this location the orbital velocity is the minimal (about 180Km/s)
The thickness of the ring is 1KPC (which is 3,00LY - similar to the radius of the Bulge)
C. Bar - 1KPC to 3KPC
At this stage the stars gets the flatness of the galactic disc.
As they drift outwards from the Bulge (1KPC) to the ring (3KPC) the thickness stay at a maximal level of 1Kpc.
So, the Bar acts as funnel that delivers the stars from the Bulge to the Ring.
It is also important to highlight that at the ring all the stars orbits in almost perfect circular radius (3KPC) around the center. So, from mainly elliptical orbit around the center all the stars at the ring are orbiting in almost a perfect circular.
The ring itself is full with stars. There are no gaps between the stars in that ring. This is very vital for the functionality of the spiral galaxy.
D. First section of the Spiral arms - 3KPC to about 4.5 KPC
At that section the velocity of the stars starts to increase from the Minimal 180Km/s to the maximal velocity of about 220Km/s. However, please remember that the thickness of the arm is decreasing as we move outwards. At 3K C the thickness is 1KPC (3000LY)
F. Mid section of the Spiral arms - 4.5KPC to about 9KPC.
The velocity stays almost the same at about 220Km/s. However, we know that at 9KPC (our location) the thickness drops to only 1,000Ly
E. Last section of the arm - 9KPC to about 15KPC
We clearly see a dispersion in the orbital velocity from almost 150 Km/s till 230Km/s
Please be aware that at the end of the spiral arm (12KPC to 15KPC) the thickness could drop to almost 400LY.
F. After the Spiral arms - All the stars that had been ejected from the arms are now moving upwards or downwards relatively to the galactic disc.
Now for the explanation of this observation
The density wave theory can't explain that full observation of velocity and thickness relative to the radius.
Our scientists don't know how the Bar had been formed and what is its main function in the galaxy.
So, how the Einstein ENPC and Newton gravity force are working at spiral galaxy?
The Ring is the main element of the spiral galaxy.
All the stars in that ring sets significant gravity force inwards and outwards.
Therefore, any star that gets to the end of the Bulge (1KPC) stars to feel the impact of the ring Gravity force.
As the stars is moving to the direction of the Ring (in the Bar section), the gravity force of the SMBH is decreasing while the gravity force of the Ring is increasing. Therefore, the orbital velocity of the star is decreasing from almost 230m/s at the edge of the Bulge to about 180Km/s at the Ring.
The Bar acts as a funnel which delivers new stars to the Ring, while each star finds its location in the ring as a falling ball in a Rolette.
Once the star gets to the ring it is gravity bonded to the inwards side of the ring and adds its mass gravity to the ring.
However, at the same time other stars at the outwards side of the ring drifts outwards to the direction of the Spiral arms.
Therefore, the total stars mass in the ring is more or less constant.
That ring holds by gravity all the spiral arms around it.
If the ring will break, the spiral arms would be disconnected from the galaxy.
With regards to the orbital velocity at the spiral arm:
Let's start with the assumption that the arm is rigid.
So, each star stays at the same location/radius at the arm during all his life time.
Let's assume that S1 is located at R1
Hence
P1 = 2π R
If the rigid disc sets one full cycle in T time, then the orbital velocity of S1 is:
V1 = P1/T
For S2 which is located at a radius R2 = 1.1R1, we get:
P2 = 2π R2 = 2π 1.1R1 = 1.1P1
Therefore, the orbital velocity of S2 is:
V2 = P2/T = 1.1V1
So, it is clear that if the orbital velocity of S2 is higher than the velocity of S1 by 1.1.
This represents a Rigid disc.
However, the spiral arm isn't rigid.
The stars in the arm are always drifting outwards.
Therefore, in order to keep the same orbital velocity at any spot in the spiral arms, the distance that a star should cross at any given moment of time should be fixed.
Therefore, for example let assume that:
S1 is located very close to the ring (radius R1) and set full cycle at time T
The distance that it crosses in T is:
P1 = 2π R1
In order for S2 which is located at a radius of R2 = 1.1R1 to move exactly at the same velocity as S1, it must cross the same distance as S1 and at the same time.
Hence,
For V1 to be equal to V2 we must set the following:
P2 = P1 = 2π R1 = 2π R2/1.1.
So, while S1 sets full cycle, S2 sets 1/1.1 = 0.9 cycle
That is the based for the spiral shape.
The stars are drifting outwards in the spiral arm and by doing so, they decrease their orbital velocity (with regards to rigid arm).
As the stars are drifting outwards the density of G stars should go down and the thickness of the arm should be lower.
As the stars get to the end of the arm, the local gravity is too weak to hold them in the arm. Therefore they should be disconnected from the arm and from the galactic disc.
Please be aware that the gravity force outside the arm would be too low to hold the star.
Therefore, if a star would drift outwards the arm it will be ejected from the galaxy as a rocket.
Actually, the sun is located quite close to the edge of the Orion Arm (about 200Ly?).
If we would look carefully, we won't find any star after that edge till the nearby arm. It is a desert over there. I hope that we won't come too close to that edge as we might be kicked out from the arm.
Once we understand that, we actually understand how spiral galaxy really works.
So the "observation" you ask for is simply- "The Universe".
The biggest most obvious contradiction is that it breaks the conservation of energy/ mass.
If you consider the conservation of energy/ mass as observation, then it is better for you to find better job.
In any case this is the last time that I respond to that kind of message as you and all the BBT scientists shouldn't reject Einstein ENPC Theory!
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/11/2020 18:42:32
If you consider the conservation of energy/ mass as observation, then it is better for you to find better job.Well, there are two things there.
The first is that energy/mass conservation is observed.
The other thing is that I'm not relying on observation.
It has been proved mathematically to be true.
Once they accept the idea of new creation particlesI said "credible".
That's not a description you can apply to something which is proven to be wrong.
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)"That's an interesting phenomenon.
You do realise that it shows that the continuous generation idea is wrong, don't you?
Because that idea relies on particles (and thus stars) being generated evenly spread throughout the universe.
There should be no "hot spots", should there?
Who would they be chosen?
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16
Why do you think that particles and stars should be generated evenly?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 28/11/2020 18:26:13That's an interesting phenomenon.
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours)"
You do realise that it shows that the continuous generation idea is wrong, don't you?
Because that idea relies on particles (and thus stars) being generated evenly spread throughout the universe.
There should be no "hot spots", should there?
Who would they be chosen?
Each galaxy in the Universe would generate the no. of stars that it can generate.
Some might be very productive and some much less.
Therefore we get the following One-year WMAP image of background cosmic radiation (2003).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilkinson_Microwave_Anisotropy_Probe#/media/File:Baby_Universe.jpg
We clearly see some "hot spots" and some "cold spots".
With regards to the CMBR.
You have stated that the CMBR is actually a microwave.
Each galaxy in the Universe radiates its unique microwave radiation.
As that radiation can cross longer distances than light, we get that radiation from further away galaxies.
Therefore, we can get this kind of radiation from very far away galaxies that carry a redshift of up to 1100.
The sum of all the radiations in each direction sets the final amplitude of the CMBR.
Please be aware that there are galaxies with redshift of 10,000 or above 100,000.
However, they are located too far even for the microwave radiation, so they have no real impact of the total CMBR sum that we observe.
As a BBT believer, how do you dare to carry the flag of energy/mass conservation?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 28/11/2020 18:26:13Well, there are two things there.
If you consider the conservation of energy/ mass as observation, then it is better for you to find better job.
The first is that energy/mass conservation is observed.
The other thing is that I'm not relying on observation.
It has been proved mathematically to be true.
Can you please Prove mathematically the energy/mass conservation for the BBT?
We all know that the BBT does not offer any real science solution for that problem.
Some Scientists claim that at the early time the physics of law didn't work and therefore, we could get that energy for free.
Some claim that it isn't our problem to deal with it as the BBT starts after the bang.
Some other claim that God has delivered the requested energy. So, God was responsible to deliver the Energy and the BBT scientists are responsible to show how the Universe works after getting that energy from God.
I don't know which kind of overview do support.
For those people who believe in God I can tell that if God could deliver the energy before the bang, why he can't also deliver the energy after the bang. If God could deliver so much energy in a brief of moment for the BBT Theory, why he can't deliver just few particles for Einstein theory?.
For those people who claim that it is not their problem to deal with the energy issue before the BBT, I would advice to continue with this approach after the BBT.
For those people that claim that the science law didn't work before the Bang I would advice not to use the science law after the bang..
In any case, even if somehow based on the BBT we get that energy free of charge and bypass the energy/mass conservation law, our scientists would still have the following problems:
1. They can't tell us what is the total energy that is needed to create the OM by the BBT as they don't have a clue what is the real size of the Universe.
2. They can't tell us if the energy that had been given to us includes also the energies of dark matter and dark energy.
3. If the darkness energies were already there, how each energy knew the function of its destiny? Why 70% of the energy had been transformed to dark energy, 26% to dark matter and ONLY 4% to OM? What kind of science law split the functionality of the energies just to meet our exaltations for spiral galaxies and acceleration in the expansion.
Sorry, the BBT does not represent any sort of real science.
It is pure imagination as it does not offer any real science law for that flag of energy/mass conservation.
However, Einstein clearly offers a valid science law.
He claims that by using very minor cosmological constant in his formula, new particles could be created.
So, we have real Einstein formula which shows that new particles could be created, while based on the BBT our scientists can't offer a real formula even for one new particle creation.
Therefore, from now on, when you hear the energy/mass conservation law - please grab all the BBT believers and hide under the table or in a shelter.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 11:56:57
In the following article it is stated that:
https://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2014/1028/Do-Catholics-have-to-believe-in-the-Big-Bang-now
"In fact, it was a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaître, who in 1927 first proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory. Later, Pope Pius XII asserted evolution and Catholic doctrine are not contrary, and St. John Paul II backed him."
So, we might consider that the Catholic Church supports the BBT as it is even stated:
"Pope Francis splashed in controversial waters Monday, saying the Big Bang theory supports evidence of a divine creator."
However, in that article it is stated that after all the pope doesn't support the BBT as:
"The beginning of the world was not chaotic, he continued, but rooted in love. And beliefs in creation and evolution can co-exist".
"God is not a divine being or a magician, but the Creator who brought everything to life," the pope said. "Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve."
I fully support that breakthrough understanding that The beginning of the world was not chaotic and the Evolution in nature is not inconsistent with the notion of creation, because evolution requires the creation of beings that evolve..
Wow what a great message!!!
No room for chaotic beginning in the Universe as a big Bang but evolution in nature which fully correlated with Einstein theory of new particles in order to show how the Universe had been evolved.
Actually, the BBT contradicts the existence of God.
Based on the BBT, the Universe that we see today would be expended to the infinity in the Future.
The space would come back to the darkness as all the galaxies would move away from each other.
At some point of time we won't see any galaxy in the open space, while most of the stars would die.
So, based on the BBT the whole creation of the Universe would be destroy in the Future.
Anyone who believes in God does understand that this is not an option.
God wouldn't allow the Universe to fall back into darkness as the galaxies are moving away from each other.
Therefore, Einstein theory for New created particles should keep our universe forever and ever.
That theory proves that the Universe is infinity in time and space as in each new created particle there is a finger of God.
Therefore, Einstein ENPC is the ultimate Theory for the evolvement of the Universe and fully correlated to the Pope vision and for anyone that believes in God.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/12/2020 13:32:43
Why do you think that particles and stars should be generated evenly?I already told you that- and you quoted it.
But you didn't answer the question it raises.
There should be no "hot spots", should there?
Who would they be chosen by?
As a BBT believer, how do you dare to carry the flag of energy/mass conservation?I already explained that.
Can you please Prove mathematically the energy/mass conservation for the BBT?
The maths allows departures from the law of conservation if, and only if, there is a break in temporal symmetry.
The Start of the Universe is such a break.
If the Universe has an end then that would be another.
But that's it.
Those two events are the only "free passes" you get.
Now, back to the point.
How do you avoid it?
Each galaxy in the Universe radiates its unique microwave radiation.Yes, So do you and I, so does the Sun and they are all clearly different from the CMBR. They are, obviously all irrelevant.
As that radiation can cross longer distances than light,No, light and microwaves have the same range. Why do you say things like that?
Don't you realise that the scientists will point out that you are posting nonsense?
Do you enjoy being laughed at?
Therefore, we can get this kind of radiation from very far away galaxies that carry a redshift of up to 1100.There can't be a "therefore" which is based on a falsehood.
You must be a real joy in the pub "two plus two is five therefore you owe me a drink".
The sum of all the radiations in each direction sets the final amplitude of the CMBR.that's impossible.
Please be aware that there are galaxies with redshift of 10,000 or above 100,000.
However, they are located too far even for the microwave radiation, so they have no real impact of the total CMBR sum that we observe.
The spectrum of microwaves is wrong.
Again; you are ignoring the facts.
We all know that the BBT does not offer any real science solution for that problem
It offers a perfectly good explanation.
The trouble is that you can't understand it.
We are back to the root problem here; You suffer from D K syndrome.
Some Scientists claim that at the early time the physics of law didn't work and therefore, we could get that energy for free.And the scientists who actually understand the conservation law say- correctly- that it does not apply in the case where time is unsymmetrical.
Some claim that it isn't our problem to deal with it as the BBT starts after the bang.
Some other claim that God has delivered the requested energy. So, God was responsible to deliver the Energy and the BBT scientists are responsible to show how the Universe works after getting that energy from God.
Why did you ignore the real science?
Or is it just that you can't understand it?
Some other claim that God has ...A scientist who claims that God might have done something would need to start by proving that there is a God.
That hasn't happened yet.
Do you understand that "Godidit" isn't science?
For those people who believe in God I can tell that if God could deliver the energy before the bang, why he can't also deliver the energy after the bang. If God could deliver so much energy in a brief of moment for the BBT Theory, why he can't deliver just few particles for Einstein theory?.Again, you have missed out the actual scientists.
For those people who claim that it is not their problem to deal with the energy issue before the BBT, I would advice to continue with this approach after the BBT.
For those people that claim that the science law didn't work before the Bang I would advice not to use the science law after the bang..
We know that the conservation law depends on a symmetry and that symmetry is not present at the instant of the big bang.
It's the same law saying the same thing.
If you have symmetry you have conservation.
If you don't have symmetry you don't have conservation.
Do you not see that?
It's not helpful when you ignore the actual scientific explanation; why do you do it?
They can't tell us what is the total energy that is needed to create the OM by the BBT as they don't have a clue what is the real size of the Universe.Nor do you; but at least science knows that it doesn't know.
You on the other hand, are pretending that you know what happens outside the observable universe.
The grown ups know that you must be making that up because... it isn't observable.
They can't tell us if the energy that had been given to us includes also the energies of dark matter and dark energy.We can; it has. That's what the observations show us.
What kind of science law split the functionality of the energies just to meet our exaltations for spiral galaxies and acceleration in the expansion.One which makes deductions from observations, rather than making up impossible tosh.
However, Einstein clearly offers a valid science law.Close, but you have it the wrong way round.
He claims that by using very minor cosmological constant in his formula, new particles could be created.
He said that if we had spontaneous generation of particles then we could add a constant to the formula.
However, we know that the generation of new particles is impossible.
So we know he was wrong.
Therefore, from now on, when you hear the energy/mass conservation law - please grab all the BBT believers and hide under the table or in a shelter.
Are you familiar with the works of Douglas Adams- a comic writer?
https://hitchhikers.fandom.com/wiki/The_Outside_of_the_Asylum
You think you are Wonko the sane.
I hope that by now we all understand that the BBT is none relevant theory.I hope that you learn the difference between "none" and "non".
I also hope that you learn some science one day.
So, we might consider that the Catholic Church supports the BBTWhy would science care what a man in a dress thinks?
He believes in resurrection and virgin birth as well as nonsense about turning water into wine.
I fully support that breakthrough understanding that The beginning of the world was not chaoticThe scientists, on the other hand support belief in evidence.
Actually, the BBT contradicts the existence of God.Not really, but it hardly matters.
If it did, then I rather suspect we would have heard before now.
And also we would be hearing it from someone who actually understands the BBT.
You don't.
Anyone who believes in God does understand that this is not an option.That's their problem; not science's.
It's no different in principle from all the other suffering.
Anyway, before you can use "God" as a basis for any argument, you have to prove that He exists.
Good luck with that.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52
How those grownups "scientists" could offer a theory for a Universe without knowing its size???QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16Nor do you; but at least science knows that it doesn't know.
They can't tell us what is the total energy that is needed to create the OM by the BBT as they don't have a clue what is the real size of the Universe.
You on the other hand, are pretending that you know what happens outside the observable universe.
The grown ups know that you must be making that up because... it isn't observable.
That by itself proves that they aren't grownups yet and their theory is useless.
Actually, we all know why those grownups avoid that key question.
The BBT is a theory for a fairly compact Universe.
Just few years ago those grownups were very sure that its maximal size is 92BY. They even called it "Observable" just to confuse us.
Now our scientists clearly know that it must be bigger than that. In one article it was stated 256BY, in other 1Trillion Year and even infinity.
I hope that those grownups know that the BBT can't fit for infinity Universe.
Actually, it can't fit even for the 92Bly universe..
So, again as they clearly don't know - please don't claim that they know. Without clear message about the size of the Universe any theory is just nonsense!!!
Based on Einstein ENPC, the universe must be INFINITE.
We can discuss if it meets the observation or not, but you have a clear size.
However, as the BBT doesn't offer any real size - we shouldn't even consider it as a theory.
Please - as long as those grownups refuse to offer a size for our Universe - any size, that theory should be set on hold at the garbage site.
Hence, any real scientist in the whole planet shouldn't even consider the BBT as an alternative theory - while it can't offer a size for the Universe.
From this moment - lets agree that a theory for a Universe without size is a useless Theory!
Sorry - that is a pure Nonsense.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16I already explained that.
As a BBT believer, how do you dare to carry the flag of energy/mass conservation?
Can you please prove mathematically the energy/mass conservation for the BBT?
The maths allows departures from the law of conservation if, and only if, there is a break in temporal symmetry.
The Start of the Universe is such a break.
If the Universe has an end then that would be another.
But that's it.
Those two events are the only "free passes" you get.
So you actually confirm that in order to get the energy for the BBT, you must "departure from the law of conservation"!
Hence, based on the law of conservation you fully confirm that no energy could be supply for the BBT.
However, you give the BBT a waiver from that law by some imagination that is called "symmetry":
We know that the conservation law depends on a symmetry and that symmetry is not present at the instant of the big bang.
It's the same law saying the same thing.
If you have symmetry you have conservation.
If you don't have symmetry you don't have conservation.
Hence, based on your Knowledge the "symmetry is not present at the instant of the big bang".
How do you dare to claim that kind of message?
How do you know that the "symmetry is not present at the instant of the big bang" while we don't know if there was a big bang 14 BY ago?
Had you been there? Do we have a record for that Asymmetry?
Sorry - this is one more wrong message from scientist which have no clue how our Universe really works.
In any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.
Please remember that Einstein told us that
M= Ec^2
Hence, for one unite of mass, you need to multiply the energy by c^2.
So, in order to qualify your unrealistic BBT theory you mission is to estimate the total mass in the entire Universe
Let's assume that the size of our Universe is just 92BLY (just in order to make it easy for you).
Try to find how many galaxies there are in this sphere. Please don't forget that for any star in a galaxy, there must be at least one outside.
Please advice the total Ordinary matter in that universe size and multiply it by c^2.
We also know that 99.99..9 of the new created particles after the bang had been eliminated each other.
So, that total mass represents only the 0.000..1 from the energy that was needed for the BBT.
Therefore, the energy that was needed for the BBT in order to set the ordinary matter is:
E = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1)
Add to that imaginary energy, the Dark Matter and the dark energy
E (for the BBT) = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1) + Dark matter energy + Dark Energy
Now find the Math that would confirm the Asymmetry delivery of such energy free of charge.
However, don't forget that even if you would prove by Math that this energy is achievable, you can convert it to real particle without Electromagnetic transformation.
As in the Early Universe which is based on Asymmetry there were no transformation tools - you won't be able to set even one particle with that energy.
If this is not good enough for you, let's discuss on the expansion/inflation of the space.
Please be aware that the space is fixed.
There is no way to expand the space even by one Pico millimeter. Not in small scale and not in large scale..
We also know that nothing could move faster than the speed of light.
However, in order to believe in the BBT based on the inflation theory the Universe was expanding at 50 billion times the speed of light.
Please show the math that confirms that imagination.
Hence - it's time to stop the whole BBT imagination. Why don't you set it in the garbage???
There is a difference between visible Light to Microwave in the frequencies and in the photon energy.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16No, light and microwaves have the same range. Why do you say things like that?
As that radiation can cross longer distances than light,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microwave
So, although Microwaves travel by line-of-sight at the speed of light it has different characteristics from visable light.
Based on those different characteristics we can measure the microwave energy from very far away galaxies.
Sorry, there is no error in the microwave spectrum.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 30/11/2020 18:17:16that's impossible.
The sum of all the radiations in each direction sets the final amplitude of the CMBR.
Please be aware that there are galaxies with redshift of 10,000 or above 100,000.
However, they are located too far even for the microwave radiation, so they have no real impact of the total CMBR sum that we observe.
The spectrum of microwaves is wrong.
Again; you are ignoring the facts.
A redshift of 1100 indicates that the radiation arrives from a very far away location.
So you are ignoring the facts.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/12/2020 11:23:13
How do you dare to insulate the Pope Francis and the Catholic Church Customs?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:56:57Why would science care what a man in a dress thinks?
So, we might consider that the Catholic Church supports the BBT
He believes in resurrection and virgin birth as well as nonsense about turning water into wine.
His wisdom is much superior than yours.
There might be millions or even billions of people that might also be insulted from your message.
Please - you have to apologize.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2020 11:29:38
You forgot to answer the question.How do you dare to insulate the Pope Francis and the Catholic Church Customs?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:56:57Why would science care what a man in a dress thinks?
So, we might consider that the Catholic Church supports the BBT
He believes in resurrection and virgin birth as well as nonsense about turning water into wine.
His wisdom is much superior than yours.
There might be millions or even billions of people that might also be insulted from your message.
Please - you have to apologize.
Why would science care what a man in a dress thinks?
He believes in resurrection and virgin birth as well as nonsense about turning water into wine.
There's no reason why I should apologise for asking a question and making a statement.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/12/2020 11:45:02
Sorry, there is no error in the microwave spectrum.If the CMBR was made of a hotchpotch of different sources at different times it would have a variety of wavelengths and intensities.
A redshift of 1100 indicates that the radiation arrives from a very far away location.
So you are ignoring the facts.
It would not be the same in all directions.
But it is actually the spectrum of a black body at a single temperature.
That's the important fact here, and you are ignoring it.
Because of that fact, we know you are wrong.
How do you dare to claim that kind of message?No "daring" is required.
It's obvious.
If the universe had a "start" then time after that start is not the same as "time before that start" (which does not exist).
That breaks the symmetry and permits a breach of the law of conservation.
Since nothing else permits such a breach, we know there must have been a start,.
There is a difference between visible Light to Microwave in the frequencies and in the photon energy.Yes, and you should understand that I already know that so you should realise that you don't need to post that.
And you should realise that , since I know that, you pointing it out can not change my view on the issue.
So why did you waste your time typing it?
Are you not clever enough to follow simple deductive logic?
Incidentally, light and microwaves have the same range.
You are wrong to say otherwise.
n any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
there were no transformation toolsNone is needed.
We also know that nothing could move faster than the speed of light.In which case Olber's paradox proves that the universe is finite in extent or age.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/12/2020 21:25:26
Let's make it clear - the BBT is useless without clear information about the size of the Universe.
As the BBT can't specify the real size if the Universe, then this theory is Nonsense.
If you can't tell us what the size of the Universe is - we can't verify if the BBT is correct or incorrect.
Therefore, this BBT theory is useless and we just wasting our time on irrelevant theory.
In any case, let me prove why the BBT is not relevant also based on the following aspects:
CMBR
If the CMBR was made of a hotchpotch of different sources at different times it would have a variety of wavelengths and intensities.Our scientists have already confirmed that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous in long scale.
It would not be the same in all directions.
Therefore, we actually get almost the same CMBR radiation from all directions.
However, as the galaxies clusters in the space are not fully identical in all directions there is minor variations in the CMBR..
This is the ultimate answer why we observe cold and hot spots in the CMBR at different directions.
Distance - Based on the BBT if we look all the way to the left, we might see a galaxy (let's call it Galaxy A) at a maximal distance of about 13.4 BLY. The same issue when we look at the left and we see a galaxy B. So, we might consider that the distance between the one in the left (A) to the one in the right (B) is 26.8 BLY.
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.
They tell us that it is due to curvature in the Universe.
So, if that is correct, then this curvature sets the maximal size of the Universe.
Therefore, our scientists should tell us what is the maximal size of the Universe.
At some point of time they have estimated that in order to keep A next to B, the maximal the size of the Universe should be 92BLY (Radius of 46 BLY).
Surprisingly, now they do understand that the Universe must be much bigger than that.
This sets a sever contradiction to the BBT.
If the Universe is 1Trillion LY, 256BLY or even infinite, the idea that A is located next to B is incorrect.
So, our scientists bypass this issue.
Therefore please answer the following:
1. Do you confirm that 13.4BY ago Galaxy A was next to galaxy B.
2. So what is the maximal Universe size that could support this imagination? As our scientists claim that the size of the Universe could be much bigger than those 96BLY, please explain how can you set A Next to B while the Universe size is 256BLY or even 1 Trillion LY.
3. What is the real meaning of curvature in the Universe space?
You have stated that the Curvature in space is similar to a curvature in the planet surface. However, in the planet we can specify the radius as the curvature of a 3rd dimension for the 2D surface.
So, please specify the size of the 4th dimension of the Universe space in order to set that kind of curvature.
4. As the Curvature set a finite Universe, what there is outside that Universe space? As you claim that the expansion is in the space itself, than 13.8 years ago there was no space in the whole Universe. So please how could it be that 13.8 BY ago there was a Universe without any space?
5. Red shift - Do you confirm that Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity?
The Redshift can't give any idea about the amplitude of the CMBR energy. Therefore, it was a sever mistake to multiply the current CMBR level by the redshift in order to estimate the CMBR altitude in the past..
But it is actually the spectrum of a black body at a single temperature.Even at this moment you twist the real meaning of the Black Body.
That's the important fact here, and you are ignoring it.
Because of that fact, we know you are wrong.
We had long discussion on that.
You and all the BBT scientists reject the simple understanding that the CMBR and its BBR is the radiation from our current real Universe.
With regards to the BBT imagination - 13.4 By ago there was a radiation that carry BBR. That radiation took place at the recombination Era which took with duration of only 60M years.
However, based on your imagination that radiation should stay with us forever and ever.
So, how could it be that it could stay in the Universe for so long time?
Based on your explanation it is there as the universe expands at the speed of light.
However, we already know that this is incorrect as the Universe should be much bigger than the maximal speed of light expansion.
6. So, do you confirm that as the Universe is bigger than this 92BLY the BBT can't give real answer for the BBR?
7. Math calculation for the BBT
Sorry.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52Again?
n any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
We have already discussed this issue.
It is stated: "Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law."
So, that by itself set any math prove for the BBT.
You need to find the total requested energy for the BBT and show that this energy is achievable.
Total energy:
E (for the BBT) = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1) + Dark matter energy + Dark Energy
However, as you don't know the size of the Universe, you also don't know the total requested energy.
Therefore this theory can't be used as a math's prove for the BBT.
8. Electromagnetic transformation
So how any sort of particle could be created from the energy while there is no electromagnetic transformation?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52None is needed.
there were no transformation tools
9. Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/12/2020 22:37:34
Even at this moment you twist the real meaning of the Black Body.The grown-ups and I are talking about exactly the same meaning that this is
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation
What are you pretending that it means?
Let's make it clear - the BBT is useless without clear information about the size of the Universe.Since we can only know about the bits that we can see, any so called "theory" which says it knows about the stuff we can't, even in principle, ever hope to see is not falsifiable and is not science.
However, as the galaxies clusters in the space are not fully identical in all directions there is minor variations in the CMBR..The scale is wrong.
This is the ultimate answer why we observe cold and hot spots in the CMBR at different directions.
The hot and cold patches are far too big.
Do you understand that black body radiation has a well defined, unique spectrum for a given temperature?
It is impossible for some random bunch of galaxies or stars or whatever to produce a spectrum which is as exacta match to BBR as the CMBR is.
Do you understand that?
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.You would need to show where scientists say that.
Size of the Universe -How long is a piece of string?
Let's make it clear - the BBT is useless without clear information about the size of the Universe.
As the BBT can't specify the real size if the Universe, then this theory is Nonsense.
If you can't tell us what the size of the Universe is - we can't verify if the BBT is correct or incorrect.
Therefore, this BBT theory is useless and we just wasting our time on irrelevant theory.
In any case, let me prove why the BBT is not relevant also based on the following aspects:
CMBRIf the CMBR was made of a hotchpotch of different sources at different times it would have a variety of wavelengths and intensities.Our scientists have already confirmed that the Universe is isotropic and homogenous in long scale.
It would not be the same in all directions.
Therefore, we actually get almost the same CMBR radiation from all directions.
However, as the galaxies clusters in the space are not fully identical in all directions there is minor variations in the CMBR..
This is the ultimate answer why we observe cold and hot spots in the CMBR at different directions.
Distance - Based on the BBT if we look all the way to the left, we might see a galaxy (let's call it Galaxy A) at a maximal distance of about 13.4 BLY. The same issue when we look at the left and we see a galaxy B. So, we might consider that the distance between the one in the left (A) to the one in the right (B) is 26.8 BLY.
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.
They tell us that it is due to curvature in the Universe.
So, if that is correct, then this curvature sets the maximal size of the Universe.
Therefore, our scientists should tell us what is the maximal size of the Universe.
At some point of time they have estimated that in order to keep A next to B, the maximal the size of the Universe should be 92BLY (Radius of 46 BLY).
Surprisingly, now they do understand that the Universe must be much bigger than that.
This sets a sever contradiction to the BBT.
If the Universe is 1Trillion LY, 256BLY or even infinite, the idea that A is located next to B is incorrect.
So, our scientists bypass this issue.
Therefore please answer the following:
1. Do you confirm that 13.4BY ago Galaxy A was next to galaxy B.
2. So what is the maximal Universe size that could support this imagination? As our scientists claim that the size of the Universe could be much bigger than those 96BLY, please explain how can you set A Next to B while the Universe size is 256BLY or even 1 Trillion LY.
3. What is the real meaning of curvature in the Universe space?
You have stated that the Curvature in space is similar to a curvature in the planet surface. However, in the planet we can specify the radius as the curvature of a 3rd dimension for the 2D surface.
So, please specify the size of the 4th dimension of the Universe space in order to set that kind of curvature.
4. As the Curvature set a finite Universe, what there is outside that Universe space? As you claim that the expansion is in the space itself, than 13.8 years ago there was no space in the whole Universe. So please how could it be that 13.8 BY ago there was a Universe without any space?
5. Red shift - Do you confirm that Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity?
The Redshift can't give any idea about the amplitude of the CMBR energy. Therefore, it was a sever mistake to multiply the current CMBR level by the redshift in order to estimate the CMBR altitude in the past..But it is actually the spectrum of a black body at a single temperature.Even at this moment you twist the real meaning of the Black Body.
That's the important fact here, and you are ignoring it.
Because of that fact, we know you are wrong.
We had long discussion on that.
You and all the BBT scientists reject the simple understanding that the CMBR and its BBR is the radiation from our current real Universe.
With regards to the BBT imagination - 13.4 By ago there was a radiation that carry BBR. That radiation took place at the recombination Era which took with duration of only 60M years.
However, based on your imagination that radiation should stay with us forever and ever.
So, how could it be that it could stay in the Universe for so long time?
Based on your explanation it is there as the universe expands at the speed of light.
However, we already know that this is incorrect as the Universe should be much bigger than the maximal speed of light expansion.
6. So, do you confirm that as the Universe is bigger than this 92BLY the BBT can't give real answer for the BBR?
7. Math calculation for the BBTSorry.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52Again?
n any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
We have already discussed this issue.
It is stated: "Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system has a corresponding conservation law."
So, that by itself set any math prove for the BBT.
You need to find the total requested energy for the BBT and show that this energy is achievable.
Total energy:
E (for the BBT) = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1) + Dark matter energy + Dark Energy
However, as you don't know the size of the Universe, you also don't know the total requested energy.
Therefore this theory can't be used as a math's prove for the BBT.
8. Electromagnetic transformationSo how any sort of particle could be created from the energy while there is no electromagnetic transformation?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52None is needed.
there were no transformation tools
9. Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?
Red shift - Do you confirm that Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity?No, as we have said before it's also about the expansion of space.
That's how you can get red shifts corresponding to velocities greater than C.
Try to pay attention when we tell you things.
You need to find the total requested energy for the BBT and show that this energy is achievable.No, I don't but... what you are asking me to do is prove that the universe is here.
Total energy:
Well, have a look around you.
It is achievable- because it was achieved.
It does not break the laws of physics.
Your idea does.
So, that by itself set any math prove for the BBT.That phrase has no meaning.
Would you like to try again?
So how any sort of particle could be created from the energy while there is no electromagnetic transformation?Quantum variations in the EM field.
Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?Because that's what the evidence which we see tells us.
The interesting question is why don't you believe facts?
Post by: Halc on 07/12/2020 23:16:06
Reference please. Where is expansion of space expressed as a velocity at all?Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?Because that's what the evidence which we see tells us.
Last I checked, velocity is measured in something like km/sec, whereas the expansion rate is measured in km/sec/mpc. The latter is not in units of velocity at all.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2020 08:34:07
He's talking about this.Reference please. Where is expansion of space expressed as a velocity at all?Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?Because that's what the evidence which we see tells us.
Last I checked, velocity is measured in something like km/sec, whereas the expansion rate is measured in km/sec/mpc. The latter is not in units of velocity at all.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
Post by: Halc on 08/12/2020 15:16:44
He's talking about this.There's no mention at all on that page of 'speed of light', velocity, or 50 billion anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
Expansion rates and velocity/speed are two different things in different units, whether you're talking about inflation or today's expansion.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2020 20:48:05
Expansion rates and velocity/speed are two different thingsHe's unlikely to be right about either.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/12/2020 20:52:54
posted wrong link
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)#/media/File:History_of_the_Universe.svg
History of the Universe – gravitational waves are hypothesized to arise from cosmic inflation, a faster-than-light expansion just after the Big Bang
Post by: Halc on 09/12/2020 00:36:26
History of the Universe – gravitational waves are hypothesized to arise from cosmic inflation, a faster-than-light expansion just after the Big BangWikipedia no less posts a statement that unqualified. Calling inflation faster than light is like calling 200 watts faster than 6 meters. Congrats on finding a pop source making the mistake I'm pointing out.
The inflation epoch increased the size of what makes up today's visible universe from <not much> to about the size of a marble in a small fraction of a second. The radius of the marble (not of the universe) thus increased from negligible to say a cm in far less time that it takes light to travel that cm, so the surface of that expanding sphere was (and still very much is) increasing its separation from the arbitrary center point at a speed faster than light. That's not an expansion rate, but a recession rate of a specific location relative to us. That recession rate is indeed a speed. The expansion rate, now or during inflation, is not a speed since it isn't something expressed in distance/time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/12/2020 08:45:16
The radius of the marble... is what we were talking about.
Thanks for the clarification.
The point is that Dave thinks it's so impossible that we should throw out the BB theory, whereas science says it's supported by evidence.
Post by: evan_au on 09/12/2020 09:11:57
Quote
the distance between the [galaxy] in the left (A) to the one in the right (B) is 26.8 BLY.I am not aware of any cases where galaxies in opposite directions have been identified as being adjacent to each other.
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.
I think you have been misled by the simple analogy that is often used to describe a finite but unbounded universe:
1. Imagine a 2D universe on the surface of a balloon, with galaxies as little dots
2. No matter how far you travel, you do not hit a boundary.
3. Hypothetically, you could look to the left and see a galaxy, and look to the right and see an adjacent galaxy (or even the same galaxy)
4. If you blow into the balloon, galaxies that are twice as far away move away at twice the speed.
- It's a useful analogy in a number of respects.
- But as far as I know, no-one has actually done (3). (Einstein crosses and arcs don't count, as they lie in the same direction...)
This analogy also has some limitations, for example:
- If the circumference of the balloon is infinite, it becomes harder to get your head around it. But the real universe may be infinite (we don't know). In this case you can't see around the entire universe.
- If the circumference of the balloon is growing faster than c, you are likely to become rather puffed. But the real universe may be expanding faster than c (and cosmologists suggests that it is). Again, in this case you can't see around the entire universe - you can only see the part of it that is expanding at less than c.
Analogies are often useful - but don't confuse them with reality.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/12/2020 05:07:10
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_GuthReference please. Where is expansion of space expressed as a velocity at all?Inflation - How could we believe that the expansion velocity of the space is 50 Billion times the speed of light?Because that's what the evidence which we see tells us.
Last I checked, velocity is measured in something like km/sec, whereas the expansion rate is measured in km/sec/mpc. The latter is not in units of velocity at all.
"The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken."
So, you don't like the "Velocity". However what about "billion times the speed of light"?He's talking about this.There's no mention at all on that page of 'speed of light', velocity, or 50 billion anything.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflationary_epoch
Expansion rates and velocity/speed are two different things in different units, whether you're talking about inflation or today's expansion.
Based on relativity nothing could move faster than the speed of light (in the same space time).
So, how can we agree with this imagination?
Your answer is as follow:
Wikipedia no less posts a statement that unqualified. Calling inflation faster than light is like calling 200 watts faster than 6 meters. Congrats on finding a pop source making the mistake I'm pointing out.
The inflation epoch increased the size of what makes up today's visible universe from <not much> to about the size of a marble in a small fraction of a second. The radius of the marble (not of the universe) thus increased from negligible to say a cm in far less time that it takes light to travel that cm, so the surface of that expanding sphere was (and still very much is) increasing its separation from the arbitrary center point at a speed faster than light. That's not an expansion rate, but a recession rate of a specific location relative to us. That recession rate is indeed a speed. The expansion rate, now or during inflation, is not a speed since it isn't something expressed in distance/time.
However, in the article they clearly discuss on size in a limited time. Let's read the this section in the article:
"The microwave background radiation discovered by Arno Penzias and Robert Woodrow Wilson appeared extremely uniform, with almost no variance. This seemed very paradoxical because when the radiation was released about 300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years. There was no time for one end of the cosmos to communicate with the other end, because energy cannot move faster than the speed of light. The paradox was resolved, as Guth soon realized, by the inflation theory. Since inflation started with a far smaller amount of matter than the Big Bang had presupposed, an amount so small that all parts would have been in touch[vague] with each other. The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken.The universe after inflation would have been very uniform, even though its parts were no longer able to influence each other."
So, do you confirm that based on the BBT - "300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years"
Yes or No?
If yes, then how can you set a diameter of 90,000,000 LY in only 300,000 Year without breaking the speed of light limit due to relativity?
Don't you agree that the meaning of size per time is speed?
Hence, the inflation is all about an accelerated expansion speed of the Universe.
However, the most important message is the following:
"The universe after inflation would have been very uniform, even though its parts were no longer able to influence each other."
Now it is very clear why in order to get a UNIFORM universe in that size at that time frame - those Billion times the speed of light was needed.
However, please advice what kind of force/energy could set an inflation of such ultra high speed?
On the other hand we all know that there is a momentum in the Universe.
Hence, if some unrealistic force/energy could speed up the expansion by billion times the speed of light, what kind of force/energy could stop it once it get to the requested size?
Please answer all the above questions.
It seems to me that the idea of the inflation by itself should kill the BBT.
Could it be that Alan Guth wanted to prove that without an inflation of billion times the speed of light the BBT is useless?
In any case, do you agree that without that unrealistic inflation process the BBT is useless?
If you still believe in that inflation, Please show the source of the energy for that inflation process.
Actually we need to add those Inflation forces/energies to the following BBT energy formula:
E (for the BBT) = M (total OM o the Universe) * c^2 / 0.000...1) + Dark matter energy + Dark Energy
So, please explain how the Universe could get all of that energy out of nothing?
Based on BC answer it is all about Noether theorem:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physicsQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 04/12/2020 21:09:52Again?
n any case - as you claim that you can prove it by Math, So please show the math.
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
"Noether’s theorem shows that the puck’s conservation of momentum is tied to its “symmetry of space translation,"
So, Based on Noether’s theorem space is vitel.
However, based on the BBT there was no space in the Universe before the Bang.
So how could we use the Noether’s theorem which is based on space for a theory without space?
If there was a space before the bang than by definition there must be an empty space outside our observable universe with no matter.
That idea also kills the BBT.
Why not?QuoteQuoteI am not aware of any cases where galaxies in opposite directions have been identified as being adjacent to each other.
the distance between the [galaxy] in the left (A) to the one in the right (B) is 26.8 BLY.
However, our scientists claim that those two galaxies are actually located near to each other.
Look to the left - Do you see a galaxy (A) at a distance of 13 .4 BLY from us?
Look to the right - Do you see a galaxy (B) at a distance of 13 .4 BLY from us?
So, what is the distance between those two galaxies?
I think you have been misled by the simple analogy that is often used to describe a finite but unbounded universe:Sorry - This is not realistic.
1. Imagine a 2D universe on the surface of a balloon, with galaxies as little dots
2. No matter how far you travel, you do not hit a boundary.
You band the physics in order to support the BBT.
Do you confirm that based on the BBT, when the Universe age was 300,000 y, the total size of the Universe was only 90,000 MY?
Yes Or NO?
Do you also confirm that from that date - the expansion rate was quite fixed and limited?
Hence, do you confirm that based on the BBT the current Universe size must be FINITE.
Actually, why can't we calculate the maximal size of the Universe which the BBT can set in 13.8 BY?
If that Universe is too small for our real universe, why don't we set the BBT in the garbage?
- If the circumference of the balloon is infinite, it becomes harder to get your head around it. But the real universe may be infinite (we don't know). In this case you can't see around the entire universe.
Sorry - There is no way for the BBT to set an infinit universe in only 13.8 BY.
If the Universe is infinite (or bigger than 92BLY) the BBT is useless.
In any case, I have proved that based on Noether theorem without space there is no energy for the BBT.
Hence, if you claim that before the BBT there was no space in the Universe - then you won't get any sort of energy. In this case, in order to deliver energy to the BBT you MUST break the law of energy conservation.
Actually, if there was a space in the Universe before the bang, than why that space can't be infinite?
If we start the BBT while the space of the Universe is infinite - then your assumption about a finite balloon shape universe is not realistic as there is no curvature in our real space/universe.
So, the space is ALWAYS 3D and ONLY 3D before or after any imagination of that Bang or the other.
Conclusion:
You can tell any kind of story about the BBT.
That is perfectly OK.
But if there is a contradiction in that story, then you have to set the whole story in the garbage.
Please set the BBT in the garbage - the sooner is better!
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/12/2020 09:06:38
However, based on the BBT there was no space in the Universe before the Bang.Finally, you nearly understand it.
So how could we use the Noether’s theorem which is based on space for a theory without space?
Because the big bang is a unique event with space (and time) after it, but not before, it is not symmetrical and the conservation law does not apply.
That's why the sudden existence of mass at the start of the universe is mathematically permitted.
You kept on asking how all that mass and energy didn't break the conservation laws.
It now seems that you understand it.
That's great progress.
Now here is the next idea you need to grasp.
Time and space do exist today.
So the conservation laws do apply today.
So your idea of spontaneous generation is impossible today.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/12/2020 09:13:59
If yes, then how can you set a diameter of 90,000,000 LY in only 300,000 Year without breaking the speed of light limit due to relativity?For the millionth time...
It isn't something moving through space which has exceeded the speed of light.
Space itself expanded and carried things with it.
Have you forgotten? We explained this.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg603517#msg603517
Post by: Halc on 11/12/2020 00:05:42
That comment is taken out of context. It is referring to the rate of increase in size of what today comprises the visible universe, which it says if you had included full context.QuoteWhere is expansion of space expressed as a velocity at all?[wiki :: Alan_Guth]
Last I checked, velocity is measured in something like km/sec, whereas the expansion rate is measured in km/sec/mpc. The latter is not in units of velocity at all.
"The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken."
An object currently 10 exaparsecs away is increasing its proper distance from us at a pace greater than a billion times the speed of light, so does that mean that the universe is expanding faster now than back during inflation? No, because expansion rate is not measured in distance/time, but the rate of change of a specific dimension is, and that is what the quote above refers to.
The wiki entry is massively simplified and the logic as presented is fallacious since even with normal expansion rates, all the material would have been ‘in touch’ at time zero. The inflation model solves problems that seem to be beyond the ability of the wiki author to describe to what is probably a pop-science audience.
Quote
Based on relativity nothing could move faster than the speed of light (in the same space time)Nothing can move faster than light relative to a flat Minkowski coordinate system, which doesn’t describe the universe at large scales. All these rates of change of proper size are expressed in a completely different coordinate system than the one used in SR.
Quote
However, in the article they clearly discuss on size in a limited time.Size of what? Not the universe. That’s never stated to be any finite thing.
Quote
So, do you confirm that based on the BBT - "300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years"Sounds plausible, except the figure should be 380,000 years. Maybe it wasn’t known to more than one digit back then.
Quote
If yes, then how can you set a diameter of 90,000,000 LY in only 300,000 Year without breaking the speed of light limit due to relativity?Wrong coordinate system. This is entirely consistent with general relativity, which forbids only peculiar motion greater than light speed. You've identified nothing that does that.
Quote
Don't you agree that the meaning of size per time is speed?Speed is distance per time. The space between opposite boundaries of an object at different times can be expressed as a distance, yes. The expansion rate of the universe cannot be expressed this way as it has no size.
I can trivially make the size of something (say the length of a shadow of a triangle on a string) increase at far greater than light speed (in flat spacetime) without anything actually moving at > light speed. So size of something over time is not limited to c.
Quote
Hence, the inflation is all about an accelerated expansion speed of the Universe.Nobody said accelerating. OK, it is accelerating now, but the inflation they’re talking about was much greater than the inflation rate now, so it seems a mistake to characterize it as acceleration.
Quote
Now it is very clear why in order to get a UNIFORM universe in that size at that time frame - those Billion times the speed of light was needed.It only got to the size of a marble during the inflation epoch. 90 million light years is radius 45 million, which (using the 300,000 year figure) is about 150x light speed. So not sure how a billion was ‘very clear’ to you, other than somebody flippantly using the word to mean ‘a lot’. Yes, the visible universe grew to the size of a marble (sources differ on this a bit) at some speed considerable greater than 150c, but that ended after about 250 picoseconds (sources differ on this a bit as well), which is hardly a third of a million years.
Quote
On the other hand we all know that there is a momentum in the Universe.Is there now? What is it? Which way does it go?
Quote
Hence, if some unrealistic force/energy could speed up the expansion by billion times the speed of light, what kind of force/energy could stop it once it get to the requested size?You’re trying to leverage Newtonian concepts in an epoch where they’re entirely inapplicable.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/12/2020 16:37:29
There is no error in Wiki.Quote[wiki :: Alan_Guth]That comment is taken out of context. It is referring to the rate of increase in size of what today comprises the visible universe, which it says if you had included full context.
"The universe then inflated, at a rate corresponding to a billion times the speed of light, and the homogeneity remained unbroken."
An object currently 10 exaparsecs away is increasing its proper distance from us at a pace greater than a billion times the speed of light, so does that mean that the universe is expanding faster now than back during inflation? No, because expansion rate is not measured in distance/time, but the rate of change of a specific dimension is, and that is what the quote above refers to.
The wiki entry is massively simplified and the logic as presented is fallacious since even with normal expansion rates, all the material would have been ‘in touch’ at time zero. The inflation model solves problems that seem to be beyond the ability of the wiki author to describe to what is probably a pop-science audience.
Alan Guth is a very cleaver scientist.
There must be a reason why he had stated that the inflation speed is billion times the speed of light.
I think that it is due to "escape velocity".
You have stated that some time after the bang the whole matter in the Universe was concentrated in a size of a marble.
the visible universe grew to the size of a marble (sources differ on this a bit) at some speed considerable greater than 150c, but that ended after about 250 picoseconds (sources differ on this a bit as well), which is hardly a third of a million years.
Hence, just after the Bnag the maximal size of the Universe might be even less than a planck.
Just think about a planck size full with the matter of the entire Universe.
Don't you agree that this kind of size represents a Super Giant SMBH?
So, without the inflation, the BBT would end after the Big bang with a Big SMBH.
No more and no less.
Alan Guth did understand it.
I assume that he tried to estimate what is the requested escape velocity that is needed to overcome the Ultra high gravity force in that Marble.
Therefore, he offred the Inflation process with escape velocity of billion times the speed of light.
However, when Alan Guth offered his idea about the Inflation, our scientists assume that the Universe size is very compact.
So, it is clear that at that time he estimated that the maximal matter is quite limited.
Now we all understand the our real Universe is much bigger than the expectations at that time.
Don't also forget that he actually focused only on ordinary matter, as at that time no one had considered the dark matter or dark energy.
So, if Alen Guth would try to find the real escape velocity that was needed for the entire OM of the Universe that is concentrated in a planck size, he might find that even a trillion times the speed of light isn't good enough.
There is also a possibility that our universe is infinite:
but the real universe may be infinite (we don't know). In this case you can't see around the entire universe.In this case, even an inflation with trillion over trillion over... trillion speed of light is not good enough.
However, once you set the inflation - there is no way to stop it.
Hence, due to the inflation of billion times (or trillion times the speed of light) all the matter would move away from each other at that ultra high speed.
Therefore, two second after the bang all the matter in the universe would go to the infinity.
Conclusion:
Without the inflation - the big Bang would end up with as super giant SMBH.
With the inflation - the matter would move to the infinity at the inflation velocity.
So, in any way - the Big Bang can't set our real Universe
2. BBT Energy conservation
You also didn't answer my question about the source of energy for the BBT.
As based on the BBT, there was no space in the Universe before the bang, then Noether’s theorem can't work and can't help the BBT to get any bit of energy:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-mathematician-emmy-noethers-theorem-changed-physics
"Noether’s theorem shows that the puck’s conservation of momentum is tied to its “symmetry of space translation,"
So, Based on Noether’s theorem space is vital.
However, based on the BBT there was no space in the Universe before the Bang.
So how could we use the Noether’s theorem which is based on space for a theory without space?
There are other key issues that should kill the BBT.
How as a scientist you can hold a theory which doesn't give a perfect fit for our Universe?
Just to claim that this is the best that we have is a severe mistake as you do not open your mind to other real theory.
So, please - why don't you give up and set this irrelevant BBT theory in the garbage and then open yourself to think on real theory for our Universe?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/12/2020 17:27:05
Noether’s theorem can't work and can't help the BBT to get any bit of energy:Nobody said it would.
However, Noether's theorem shows that the start of the universe is the only time when getting that energy might be possible.
The fact 6that we are here shows that it happened- so it was possible.
So there must have been a start.
Where the energy came from is a question to which I don't know if we will ever know the answer.
I gather the best available idea is this one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
The point remains that Noether's theorem, while it does not say where the big bang came from, does say that your idea is mathematically impossible.
I think that it is due to "escape velocity".It's the universe.
What the **** can it "escape" from?
How as a scientist you can hold a theory which doesn't give a perfect fit for our Universe?LOL
You keep ignoring the laws of physics, but you ask me that.
I'd put up with 2 a fairly good fit" as a model.
But yours is not so much"not a perfect fit" as " direct contradictions of facts".
There are other key issues that should kill the BBT.Like what?
All you have shown so far is that you don't understand it.
You haven't shown any actual problem in it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/12/2020 05:07:38
Escape velocity - VeQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:37:29It's the universe.
I think that it is due to "escape velocity".
What the **** can it "escape" from?
"In physics (specifically, celestial mechanics), escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body, that is, to achieve an infinite distance from it. Escape velocity is a function of the mass of the body and distance to the center of mass of the body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
For a spherically symmetric, massive body such as a star, or planet, the escape velocity for that body, at a given distance, is calculated by the formula[3]
Ve = √ 2GM/r
"Where G is the universal gravitational constant (G ≈ 6.67×10−11 m3•kg−1•s−2), M the mass of the body to be escaped from, and r the distance from the center of mass of the body to the object"
Based on the BBT, after the Big bang all the mass/energy of the entire Universe had been concentrated at a very limited size of a Planck (or even marble)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
"In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length that is the distance light in a perfect vacuum travels in one unit of Planck time. It is also the reduced Compton wavelength of a particle with Planck mass. It is equal to 1.616255(18)×10−35 m"
Hence
r = 1.616255(18)×10−35 m
If the current Universe is infinite than its mass is also infinite
M= ∞
Therefore, the requested escape velocity after the Big Bang from that Planck size is also infinite
Ve = √ 2GM/r = √ 2G∞/1.616255(18)×10−35 m = ∞
Hence, the requested escape velocity from that planck size after the Big bang is infinite.
Therefore:
Conclusion:
Without the inflation - the big Bang would end up as super giant SMBH.
With the inflation - the matter would move to the infinity at the inflation velocity.
So, in any way - the Big Bang can't set our real Universe
You keep ignoring the laws of physics, but you ask me that.
Who really ignores the escape velocity law of physics?
Like what?No need.
The escape velocity formula/math is good enough to kill the BBT.
I'd put up with 2 a fairly good fit" as a model.How can you still consider the BBT as "a fairly good fit" theory/model?
The fact 6that we are here shows that it happened- so it was possible.That is correct.
So there must have been a start.
However, it is clearly not due to the BBT fatal model
Post by: Halc on 12/12/2020 06:08:28
You have stated that some time after the bang the whole matter in the Universe was concentrated in a size of a marble.I said no such thing. Neither did Guth.
Quote
Hence, just after the Bnag the maximal size of the Universe might be even less than a planck.That would mean it has a finite size. Nobody said anything about it necessarily having a finite size.
Quote
Don't you agree that this kind of size represents a Super Giant SMBH?You’re picturing the naive view of a bang happening at a location in space. That’s never been the model. The bang happened everywhere, not in one place. So no black hole, which is somewhere and not elsewhere. The escape velocity is from it to 'elsewhere'.
Escape velocity - VeSee what I mean? You’re picturing the universe as an object in space, with stuff trying to escape from it. BC is correct. There is no direction to go to escape the stuff since the bang happens uniformly everywhere. There’s no escaping from ‘everywhere’.
"In physics (specifically, celestial mechanics), escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body, that is, to achieve an infinite distance from it. Escape velocity is a function of the mass of the body and distance to the center of mass of the body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
For a spherically symmetric, massive body such as a star, or planet, the escape velocity for that body, at a given distance, is calculated by the formula[3]
Quote
Ve = √ 2GM/rThis is the Newtonian approximation and only works for small masses like the sun and such. Again you attempt to use Newtonian physics in an epoch where they’re entirely inapplicable.
Quote
Based on the BBT, after the Big bang all the mass/energy of the entire Universe had been concentrated at a very limited size of a Planck (or even marble)Wrong. The theory says no such thing, since this is assigning a size to something whose size is not bounded by any known measurement. This is all strawman arguments.
Quote
If the current Universe is infinite than its mass is also infiniteIt it is infinite, there cannot be a moment that it went from finite to infinite, so your logic falls apart. The size of the universe was always infinite, however much compressed in the beginning.
You’ll ignore my comments again as you have all others, as evidenced by your continued attempt at inappropriate application of Newtonian physics.
I edited out quite a few questions since they’ve been already answered by me. You obviously are not actually seeking answers.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/12/2020 07:45:59
The bang happened everywhere, not in one place.Can you please specify the size of that "everywhere"?
You had confirmed that the size of the Universe was 90MLY when its age was 380,000 Years.
So, do you agree that at the Big bang moment the size of the Universe should be at least smaller than that?QuoteQuoteSounds plausible, except the figure should be 380,000 years. Maybe it wasn’t known to more than one digit back then.
So, do you confirm that based on the BBT - "300,000 years after the Big Bang, the observable universe had a diameter of 90 million light-years"
Even if the Big Bang set a size of 90 MLY at its first moment, how do you call that size "everywhere"?
Just for your information, based on Google translate:
Everywhere - "in all places or directions. everywhere was in darkness".
Hence, don't you agree that everywhere means endless or infinite?
Actually you confirm that the Universe is infinite:
It it is infinite, there cannot be a moment that it went from finite to infinite, so your logic falls apart. The size of the universe was always infinite, however much compressed in the beginning.
So, as you confirm that:
1. "there cannot be a moment that it went from finite to infinite".
2. The maximal size of the Universe was only 90MLY at age of 380,000
Then how can you fit that "everywhere" or the infinite Universe into a finite 90MLY (or less) at age 380,000?
How a finite Universe at 90MLY could be transformed into infinite Universe in 13.4 Years?
If it was 90MLY or less, then why do you call it "everywhere"?
Please - based on the BBT, what was the size of the Universe before the bang and 10^-40 sec after the bang?
Post by: evan_au on 12/12/2020 08:38:40
Quote from: Dave Lev
once you set the inflation - there is no way to stop it.At the present time, there is no solid evidence about what caused cosmic inflation.
- Everything we can see about it is hidden behind the opaque veil of the CMBR, which blocks all electromagnetic radiation.
There are some ideas that inflation may have been like a phase change...
- eg as a solid heats up, it changes to liquid. This phase change stops when all the solid has become liquid
- Some suggest that today's accelerating expansion of the universe may be a similar phase change effect
- It is possible that after this phase change, there may be more coming.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum
In future, we may not be limited to seeing with electromagnetic radiation.
- Neutrinos and Gravitational Waves interact much more weakly with matter than electromagnetism
- One day, we may be able to detect relic neutrinos and Gravitational Waves from the Big Bang, allowing scientists to peer back to timescales around 1 second after the Big Bang, which will provide a lot of information that we don't have today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/12/2020 09:29:12
At the present time, there is no solid evidence about what caused cosmic inflation.Well, what we can't see is irrelevant. We must focus only on what we see.
- Everything we can see about it is hidden behind the opaque veil of the CMBR, which blocks all electromagnetic radiation.
We currently discuss on the BBT theory.
You can claim that based on this theory the universe size is finite or infinite.
You can claim that when the universe age was 10^-40 sec its size was one Planck size or infinite.
You can claim that when the universe age was 380,000 Ly its size was 90MLY or infinite.
You can also set the inflation speed to one meter per day or 50 Billions times the speed of light.
I'm ready to accept any idea that you wish on the BBT.
However, once you set all your ideas for that theory it is your obligation to verify that there is no integrated contradiction in that theory.
Therefore, do you agree that:
If the size of the Universe was 90ML at age of 380,000 year, there is no way for it to set an infinite Universe after 13.4 BY?
If the size of the Universe at age 10^-40 was already infinite (everywhere), how could it be that at age 380,000 Y it was only 90MLY?
So please – as there is a clear integrated contradiction in the BBT, this theory is irrelevant.
If you still wish to hold the BBT then please let us know what is the estimated size of the Universe (based on the BBT) at the following time frames:
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-40 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.
Please do not tell me "We don't Know".
If you really don't know then please set this BBT theory in the garbage - the sooner is better.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 11:57:09
Who really ignores the ... law of physics?You.
You are the one who is proposing that matter is continuously created in the universe, even though the science and maths shows that this is impossible.
.
The escape velocity formula/math is good enough to kill the BBT.You didn't use the right formula, did you?
The one you used is a Newtonian one, and what you need is a relativistic one.
If you actually understood what you were talking about, you would have realised that.
But you didn't.
Because you don't.
How can you still consider the BBT as "a fairly good fit" theory/model?Are you able to show (using real science , not made-up nonsense) how the BBT does not model the universe?
OK, so you agree that the Universe has a start.Escape velocity - VeQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:37:29It's the universe.
I think that it is due to "escape velocity".
What the **** can it "escape" from?
"In physics (specifically, celestial mechanics), escape velocity is the minimum speed needed for a free, non-propelled object to escape from the gravitational influence of a massive body, that is, to achieve an infinite distance from it. Escape velocity is a function of the mass of the body and distance to the center of mass of the body."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Escape_velocity
For a spherically symmetric, massive body such as a star, or planet, the escape velocity for that body, at a given distance, is calculated by the formula[3]
Ve = √ 2GM/r
"Where G is the universal gravitational constant (G ≈ 6.67×10−11 m3•kg−1•s−2), M the mass of the body to be escaped from, and r the distance from the center of mass of the body to the object"
Based on the BBT, after the Big bang all the mass/energy of the entire Universe had been concentrated at a very limited size of a Planck (or even marble)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck_length
"In physics, the Planck length, denoted ℓP, is a unit of length that is the distance light in a perfect vacuum travels in one unit of Planck time. It is also the reduced Compton wavelength of a particle with Planck mass. It is equal to 1.616255(18)×10−35 m"
Hence
r = 1.616255(18)×10−35 m
If the current Universe is infinite than its mass is also infinite
M= ∞
Therefore, the requested escape velocity after the Big Bang from that Planck size is also infinite
Ve = √ 2GM/r = √ 2G∞/1.616255(18)×10−35 m = ∞
Hence, the requested escape velocity from that planck size after the Big bang is infinite.
Therefore:Conclusion:
Without the inflation - the big Bang would end up as super giant SMBH.
With the inflation - the matter would move to the infinity at the inflation velocity.
So, in any way - the Big Bang can't set our real UniverseYou keep ignoring the laws of physics, but you ask me that.
Who really ignores the escape velocity law of physics?Like what?No need.
The escape velocity formula/math is good enough to kill the BBT.I'd put up with 2 a fairly good fit" as a model.How can you still consider the BBT as "a fairly good fit" theory/model?The fact 6that we are here shows that it happened- so it was possible.That is correct.
So there must have been a start.
However, it is clearly not due to the BBT fatal model
Either it started "everywhere at once" which is impossible, or it started somewhere and grew.
In which case, exactly the same problems will occur with any model you come up with for an infinite universe.
Yes that makes teh BBT difficult.
But it also makes your model impossible.
And your model was already impossible due to Olbers paradox and the conservation of energy/ mass.
Since there are now three reasons that your model is impossible, but none for the BBT, why don't you accept that it is your impossible idea that should be put in the bin?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/12/2020 17:28:25
NoQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:07:38You.
Who really ignores the ... law of physics?
You are the one who is proposing that matter is continuously created in the universe, even though the science and maths shows that this is impossible.
Einstein has already told us in his ENPC theory that new particles could be created.
You are the one that claim that Einstein is wrong while you are wrong.
However, please ignore Einstein as we currently focus on the BBT.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:07:38You didn't use the right formula, did you?
The escape velocity formula/math is good enough to kill the BBT.
The one you used is a Newtonian one, and what you need is a relativistic one.
You are wrong again
The relativistic formula should give exactly the same answer as Newtonian one.
If you still think differently - prove it.
OK, so you agree that the Universe has a start.Sure
Either it started "everywhere at once" which is impossible, or it started somewhere and grew.So you confirm that it "it started somewhere and grew".
Thanks - I fully agree with that explanation.
You also confirm that Halc idea of "everywhere" isn't realistic.
In which case, exactly the same problems will occur with any model you come up with for an infinite universe.
Yes that makes teh BBT difficult
As you agree that there is a problem with any theory including the BBT and as you confirm that there is also a difficult with the BBT, this theory is useless.
Please be aware that you actually confirm that there is integrated contradiction in the BBT theory.
Sure.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:07:38Are you able to show (using real science , not made-up nonsense) how the BBT does not model the universe?
How can you still consider the BBT as "a fairly good fit" theory/model?
You have just confirmed it
As you also can't answer the following questions:
If you still wish to hold the BBT then please let us know what is the estimated size of the Universe (based on the BBT) at the following time frames:It proves that the BBT is useless
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-40 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.
Please do not tell me "We don't Know".
If you really don't know then please set this BBT theory in the garbage - the sooner is better.
But it also makes your model impossible.I agree that any theory that can't offer real answer for that key problem should also join the BBT at the garbage even if it is my theory.
Since there are now three reasons that your model is impossible, but none for the BBT,You have just confirmed that there is a problem with the BBT.
Yes that makes teh BBT difficult.So how can you claim that there is none for the BBT?
why don't you accept that it is your impossible idea that should be put in the bin?Once we all agree that the BBT is useless and set it in the Bin, we can open our mind to new theory.
I'm ready to set my theory in that bin if there is integrated contradiction in the theory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 18:17:54
You are the one that claim that Einstein is wrong while you are wrong.It's nothing to do with the people who drafted the theories.
It's to do with the fact that continuous generation is known to be impossible.
You really need to focus on that.
I agree that any theory that can't offer real answer for that key problem should also join the BBT at the garbage even if it is my theory.OK, so you agree that, because your idea can't offer a real answer to the key problem of breaking the laws of conservation, it should be in the garbage.
I guess that's a start.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 18:18:34
It proves that the BBT is uselessNo... it proves that you don't understand it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 18:19:52
You have just confirmed that there is a problem with the BBT.No, I didn't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 18:22:38
I'm ready to set my theory in that bin if there is integrated contradiction in the theory.Why has it taken so long for you to realise this?
Your idea was nonsense at the start, and plenty of people pointed this out.
Your idea ignores the fact that mass/ energy is conserved so continuous generation is impossible.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 18:23:42
So how can you claim that there is none for the BBT?We have no evidence that the universe is infinite,
In a finite universe the BBT works fine.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/12/2020 19:20:04
As you understand the BBT, why is it so difficult for you to answer the following:It proves that the BBT is uselessNo... it proves that you don't understand it.
If you still wish to hold the BBT then please let us know what is the estimated size of the Universe (based on the BBT) at the following time frames:If you really don't know the answer for the above questions - then please set this BBT theory in the garbage - the sooner is better.
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-40 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.
Please do not tell me "We don't Know".
.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 19:29:52
As you understand the BBT, why is it so difficult for you to answer the following:Because I understand it, I know that a question like
1. Before the Big Bang.makes no sense.
And because I understand science I understand that a comment like
Please do not tell me "We don't Know".is really stupid.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/12/2020 19:35:38
As you clearly can't answer what is the size of the Universe:As you understand the BBT, why is it so difficult for you to answer the following:Because I understand it, I know that a question like1. Before the Big Bang.makes no sense.
And because I understand science I understand that a comment likePlease do not tell me "We don't Know".is really stupid.
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-40 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.
You prove that you have no clue how the BBT really works.
As long as you have no clue how the BBT really works and you avoid answering those questions - the BBT would stay at the garbage.
It is similar to a designer that tries to design an airplane without any clue about its total size, its wings or its tail size
That airplane would never fly..
Sorry - the size is the MOST important issue in any theory.
In the same token, as you can't tell us about the size of the universe based on your theory, then your theory is useless.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/12/2020 20:10:17
Sorry - the size is the MOST important issue in any theory.The most important thing about a theory is that you can check it.
There is no way to check the size of the universe.
So the size of the universe can not possible be an important aspect of any theory.
Like I said. you are asking silly questions.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/12/2020 06:10:22
Sorry - the size is the MOST important issue in any theory.The most important thing about a theory is that you can check it.
There is no way to check the size of the universe.
So the size of the universe can not possible be an important aspect of any theory.
Like I said. you are asking silly questions.
Wow - What a nonsense.
Our BBT scientists can tell us long story about the first second of the Big bang without seeing that first second.
They even divide it to 10^43 frames just to show how cleaver they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Very_early_universe
They have set a special Planck epoch <10−43 s for that first second:
"The Planck scale is the physical scale beyond which current physical theories may not apply, and cannot be used to calculate what happened. During the Planck epoch, cosmology and physics are assumed to have been dominated by the quantum effects of gravity."
Then comes the Grand_unification_epoch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch
In physical cosmology, assuming that nature is described by a Grand Unified Theory, the grand unification epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe following the Planck epoch, starting at about 10−43 seconds after the Big Bang, in which the temperature of the universe was comparable to the characteristic temperatures of grand unified theories. If the grand unification energy is taken to be 1015 GeV, this corresponds to temperatures higher than 10^27 K. During this period, three of the four fundamental interactions—electromagnetism, the strong interaction, and the weak interaction—were unified as the electronuclear force. Gravity had separated from the electronuclear force at the end of the Planck era. During the grand unification epoch, physical characteristics such as mass, charge, flavour and colour charge were meaningless.
The grand unification epoch ended at approximately 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang.."
Did you really see this fist 10^-36 sec???
How could those BBT scientists claim for a Temp of 10^27 K during the grand unification epoch which ended at approximately 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang without knowing the size of the Universe in that epoch?
How could they tell us so clearly about the Inflation epoch?
"Inflationary epoch and the rapid expansion of space
Before c. 10^−32 seconds after the Big Bang
Main articles: Inflationary epoch and Expansion of space
At this point of the very early universe, the metric that defines distance within space suddenly and very rapidly
changed in scale, leaving the early universe at least 10^78 times its previous volume (and possibly much more).
How do they know that the early universe had been increased at least 10^78 times its previous volume (and possibly much more) in just 10^-32 sec without knowing the size of the Universe before or after?
Sorry -
Our BBT scientists are very cleaver when it comes to the Silly people that can't challenge their unrealistic theory, but they are totally silly when it comes to real questions.
You couldn't even answer one question about the size of the Universe.
Not in the past, not today and not in the Future.
So, all you say is actually - "We don't know as we can't see"
Sorry - if you can't see and you don't know the answer for those four simple questions - then your theory is useless.
You avoid those questions just in order to avoid the Internal contradiction i the BBT.
I'm ready to accept any imagination that you may have in the BBT:
1. You can claim that there was no space, no matter and no energy before the Big Bang (while you don't know what was there before).
2. You can say that you due to "Northern Theory" you can get the whole energy for our entire universe in less than 10^43 of a Sec while you know that this theory can't work without space.
3. You can claim that the space itself can be created out of nothing and it even could expand its volume in only 10^-32 of a second by 10^78 Times while you bypass the relativity law and the clear message from Einstein that this idea is absolutely incorrect.
4. You can claim that in 10^-6 sec all of that energy had been transformed to real matter due to electromagnetic in the QM while there was no matter to start that QM & EM.
We can continue more and more with the BBT imagination.
I'm ready to accept any imagination that you might have on the BBT.
However once you set the roles for this imagination theory - you can't tell us that They don't know what was the size at each epoch.
If Those BBT scientists really don't know, then it's better for them to look for better Job.
You don't offer answers as you try to avoid the internal contradiction in this useless theory that is called BBT.
So, as long as you can't offer real answer for the size of the Universe:
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-43 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.
The BBT theory would be set at the garbage.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/12/2020 08:40:32
So, all you say is actually - "We don't know as we can't see"That isn't what I said.
And you don't seem to have a clue how science works.
. You can say that you due to "Northern Theory" you can get the whole energy for our entire universe in less than 10^43 of a Sec while you know that this theory can't work without space.No
We know that Noether's theory (and you should check your spelling) says that you can't create energy or mass i.
And we know that the theory only applies in space (simplistically).
But since we are talking about the creation of space, there isn't any space yet.
So the theory does not apply yet.
So there's nothing to stop the creation of energy.
Do you understand that yet?
Also, you keep asking what happened before time started.
Do you understand how stupid that question is?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/12/2020 19:41:18
since we are talking about the creation of space, there isn't any space yet.Based on your understanding there was no space in our universe before the bang.
So the theory does not apply yet.
So there's nothing to stop the creation of energy.
Without a space there was also no Universe. So, there was no space and no Universe before the bang.
Hence, why do you claim that it is a silly question to ask about the conditions before the bang?
Also, you keep asking what happened before time started.
Do you understand how stupid that question is?
Why can't you just say that there was no space and no Universe before the bang?
However, without space it is even more difficult task for the BBT to deliver any energy.
We all know that there is no way to have energy or matter at no-space or absolutely zero space.
So, the BBT should generate Space and energy at the same moment.
How any kind of activity could generate the space in the Universe?
Can you use any sort of formula without space?
Does QM works without space?
How any scientist can accept the idea of no space in the early time before the bang?
However, even if we agree on that:
So the theory does not apply yet.Sorry - Energy wouldn't be created without space.
So there's nothing to stop the creation of energy.
You can't bypass the law of physics just by claiming that there was no space.
If there was no space 13.8 B years ago, then there was no space 100 By ago and even today there couldn't be any space.
However as we live today in the space of our universe - then there was surly a space before that bang.
Let's accept thes idea of no space in the BBT.
Let's assume that somehow the MIGHTY BBT had the power to create a space and energy as requested.
So, let's go back to the Planck epoch time
Why our scientists call it the Planck epoch?
Could it be that as they assume that before the Big bang there was no space then somehow the Universe must start with small size as plank size after the bang?
So, we have an answer for the size of the Universe just after the bang.
Hence, at the first moment after the Bang, the space of the early universe was in the size of a Planck while the entire energy of the whole Universe was concentrated at that size while there was no matter.
However, in order to transform energy to matter we must have EM.
Without matter after the bang – there is no EM. Hence, as there was no matter after the bang, there also no EM and therefore – There is no way to convert the BBT energy to real matter.
So, at that point we do understand that the BBT can't transform any energy into matter. Therefore it’s the time to set the BBT at the garbage.
In any case, even if somehow all the energy had been transformed into ordinary matter – somehow that matter which represents the entire mass of the Universe was concentrated at a fairly small space.
At this case, the Bang should end as a Mighty SMBH
That is one more key understanding why the BBT is useless.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/12/2020 20:12:33
Hence, why do you claim that it is a silly question to ask about the conditions before the bang?What is north of the North pole?
If time started with the big bang then you are talking about "at a time before there was time".
Do you see how that makes no sense?
Why can't you just say that there was no space and no Universe before the bang?I can say that.
I probably did say it.
I certainly said that the BB was the start of the universe and that tells you that there was no universe before the BB.
So, the BBT should generate Space and energy at the same moment.Yes.
How any kind of activity could generate the space in the Universe?I already answered that.
The current best view is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
Please pay attention.
The fact that I have to repeat stuff makes you look like a schoolkid who isn't paying attention.
How any scientist can accept the idea of no space in the early time before the bang?They don't
" time before the bang"
is a contradiction in terms.
You can't bypass the law of physics just by claiming that there was no space.I'm not the one seeking to bypass the laws of physics.
Your silly idea about continuous generation is the one doing that.
BBT to deliver any energy.The BBT doesn't deliver the energy
It is the result of the energy being delivered.
How any kind of activity could generate the space in the Universe?I can keep posting this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
It won't help until you understand it, so there's no point in you asking the same question again.
Sorry - Energy wouldn't be created without space.Nobody said they were.
They were created at the same time.
You can't bypass the law of physics just by claiming that there was no space.You were the one who said that it was anything to do with space.
I pointed out that it was really to do with time.
Symmetry in time is the reason why energy is conserved.
But at the start of time it is not symmetrical, so energy need not be conserved.
However as we live today in the space of our universe - then there was surly a space before that bangNo
The bang was the creation of both the space and the time.
It was the creation of spacetime.
Why our scientists call it the Planck epoch?Because it's when the universe was smaller than the Planck length.
Could it be that as they assume that before the Big bang there was no space then somehow the Universe must start with small size as plank size after the bang?No. They assume it started smaller, and grew that big in about 10^-43 sec or something.
So, we have an answer for the size of the Universe just after the bang.It was presumably smaller than that when it started.
So what?
However, in order to transform energy to matter we must have EM.You keep saying that.
I keep on pointing out that you are wrong.
Why won't you learn?
So, at that point we do understand that the BBT can't transform any energy into matter. Therefore it’s the time to set the BBT at the garbage.That claim is based on you saying this "in order to transform energy to matter we must have EM.". But that's just plain wrong.
Why do you believe it?
Did you misunderstand a book somewhere or what?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/12/2020 03:40:34
It is stated:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:41:18I already answered that.
How any kind of activity could generate the space in the Universe?
The current best view is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
Please pay attention.
The fact that I have to repeat stuff makes you look like a schoolkid who isn't paying attention.
The central idea is that the visible, three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the "bulk" (also known as "hyperspace").
Brane cosmology refers to several theories in particle physics and cosmology related to string theory, superstring theory and M-theory.
Sorry, the idea that our three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space is not realistic.
If you wish to belive in that it is your choice.
2. Electromagnetic transformation
That claim is based on you saying this "in order to transform energy to matter we must have EM.". But that's just plain wrong.
Well, I hope that you agree that just after the bang - the laws of physics must work.
The four forces of nature are considered to be the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, which has residual effects, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force.
However, Gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force can work only when there is already matter.
So, they can't convert energy into matter.
Therefore, the only force that can convert energy into matter is EM as each particle is actually a cell of energy. So the EM is the only force in the nature that can transform energy into particle.
If you don't understand that - you don't understand physics!
Therefore, each particle in our Universe got its energy by EM transformation.
Hence, without EM, the Big Bang won't create even one tiny particle.
3. SMBH after the Bnag
As you confirm:
Because it's when the universe was smaller than the Planck length.
So why after the bang while the early universe was very small and full with matter, it didn't collapse into a SMBH?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 09:22:18
So why after the bang while the early universe was very small and full with matter, it didn't collapse into a SMBH?One property- some would say a definition- definition of the Planck length is that it's the scale below which we don't expect the laws of physics to work properly.
(This is not an excuse for breaking them at whim).
However, since you believe this
" Gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force can work only when there is already matter."
And you think there isn't any matter, you believe there is no gravity.
So there can't be the ultimate SMBH you talk about.
EM is the only force in the nature that can transform energy into particle.No.
The strong nuclear force is also noted for doing it.
It's one of the interesting things about quarks.
So
If you don't understand that - you don't understand physics!
Sorry, the idea that our three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space is not realistic.You have spent long enough clinging to an idea of spontaneous generation- even though it is known to be impossible- that we all know that you can not judge what is realistic.
You can't? can you?
You think this is realistic
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg596466#msg596466
but it's plainly wrong.
You do not know how to tell if something is realistic.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/12/2020 10:21:49
The strong nuclear force can work ONLY once you have the quarks.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:40:34No.
EM is the only force in the nature that can transform energy into particle.
The strong nuclear force is also noted for doing it.
It's one of the interesting things about quarks.
So
However, how those quarks could be created by pure energy while there are no matter no particles and no EM?
Sorry - You don't have a basic clue why the EM is so important for quark creation!
Therefore, as long as you claim that the BBT can only deliver space and energy - there is no way for any sort of quark or particle to be created!
This is real science!
Hence, you have two options:
1. Change the BBT to deliver the EM/Quarks with the first creation of energy and space
Or
2. Set the BBT idea in the garbage.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 12:46:36
The strong nuclear force can work ONLY once you have the quarks.You keep saying that.
You say it as if it is somehow obviously true.
But you have not said why you think it is true (and you are actually wrong)
There's another point.
The early universe was full of energy.
If that wasn't in the form of the 4 fundamental forces, you have to explain what form it was in.
What options are there?
Sorry - You don't have a basic clue why the EM is so important for quark creation!It's not that I don't have a clue why it is needed.
It's that I know it is not needed.
I don't have to explain a figment of your imagination.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 12:49:20
1. Change the BBT to deliver the EM/Quarks with the first creation of energy and spaceThat's not a change to the theory.
Or
What would be a change would be your (impossible- as usual) idea that there was energy in the eagerly universe but that it wasn't in the form of EM, gravity, strong + weak forces (or combinations thereof)
You are saying we should bin the theory because you don't understand it.
Wouldn't it be better to bin your opinion?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/12/2020 17:16:15
The early universe was full of energy.So, you confirm that at the first moment the Universe was full with energy. However, you only mention energy. So, there was no particle or quark at the first moment.
If that wasn't in the form of the 4 fundamental forces, you have to explain what form it was in.Energy by itself can't be in the form of the form of 4 fundamental forces.
As I have already explained -
Gravity could only work with matter. So you need matter as atom, particle or quarks in order for it to work.
Same issue with weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Those forces won't work without Atom particle or quark.
Hence, the ONLY left over force that could set a work in that early universe is EM.
However, as the early Universe can't generate any EM without matter, then there is no way for it to transform its energy into any sort of particle or quark.
Dear Halc, Kryptid & evan_au
I would like to get your feedback about this issue.
Do you think that any quark or particle could be created by energy while there is no EM or any matter at all?
If yes, would you kindly explain how it works and offer Examples?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 18:26:38
Energy by itself can't be in the form of the form of 4 fundamental forces.A photon is energy in the form of electromagnetism
Learn physics.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 18:29:08
I would like to get your feedback about this issue.I gave you feedback.
You ignored it and prattled on about stupid things like "Energy by itself can't be in the form of the form of 4 fundamental forces."
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/12/2020 20:06:05
Energy by itself can't be in the form of the form of 4 fundamental forces.A photon is energy in the form of electromagnetism
Learn physics.
It's better for you to learn real physics
You have just confirmed my explanation.
As the photon is energy in the form of electromagnetism, it is clear that without EM there is no photon.
Please remember that photon is actually a massles particle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force).
We have already confirmed that the Universe after the bang was full with energy (However - there was No EM or any sort of particle).
Therefore, as a photon is a cell of energy (or particle) in the form of electromagnetisms and as there is no way to generate this particle (or any other mass or mass less particle) without EM, it is clear that the entire energy of the BBT won't create even one photon or quark.
Is it clear to you by now?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 20:21:07
Please remember that photon is actually a massles particle.Yes and no.
It has zero rest mass, but it has a relativistic mass from E=MC2
Please learn some physics.
As the photon is energy in the form of electromagnetism, it is clear that without EM there is no photon.It is equally clear that without photons there is no EM energy.
By similar reasoning, you can show that if there were no photons, gluons. gravitons and W and Z bosons.
But, it's plain that there was energy.
So those particles must have been there.
What other form of energy could it have been?
Is it clear to you by now?What is clear to me is that you don't understand this.
You have it the wrong way round.
There was energy
That energy must have been in some combination of the 4 fundamental forces.
Those forces only exist by virtue of force carries- the photon, which carries the EM force, is the best known.
So if there was EM energy there were photons.
So there were particles- that's what QM tells you; energy comes in lumps.
Post by: evan_au on 16/12/2020 20:45:23
Quote from: Dave Lev
Gravity could only work with matter. So you need matter as atom, particle or quarks in order for it to work.Not quite right. Gravity works with mass.
- As you imply, matter has mass, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field.
- However, energy also has mass, according to E=mc2, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field.
- That is why the path of light is bent when passing close by the Sun.
Quote
Same issue with weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Those forces won't work without Atom particle or quark.It is thought that, in the very early universe, all these forces were part of a common force, with similar strengths (unlike today, where gravity is much weaker than the other forces).
At these temperatures, atoms don't exist, and quarks bear no resemblance to what we see today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/12/2020 21:02:14
QuoteQuote from: Dave LevNot quite right. Gravity works with mass.
Gravity could only work with matter. So you need matter as atom, particle or quarks in order for it to work.
- As you imply, matter has mass, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field.
- However, energy also has mass, according to E=mc2, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field..
A particale has mass and therefore its mass is equivalent to E=mc2.
There is a possibility to convert energy to mass by creating new particale as it also represents a cell of energy.
However, in order to do so we MUST use EM transformation.
So, energy could be transformed to mass by EM and ONLY by EM.
Without EM there is no way to transform the energy into mass.
That is why the path of light is bent when passing close by the Sun.Light is also a form of particale.
Therefore it is effected by gravity.
It is thought that, in the very early universe, all these forces were part of a common force, with similar strengths (unlike today, where gravity is much weaker than the other forces).Well, there is no way to create any particale or Atom without EM.
At these temperatures, atoms don't exist, and quarks bear no resemblance to what we see today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch
So if there was EM energy there were photons.That is correct, but again based on the BBT there was only energy after the bang.
That energy won't create any sort of EM without matter/particle. So again - as there were no particles after the bang, there was no EM to generate any sort of particle.
So, without particles that carry EM there is no way to generate new particles.
Therefore - the BBT can't generate any sort of particle
But, it's plain that there was energy.Well, all the particles that we have in our universe are there due EM.
So those particles must have been there.
What other form of energy could it have been?
Due to Einstein New Particle Creation theory - New particles are created in our Universe.
So, only particle/matter can generate EM. Therefore, all the particles are there due to other Particles.
As long as you reject Einstein theory - you reject real science.
I have no intention to argue with you any more about Einstein ENPC theory.
It is your problem.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 21:10:13
However, in order to do so we MUST use EM transformation.Have you forgotten already?
No.
The strong nuclear force is also noted for doing it.
It's one of the interesting things about quarks.
Please pay attention.
The fact that I have to repeat stuff makes you look like a schoolkid who isn't paying attention.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 21:12:00
Well, there is no way to create any particale or Atom without EM.Even if that was true it wouldn't be important, would it?
There's plenty of EM energy in the aftermath of the BB.
So, even if you were right, it wouldn't matter.
Please stop repeating this nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/12/2020 21:14:00
Due to Einstein New Particle Creation theory -That's not a theory.
In Einstein's day it was an hypothesis.
Today it's a mistake.
It's known to be a mistake because it breaks the conservation laws.
Please stop repeating that nonsense too.
I have no intention to argue with you any more about Einstein ENPC theory.It does not exist.
You are the only one trying to argue about it.
Please stop.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/12/2020 19:03:54
It is thought that, in the very early universe, all these forces were part of a common force, with similar strengths (unlike today, where gravity is much weaker than the other forces).With regards to unification_epoch
At these temperatures, atoms don't exist, and quarks bear no resemblance to what we see today.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch
In the following article it is stated that "The universe was pure energy at this stage"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The Planck epoch was succeeded by the grand unification epoch beginning at 10−43 seconds, where gravitation separated from the other forces as the universe's temperature fell.[23] The universe was pure energy at this stage; too hot for any particles of matter to be created."
So, based on the BBT there was no Mass or Matter immediately after the bang. Just Pure energy.
Therefore, we can claim that M=0
The question is:
How pure energy could exist without mass?
So, first let's understand the real meaning of energy (or energy density):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
Energy density is the amount of energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume. It may also be used for energy per unit mass,"
However - if in that system or region of space there is no mass at all, can we claim that there is any energy there?
Please remember that it is stated that Energy density may also be used for energy per unit mass.
So, how energy could exist while there is no mass in that system or region of space?
Is there any meaning for Kinetic Energy or otential energy while there is no matter at all?
Can you please offer a form of energy without matter or mass?
Actually, you claim that "energy also has mass".
- However, energy also has mass, according to E=mc2, and so produces a gravitational field, and responds to a gravitational field.
So, if that PURE energy is mass, why they don't claim for mass?
Why do they insist on pure Energy?
According to Einstein: E=mc2
Hence, if M= 0 Then E=0
Please look again on the following long list of "Tables of energy content"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_density
For each storage type as: Hydrogen (fusion), Wood, Uranium... they offer the relevant/secific energy:
Just as an example:
For Diesel fuel the specific energy is 45.6.
So, if I have can generate a specific energy is 45.6 does it mean that I can generate diesel fuel?
As the answer is no, don't you agree that the Diesel fuel can be converted into specific energy of 45.6, but there is no instant way to convert specific energy of 45.6 to diesel fuel.
In the same token:
Let's look on Plutonium-239:
Plutonium-239 (239Pu, Pu-239) is an isotope of plutonium. Plutonium-239 is the primary fissile isotope used for the production of nuclear weapons.
So, if we break this isotope we convert the missing mass to energy, however what is needed to convert back the broken isotope to Plutonium-239?
Can we just add the missing energy and fix it back to Plutonium-239?
Can we create new Hydrogen Atom with pure energy?
Sorry, the assumption that "energy also has mass" is incorrect.
Mass can be converted to energy in a brief of moment, but energy can't be converted to mass in the same time frame.
Theoretically - we could convert energy to mass - but it is a very long process and as I have stated - there is no way to achieve it without EM.
CERN is a perfect example
https://home.cern/science/accelerators/accelerator-complex
"The accelerator complex at CERN is a succession of machines that accelerate particles to increasingly higher energies. Each machine boosts the energy of a beam of particles, before injecting the beam into the next machine in the sequence."
Their accelerators are based on ultra strong EM machine.
So again - a pure energy without EM won't create any sort of particle.
Therefore, if after the bang there was only pure energy - that pure energy won't create even one tiny quark or particle without EM.
Even if that energy was 100% EM energy, it should take it very long time to be converted to all the quarks/particles in the Universe.
Therefore, the assumption that 10^-6 sec after the bang whole of that pure energy had been converted to the whole quarks in the entire Universe is a pure imagination.
The BBT is useless. This is real science!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/12/2020 19:45:32
no Mass or Matter immediatelyMass and matter are not the same thing.
There was no matter, but there was a universe worth of mass.
Actually, you claim that "energy also has mass".That's not really my claim, it's Einstein's.
E=MC2
It may also be used for energy per unit mass,"If you are talking about batteries or petrol.
If you are talking about relativistic mass, the energy density is always the same. The energy per unit mass is c squared.
But that's not what they are talking about there.
why they don't claim for mass?Who is "they"?
What do you mean "claim for"?
So, if I have can generate a specific energy is 45.6 does it mean that I can generate diesel fuel?You do not seem to understand that the word "specific" has two meanings.
It doesn't (in this case) mean "special" it means "per amount of stuff by mass or by volume).
The best known example is the use of the phrase "specific gravity" for the mass per unit volume or the "specific heat capacity"- the heat capacity measured with respect to a given mass of water.
It really would be better if you learned some physics.
Can we create new Hydrogen Atom with pure energy?No, but you can produce an atom of hydrogen and an atom of antihydrogen.
Sorry, the assumption that "energy also has mass" is incorrect.It isn't an assumption.
It is an observation.
It's also a deduction.
You can't idolise Einstein for his mistake but say his famed formula is wrong.
energy can't be converted to mass in the same time frame.It does not need to be converted into mass.
It always has mass.
My coffee does not have to be "converted to brown". It is brown.
You still seem not to understand that "matter" is not the same as "mass".
So again - a pure energy without EM won't create any sort of particle.We find it easy to control electrical energy
But, in principle, there's nothing to stop the same reactions happening due to a different acceleration.
Two neutrons falling into a black hole would hit hard enough to do exciting physics.
But it's not a convenient experiment.
You can do matter energy interconversion without an EM field.
Again, it really would be better if you knew the physics . That way you would stop making these embarrassing mistakes.
Therefore, if after the bang there was only pure energy - that pure energy won't create even one tiny quark or particle without EM.If that was true (and it is false) it would not matter
Even if that was true it wouldn't be important, would it?
There's plenty of EM energy in the aftermath of the BB.
So, even if you were right, it wouldn't matter.
Please stop repeating this nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/12/2020 19:49:18
For Diesel fuel the specific energy is 45.6.No. It is not.
No competent scientist would say that.
The table is correct but you didn't even copy it right because you do not understand science.
So
This is real science!!!is absurd.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/12/2020 06:26:59
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:03:54No, but you can produce an atom of hydrogen and an atom of antihydrogen.
Can we create new Hydrogen Atom with pure energy?
Well, do you need energy to create those Atom of hydrogen and an atom of ant hydrogen?
Or do you mean that you get Atom of hydrogen and an atom of ant hydrogen "free of charge" without any investment of external energy"?
Please show me your observation for energy that is converted to mass!!!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:03:54It isn't an assumption.
Sorry, the assumption that "energy also has mass" is incorrect.
It is an observation.
Do you mean the Hawking radiation?
Let's verify the message from Hawking radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Physical insight into the process may be gained by imagining that particle–antiparticle radiation is emitted from just beyond the event horizon. This radiation does not come directly from the black hole itself, but rather is a result of virtual particles being "boosted" by the black hole's gravitation into becoming real particles.[citation needed] As the particle–antiparticle pair was produced by the black hole's gravitational energy, the escape of one of the particles lowers the mass of the black hole.[10]
An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole). This causes the black hole to lose mass, and, to an outside observer, it would appear that the black hole has just emitted a particle. In another model, the process is a quantum tunnelling effect, whereby particle–antiparticle pairs will form from the vacuum, and one will tunnel outside the event horizon."
If I remember correctly, you have stated that "the black hole's gravitational energy" isn't real energy.
Therefore, in order to keep the LAW of energy conservation, new particle–antiparticle pair must created. However while one particle has Positive mass, the other one must have negative mass.
So, technically those pair had been created without any investment of "real" energy.
Therefore, while the negative mass particle falls into the BH, it reduces the total mass of the BH.
Therefore, based on Hawking we actually reduce the mass of the BH by the same mass of the positive particle which had been emitted from the BH.
All of that without any investment of energy.
In other words - you confirm that today energy can't be converted to real particle:
No, but you can produce an atom of hydrogen and an atom of antihydrogen.If one atom of Hydrogen is created - there must be another anti hydrogen (with negative mass) that also must be created.
Based on your understanding/estimation, there is no way for today for any BH/SMBH in the whole Universe to use its EM energy to create a pair of particles with negative charge but both with positive mass. .
However, when it comes to the BBT, you are positively sure that pure energy after the bang worth mass:
There was no matter, but there was a universe worth of mass.So why 13.8 By ago a pure energy in the universe worth mass, while today there is no way to convert the BH EM energy to mass?
As long as you insist that today:
1. For any particle with positive mass that is created, there must be identical negative mass particale.
2. There is no need for any EM energy (or even pure energy) to create them
You must use those assumptions also for the activities that took place after the bang.
If today pure energy can't worth Mass, then also 13.8 Byears ago, pure energy can't worth mass.
You can't twist the law of science as you wish!
You insist for real observation
It isn't an assumption.So, please show the observation for the imaginary negative mass particle!!
It is an observation.
As there is not even one negative particle mass in the entire Universe and as this assumption is a pure fiction - You are totally lost
You and all the BBT scientists including Hawking have no clue how real particles (both with positive mass) are created today. Therefore, you can't claim that you know how particles have been created from energy 13.8 Byears ago.
Your BBT theory is useless.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/12/2020 10:25:12
Or do you mean that you get Atom of hydrogen and an atom of ant hydrogen "free of charge" without any investment of external energy"?No
I understand the conservation of energy/ mass.
It's you who thinks you can create particles by magic.
Remember, you wrote a big pointless thread about it- you called it "theory 4", even though it wasn't a theory.
Well, do you need energy to create those Atom of hydrogen and an atom of ant hydrogen?What I said was that, with enough energy, you can build an atom of hydrogen and an atom of anti hydrogen.
And your response is to ask if I need energy to do it.
Why don't you learn to read?
Do you mean the Hawking radiation?No.
We explained that- but you refuse to understand it.
Because it is a different process (witch you got muddled about) the rest of your post makes no sense.
However, when it comes to the BBT, you are positively sure that pure energy after the bang worth mass:I don't think you understood the phrase "worth of".
So why 13.8 By ago a pure energy in the universe worth mass, while today there is no way to convert the BH EM energy to mass?There is a way to get black holes to produce particles, but only at the expense of the BH disappearing slowly.
Your idea of an infinitely old universe must be wrong because (among other problems) all the BH would have evaporated.
As long as you insist that today:
1. For any particle with positive mass that is created, there must be identical negative mass particale.
2. There is no need for any EM energy (or even pure energy) to create them
Please learn to read and pay attention.
It isn't that I insist on the first one.
The universe insists on the first one.
And the second one is the opposite of what I actually said.
If today pure energy can't worth MassNobody competent said that.
You can't twist the law of science as you wish!It isn't me twisting it.
The problem is you don't understand it.
That's why you think silly things like the idea that I might have said this:
There is no need for any EM energy (or even pure energy) to create themWhen I said the opposite.
So, please show the observation for the imaginary negative mass particle!!That's got practically nothing to do with this issue.
You and all the BBT scientists including Hawking have no clue how real particles (both with positive mass) are created today.We do understand that you can't create them from "Nothing"- that's from Noether's hundred year old theory.
We know that they are not created in the way that your silly idea said they could be.
Therefore, you can't claim that you know how particles have been created from energy 13.8 Byears ago.Yes I can. It's called pair creation.
And we can do experiments on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
You seem to think that because you are ignorant, we can't do something.
That's a very stupid viewpoint.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/12/2020 17:09:41
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:26:59Yes I can. It's called pair creation.
Therefore, you can't claim that you know how particles have been created from energy 13.8 Byears ago.
And we can do experiments on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
In this article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"The photon's energy is converted to particle mass in accordance with Einstein’s equation, E = m ⋅ c2; where E is energy, m is mass and c is the speed of light. The photon must have higher energy than the sum of the rest mass energies of an electron and positron (2 ⋅ 511 keV = 1.022 MeV, resulting in a photon-wavelength of 1.2132 picometer) for the production to occur."
Hence, it is clearly stated that in order for the pair particles production to occur, somehow we must supply energy which is equal to the sum of both particles energies.
It is also stated:
"The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum, as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum.[4] Because of this, when pair production occurs, the atomic nucleus receives some recoil. The reverse of this process is electron positron annihilation."
It is clearly stated that "The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum" and also that " the atomic nucleus receives some recoil", However, they do not explain how the energy transformation from the BH to the pair really works.
Therefore, would you kindly explain how the BH transfers some of its energy to the creation of this pair?
In any case, as it is clearly state that: "The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum".
So, a pair production could ONLY take place near the nucleus of the BH.
I hope that you do understand the meaning of that message:
Any kind of new pair particles/quarks production must take place near a nucleus of the BH in order to satisfy conservation of momentum.
Is it clear to you by now? If not let me whisper the following:
As there were no BH after the Big Bang and as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum NOT EVEN ONE PARTICLES/QUARKS PAIR COULD BE CREATED!!!
Hence, do you finely understand why the garbage is a good place for the BBT?
If not, then please show us how you are going to twist the law of physics (conservation of energy and momentum) in order to hold the BBT.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/12/2020 19:14:21
Hence, it is clearly stated that in order for the pair particles production to occur, somehow we must supply energy which is equal to the sum of both particles energies.Not a problem.
"The photon must be near a nucleus in order to satisfy conservation of momentum, as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentum.[4] Because of this, when pair production occurs, the atomic nucleus receives some recoil.You forgot to bold this bit " in free space "
In the turmoil of the early Universe, the density of photons is vastly higher than the density of a nucleus.
That's enough to solve the momentum conservation problem.
So, there's no difficulty with pair production in the early Universe.
Do you understand that, when people write things like
The photon must be near a nucleusthey don't include caveats like "except in the first flash of the Universe"?
It's generally true, but not absolutely.
In fact anything that gives rise to a potential gradient is good enough.
I hope that you do understand the meaning of that message:Yes.
I do.
It's a pity you didn't but that's because you refuse to do as I suggest and learn some physics.
If you did, you wouldn't make mistakes like this
a nucleus of the BH in
When the Wiki page talks about a "nucleus", the mean an atom's nucleus.
It's nothing to do with black holes. A black hole doesn't really have a nucleus- it has a singularity in the middle.
Why did you try to pretend that you need a BH to get pair formation?
Did you just not understand, or were you hoping I wouldn't notice the mistake?
As there were no BH after the Big Bang and as an electron–positron pair produced in free space cannot both satisfy conservation of energy and momentumYes I can.
In the circumstances of the very early universe the photon(etc) density was high enough that you could use photons instead of nuclei.
Indeed, some of the photons would be more massive than nuclei.
So, what you said is wrong- because you don't understand the physics involved
Perhaps you will remember that next time and avoid the embarrassment of being WRONG IN CAPITAL LETTERS WITH LOTS OF EXCLAMATION MARKS LIKE THIS.
NOT EVEN ONE PARTICLES/QUARKS PAIR COULD BE CREATED!!!Because it just makes you look childish.
If not, then please show us how you are going to twist the law of physicsAs I pointed out before.
It isn't me twisting it.
The problem is you don't understand it.
I don't need to twist it, I just need to understand it.
You should try this approach. It's much more satisfying than posting nonsense and getting laughed at.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/12/2020 04:22:43
When the Wiki page talks about a "nucleus", the mean an atom's nucleus.
In the turmoil of the early Universe, the density of photons is vastly higher than the density of a nucleus.I would like to remind you that based on the BBT theory the Big Bang had delivered PURE energy and space.
That's enough to solve the momentum conservation problem.
So, there's no difficulty with pair production in the early Universe.
Our BBT scientists do no claim that that Big Bang also delivered Atom nucleus or Photon in its first bang.
So, it is all about PURE energy.
Therefore, you can't just use Atom nucleus or Photon energy for the pair particle creation while we have no clue how those Atom nucleus or Photon had been created from that pure energy.
Therefore, your task is to show how the BBT Pure energy which had been delivered by the Big Bang (with space) could be converted to Atoms nucleus, Photons, quarks and all other forms of particles that are needed for the entire Universe in less than 10^-6 sec..
Why did you try to pretend that you need a BH to get pair formation?In that article they also highlight the Pair production by BH:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"According to quantum mechanics, particle pairs are constantly appearing and disappearing as a quantum foam. In a region of strong gravitational tidal forces, the two particles in a pair may sometimes be wrenched apart before they have a chance to mutually annihilate. When this happens in the region around a black hole, one particle may escape while its antiparticle partner is captured by the black hole"
So our scientists assume that the new particles pair is created by the BH strong gravitational tidal forces.
However, they do not clearly explain how the energy transformation into the new created pair really works.
Are they sure that the strong gravitational tidal forces are good enough for the creation process?
What about EM? Don't you agree that it is also a vital element for that process?
In any case -
I hope that you agree that pure energy has no region of strong gravitational tidal forces.
So, Please show how the BBT Pure energy which had been delivered by the Big Bang (with space and free of charge) - could be converted to any sort of particle while there are no BH, no matter (any sort of matter) no EM and no region of strong gravitational tidal forces.
Post by: evan_au on 22/12/2020 08:40:33
Quote from: Dave Lev
If one atom of Hydrogen is created - there must be another anti hydrogen (with negative mass) that also must be created.An experiment is underway at LHC to discover if antimatter has negative mass, by seeing if it falls at 1g in Earth's gravity.
- It is a difficult experiment, and the first attempts had really big uncertainties (bigger than 1 g)
- They are retrying it with more precise equipment.
- Most physicists think that antimatter will have positive mass (partly because of E=mc2), but they are testing it to make sure!
See: https://home.cern/science/experiments/aegis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter#Properties
Quote
Please show how ...the Big Bang ... (has) no region of strong gravitational tidal forces.On the contrary, it is thought that there were very strong gravitational effects during the Big Bang.
- Scientists are trying to detect relic gravitational waves from the Big Bang (but it's not clear how you would do this - it requires very different equipment from LIGO/VIRGO, since the frequencies are expected to be much higher).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave_background#Cosmological_Sources
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/12/2020 16:48:12
Thanks for your reply
Most physicists think that antimatter will have positive mass (partly because of E=mc2),Yes, I fully agree with that.
There is not even one Antimatter particle with Negative mass in our entire Universe - Only positive mass!!!
Hence, the Hawking radiation theory for negative mass should be set in the garbage.
In any case, for any particles pair (both with positive mass) somehow Energy must be delivered.
Hence, if the requested energy for one particle is:
E1=mc2
Then for both particles it should be:
E=E1+E2 = mc2+mc2 = 2mc2
So, how a BH could deliver that energy to the new created particles pair?
I wonder what "Most physicists" think about that problem.
Why they reject the idea of EM energy transformation.
As electronic Engineer I'm well aware about the great impact of EM transformation.
We are using EM transformation/power supply for almost any electric equipment.
So, why is it so difficult for our scientists to understand the great impact of EM transformation?
Don't they have a basic knowledge in EM & electronics?
- They are retrying it with more precise equipment.They are wasting their time.
There is no negative mass and there will be no negative mass.
On the contrary, it is thought that there were very strong gravitational effects during the Big Bang.I assume that as it is thought that 10^-6 sec after the bang all the particles (base on the BBT theory) had been created, and therefore it is expected that there "were very strong gravitational effects".
However, as not even a single particle could be created from a pure energy, then the idea of "very strong gravitational effects during the Big Bang" should be set in the garbage.
- Scientists are trying to detect relic gravitational waves from the Big Bang (but it's not clear how you would do this - it requires very different equipment from LIGO/VIRGO, since the frequencies are expected to be much higher).Again - they are wasting their time for nothing.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2020 19:26:55
Our BBT scientists do no claim that that Big Bang also delivered Atom nucleus or Photon in its first bang.There' no point reminding me of things I already know.
So, it is all about PURE energy.
But, as I pointed out before, that energy is - at least in part, in the form of EM energy and that- whether you like it or not- means photons.
You need to start paying attention.
Otherwise you just look childish.
I hope that you agree that pure energy has no region of strong gravitational tidal forces.Why do you hope that I say Einstein was wrong?
He was, of course, quite right about this.
Energy does produce a gravitational field because it has mass according to Einstein's famed equation.
Again I have already pointed this out.
Again, you ignore it and look a fool.
Post by: charles1948 on 22/12/2020 23:17:10
When you ask a Physicist a question, you never get a straight answer..
Whereas, if you ask a Chemist a question about their subject, you get a precise, definite, and verifiable answer.
At least, that's the impression I get. Do others feel the same?
Post by: Halc on 22/12/2020 23:26:43
An experiment is underway at LHC to discover if antimatter has negative mass, by seeing if it falls at 1g in Earth's gravity.Seriously? Do they know that negative mass also 'falls down' under positive gravity? It's positive mass that is repelled by negative mass, not the other way around. Just plug the numbers into F=GMm/r² and F=ma. Acceleration 'a' is still positive in this situation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/12/2020 23:34:54
Because no Physicist seems certain of anything in their subject.Chemists usually find it easier to fund their experiments.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/12/2020 06:48:18
as I pointed out before, that energy is - at least in part, in the form of EM energy and that- whether you like it or not- means photons.Congratulation!
Finely, you do understand that without EM energy there will be no photon No Atom nucleus and no any kind of matter!
So, let's agree that without EM energy a photon wouldn't be created!
2. EM energy
However, EM energy is quite special.
You can't get it without Magnet / rotatable Dynamo.
You also need some minimal space to set the energy transformation.
This is real physics.
So, 10^-46 sec before the big bang, while there was no Matter (No magnet no rotatable Dynamo) and no space in the universe - any sort of bang won't be able to deliver EM energy!!!
Therefore, as based on the BBT theory there was no magnets no rotatable dynamo and no space- there is no way to get EM energy by a bang.
3. Gravity
Let's assume that there was some kind of magnetic & dynamo and even some minimal space to deliver that EM energy.
Is that good enough to create any kind of matter including photons?
The answer is clearly NOT!
EM energy won't create even one photon without nearby strong gravity force. (As it was explained by the BH particle pair creation).
However, you assume that energy means mass and therefore there is gravity:
Why do you hope that I say Einstein was wrong?This is just pure of nonsense
He was, of course, quite right about this.
Energy does produce a gravitational field because it has mass according to Einstein's famed equation.
Einstein has told us about the energy in the mass:
E=mc2
However, he didn't claim that if you have energy, then this energy should be transformed automatically to mass.
We have an evidence for that:
In atomic bomb we convert mass to energy.
Once it is energy it has no weight and no gravity force.
Therefore, energy has no gravity force.
If your imagination was correct then at the same moment of extracting energy from the atom mass, that energy should be converted back to mass.
That isn't the case and would never be.
Mass can be converted to energy in a brief of moment, but energy can't be converted to mass in a similar process.
You need strong gravity and EM energy to create particle pair.
As EM by itself can't generate any sort of gravity, there is no way for it to create even one photon
4. Different gravity forces at different space
Based on the BH particle creation we do understand that new particles pair could be created NEAR a strong gravity force, but no IN that gravity force/core. Therefore, our scientists do no claim that the pair is created inside the BH. ONLY nearby the BH - near the event of horizon.
So, special gravity conditions and EM energy are needed in order to generate even one particle.
However, based on the BBT the new created space was full with energy and gravity and there was no space outside that new created zone. Therefore, this new zone acts as a core of a BH. As no new particle could be created at the BH core (while it has EM energy and strong gravity), it is very clear that under those conditions not even one particle could be created at that new BBT zone/space.
5. Time
Don't you agree that it takes some time to generate particles pairs.
We clearly see that activity abound BH.
So, the idea that all the BBT energy could be transformed in less than 10^-6sec to the entire matter in the Universe is the Biggest science fiction by those people that are called BBT scientists.
6. Size of the entire Universe
In any case, let's assume that somehow against all the physics laws some particles could be created.
However, what is the real energy level that is needed just for the ordinary matter in the entire Universe?
As you don't know the size of the Universe you can't tell us if it is feasible to get all that energy free of charge.
Therefore, without clear message from those BBT scientists about the real size of the entire Universe - the BBT is useless.
7. Total EM Energy level/amplitude
Let's assume that somehow we can extract/calculate the total energy in the ordinary mass in the entire Universe
However, what is the real EM Energy level/amplitude that the BBT must deliver in order to create this total ordinary matter?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matter_creation
"According to the Big Bang theory, in the early universe, mass-less photons and massive fermions would inter-convert freely. As the photon gas expanded and cooled, some fermions would be left over (in extremely small amounts ~10−10) because low energy photons could no longer break them apart. Those left-over fermions would have become the matter we see today in the universe around us."
So, for each ordinary particle that we see today in our universe, an energy of 10^10 of its energy was needed.
Hence, as the energy in one particle is:
E= mc^2
The Big Bang had to deliver:
E(big bang energy for just one particle creation) = 10^10 * mc^2.
8. Dark matter and dark energy
Even if somehow the Big Bang could deliver 10^10 of the total energy in the entire ordinary matter in the Universe, it still must cover the dark matter and the dark energy.
As the ordinary matter is less than 4% of the total energy in the Universe, somehow the Big bang also must deliver that energy
Conclusion:
If you think that against all science laws and against all the contradictions in the BBT theory - this kind of energy could be delivered by a bang and then be converted to the ordinary matter in the Universe (exactly in the requested ratio between Ordinary matter - dark matter and dark energy) in less than 10^-6 of a sec, It's better for you to give up on the title "scientist".
Any one that believes in all the above fictions can't be considered as real scientist.
It is all pure imagination.
Its time to set the BBT at the garbage for the last time.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 23/12/2020 11:54:13
2. EM energyYes, I can get EM energy without magnet.
However, EM energy is quite special.
You can't get it without Magnet / rotatable Dynamo.
When I move an electrified object longitudinally to and fro a piece of metal wire, I induce an alternating current in it. This AC has a magnetic field, right? So, I have produced a magnetic field with an electrified object. No magnets.
In my thread What is electromagnetic induction? https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=78632.0
I present a very simple experiment where I induce an electric current by means of an electrified glass plate and electrified vinyl plate. They have opposite effects. The experiment is extremely simple on the one hand, extremely important on the other hand and yet unknown to this science in the form presented.
Do you know why? Because the contemporary science is void of reality and full of fables.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/12/2020 13:22:04
Yes, I can get EM energy without magnet.
When I move an electrified object longitudinally to and fro a piece of metal wire, I induce an alternating current in it.
Would you kindly explain how to get EM energy while there is no electrified object, no piece of metal wire, no electrified glass plate, no electrified vinyl plate, no any sort of matter and the available space is infinite small?
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 23/12/2020 13:34:23
I have no further comment.Yes, I can get EM energy without magnet.
When I move an electrified object longitudinally to and fro a piece of metal wire, I induce an alternating current in it.
Would you kindly explain how to get EM energy while there is no electrified object, no piece of metal wire, no electrified glass plate, no electrified vinyl plate, no any sort of matter and the available space is infinite small?
You said that it is impossible to get EM energy without magnet.
I have presented experiment where I get EM energy with electrified glass (Plus electrification) and electrified vinyl (Minus electrification). No magnets.
That's all I wanted to say and I am out.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/12/2020 15:06:41
You can't get it without Magnet / rotatable Dynamo.No
For example, the Sun shines.
Why do you make such obvious mistakes?
Do you enjoy being laughed at?
However, he didn't claim that if you have energy, then this energy should be transformed automatically to mass.Energy does not need to "be converted into mass"
We have an evidence for that:
As I pointed out. energy already had mass.
It does not need to be converted into mass.
It always has mass.
My coffee does not have to be "converted to brown". It is brown.
You still seem not to understand that "matter" is not the same as "mass".
You seem to accept that gravitational lensing is real.
And you seem to accept that photon pressure is real (and if you don't you aren't doing science, there's stacks of evidence.
If photons produce pressure then photons must carry momentum.
(Again the evidence proves that)
So you agree that a photon going past a massive object like a star will have its path changed by gravity.
And that means there's a change in momentum.
And that, in turn means there's a force.
And newtons laws tell us that if star produces a force on the photon, the photon must produce a force on the star.
And that tells us that the photon has mass.
Energy has mass- calculated as E=MC2
The Big Bang had to deliver:And we are here
E(big bang energy for just one particle creation) = 10^10 * mc^2.
So something delivered that energy.
Why look at that as a problem?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/12/2020 14:02:31
And that tells us that the photon has mass.In the following article it is stated that "Photons are massless,"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
"A photon is massless,[d] has no electric charge,[18][19] and is a stable particle."
It is also stated why it is massless
"Current commonly accepted physical theories imply or assume the photon to be strictly massless. If the photon is not a strictly massless particle, it would not move at the exact speed of light, c, in vacuum. Its speed would be lower and depend on its frequency. Relativity would be unaffected by this; the so-called speed of light, c, would then not be the actual speed at which light moves, but a constant of nature which is the upper bound on speed that any object could theoretically attain in spacetime.[32] Thus, it would still be the speed of spacetime ripples (gravitational waves and gravitons), but it would not be the speed of photons."
However, it has energy
"In empty space, the photon moves at c (the speed of light) and its energy and momentum are related by E = pc, where p is the magnitude of the momentum vector p. This derives from the following relativistic relation, with m = 0:[24]"
So, the photon is a mass less particle but it has energy E = pc.
Energy has mass- calculated as E=MC2No
Energy doesn't mean that it has mass.
We have just found that photon has energy but its mass is zero.
Energy does not need to "be converted into mass"As I have proved, this is incorrect.
As I pointed out. energy already had mass.
If energy is mass, then why is it absolutely impossible mission for us to convert energy to any kind of particle?
Our scientists claim that Mass is just a super-concentrated form of energy and, moreover, these things can turn from one form to the other and back again. Nuclear power stations exploit this idea inside their reactors where subatomic particles, called neutrons, are fired at the nuclei of uranium atoms, which causes the uranium to split into smaller atoms. The process of fission releases energy and further neutrons that can go on to split more uranium atoms. If you made very precise measurements of all the particles before and after the process, you would find that the total mass of the latter was very slightly smaller than the former, a difference known as the "mass defect". That missing matter has been converted to energy and you can calculate how much using Einstein's equation.
So, the process of converting mass to energy is very clear and simple.
However, as our scientists claim that energy is mass then why can't we convert energy to new (mass/mass less) particle as a photon or quark?
At CERN our scientists have built the biggest transformations in the planet.
Those ultra big transformations generate ultra high EM field.
So, why this facility can't generate a stream of new particles?
That shows that even if we have ultra high EM field/energy that can set ultra high force on a particle that is running in the loop, it can't generate new particles (mass or mass less).
So it's time for you to understand that the BBT pure energy can't be converted to any mass or mass less particles as Photons, quarks, Atom and so on.
In any case, you actually have even failed to show how the BBT' pure energy could represent EM energy which is needed for the photon.
You also have failed to show how the energy had been converted to all the Photons/ quarks/ particles in the entire universe in less than 10^-6 sec.
I have offered 8 key stages why the BBT is useless.
The BBT had failed already at the first stage.
Even a single photon creation is too difficult for the BBT
1. Photon creationYou have just confirmed that EM energy is needed for a Photon.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 22/12/2020 19:26:55
as I pointed out before, that energy is - at least in part, in the form of EM energy and that- whether you like it or not- means photons.
Congratulation!
Finely, you do understand that without EM energy there will be no photon No Atom nucleus and no any kind of matter!
So, let's agree that without EM energy a photon wouldn't be created!
I hope that you also agree that the BBT' pure energy in an infinite small space while there are no other kind of matter/magnets/dynamo can't represent EM radiation.
Actually, you totally ignore the article from our scientists about the new particle pair creation.
Any particle creation in the Universe must obey to that explanation.
As the BBT doesn't fulfill the requirements for new created particles pair (as explained in that article) - it can't generate even one particle and can't cross the first stage in my explanation.
And we are hereWe are here, but clearly not due to the BBT.
So something delivered that energy.
Why look at that as a problem?
Once we agree on that - we can look for better understanding how we have got the total energy in our Universe.
So, please take a break and set the BBT in the garbage.
If you still refuse to abandon the BBT, then please start by answering how you convert the pure BBT' energy to EM energy while there is no matter/magnet/dynamo in that infinite small universe, and then cross all the 8 stages - step by step.
Good Luck!
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/12/2020 15:54:09
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_vs._rest_mass
However, even massless particles have a relativistic mass, which varies with their observed energy in various frames of reference.
So, once you understand that "massless" particles have mass, you might make some progress towards learning science.
The BBT had failed already at the first stage.The BBT worked just fine.
Your understanding failed- as usual.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/12/2020 05:43:48
Thanks for highlighting the next thing you need to learn.Why don't you copy the whole explanation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity#Relativistic_vs._rest_mass
However, even massless particles have a relativistic mass, which varies with their observed energy in various frames of reference.
So, once you understand that "massless" particles have mass, you might make some progress towards learning science.
"A so-called massless particle (such as a photon, or a theoretical graviton) moves at the speed of light in every frame of reference. In this case there is no transformation that will bring the particle to rest. The total energy of such particles becomes smaller and smaller in frames which move faster and faster in the same direction. As such, they have no rest mass, because they can never be measured in a frame where they are at rest. This property of having no rest mass is what causes these particles to be termed "massless". However, even massless particles have a relativistic mass, which varies with their observed energy in various frames of reference."
In any case, even if we consider the Photon as massless particles which have a relativistic mass, it doesn't prove that energy has mass.
So let me ask you for the last time.
As you wish to believe that the Pure BBT energy is mass then why the energy today isn't mass?
Would you kindly explain how any kind of energy today as Kinetic energy, potential energy, Heat energy, Atomic energy or even Gravity energy should be considered as mass energy or real particles.
Please - not converting massless particale to mass particle, but creating new particles out of ONLY pure energy (without any nearby Atom BH or any kind or real matter- only pure energy)?
Actually, I really wonder why our BBT scientists can't just change the BBT theory.
Instead of claiming for "Pure Energy" due to the Big Bang, why don't they claim for new mass/mass less particles?
So, why they don't claim for particles energy instead of pure energy?
Could it be that the Big Bang could only deliver pure energy without any sort of mass - and then in order to support that BBT imagination they ask you to claim that energy means mass?
It is their theory.
Technically they could even claim that the BIG BANG forms a star system with its planet or even a full size spiral galaxy by its first bang.
They could also claim that each galaxy had been created by a single bang.
So, again - why our scientists insist for "Pure energy"
Why they don't call it infinite "energy particles" (mass or mass less) from the first moment of the bang (or even atoms) and save you?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/12/2020 05:24:06
Do you confirm that BC has a fatal error in his following statement?
Energy does not need to "be converted into mass"
As I pointed out. energy already had mass.
Do you confirm that energy doesn't always mean mass (especially if there is no mass to start with)?
Do you also confirm that there must be a fatal error in the BBT as it can't cross the 8 stages which I have offered?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/12/2020 12:33:49
Why don't you copy the whole explanation?Because it didn't make any difference; it was irrelevant.
So let me ask you for the last time.I'm betting it isn't...
As you wish to believe that the Pure BBT energy is mass then why the energy today isn't mass?
Again, you are refusing to think about what I actually said, an thus you are attributing beliefs to me that I do not hold.
"As you wish to believe that the Pure BBT energy is mass"
I don't believe that it IS mass, I believe that it HAS mass
Once again.
My coffee does not have to be "converted to brown". It is brown.Energy doesn't have to BE mas , it HAS mass.
Do you understand that difference?
Would you kindly explain how any kind of energy today as Kinetic energy, potential energy, Heat energy, Atomic energy or even Gravity energy should be considered as mass energy or real particles.If I get a rock, and heat it up, it gains mass.
The effect is small, but real.
Energy really does have mass.
It does happen "today" so your question is meaningless.
Instead of claiming for "Pure Energy"They don't.
Find a scientific publication (Not some bit of pop-science writing) where a scientist (not a journalist) actually says that, or accept that you are setting up a straw man.
Could it be that the Big Bang could only deliver pure energy without any sort of massNo.
Because, whether you like it or not, energy has mass.
So, again - why our scientists insist for "Pure energy"It's not clear that they did.
You would need to show an example (in a real science paper, not a newspaper).
Why they don't call it infinite "energy particles"Because it would be redundant, or wrong, depending on what you mean by "particle".
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/12/2020 19:26:19
If I get a rock, and heat it up, it gains mass.Well, if you heat a rock it won't add even one more particle/quark to the rock.
The effect is small, but real.
Energy really does have mass.
It does happen "today" so your question is meaningless.
This rock would surely be heavier due to the heat; however, as it cools back it will get to the same starting weight.
So, the heat energy doesn't add even one new particle/quark to the available matter and as it cools down the impact of the heat energy would be ZERO.
whether you like it or not, energy has mass.Whether you like it or not, energy could have some temporary impact on the available/current matter/mass but it doesn't add even one new quark.
You can try to heat the empty space with ultra high energy/temp and won't find there even one new particle due to that heat.
Conclusion -
The assumption that the BBT energy has mass and due to that mass it has particles/quarks for the whole universe is absolutely incorrect.
The BBT energy has not even one quark.
Without the quarks - the BBT is not relevant.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/12/2020 19:51:28
Now, do you remember that you were saying that energy couldn't make new particles without mass?
Well, now we have the energy and the mass so we can make particles.
I forgot to mention that I got the rock very hot.
Much hotter than rocks usually get- in fact I got it as hot as the starting conditions of the universe.
At that sort of temperature, it's producing photons that are big enough to undergo pair production and make particles.
It's possible, you see.
It's just that you forgot how.
It really would be better if you learned some science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/12/2020 19:30:01
I guess it's progress that you now accept that energy has mass.
Now, do you remember that you were saying that energy couldn't make new particles without mass?
Well, now we have the energy and the mass so we can make particles.
I forgot to mention that I got the rock very hot.
Much hotter than rocks usually get- in fact I got it as hot as the starting conditions of the universe.
At that sort of temperature, it's producing photons that are big enough to undergo pair production and make particles.
It's possible, you see.
It's just that you forgot how.
It really would be better if you learned some science.
What a nonsense.
When you heat an object its mass increases due to (pc).
The complete equation is:
E^2=(pc)^2+(mc^2)^2
And from this equation if a system has zero momentum (p=0), then it has energy E=mc^2
When you heat an object the molecules or atoms begin to vibrate, rotate with more kinetic energy. But this doesn't increase the momentum of the system (the object is a system of many particles). Though the kinetic energy of the particles that make the system increases, the system is at rest (when you heat the object the object doesn't start moving). Hence, from the equation I wrote above the energy you provide get added as mass of object.
However, not even one quark is added due to that heat energy.
Don't you understand that you have lost the game long time ago?
Why do you keep with your pathetic approach?
It really would be better if you learned some science.
Post by: evan_au on 28/12/2020 11:02:39
Quote from: Halc
It's positive mass that is repelled by negative mass, not the other way around.What happened to "Every Action has an equal and opposite Reaction"?
If "positive mass is repelled by negative mass", ie Force < 0 or repulsion
Then "negative mass must also be repelled by positive mass", ie Force < 0 or repulsion
...which violates the quoted assertion about "not the other way around".
In reality, while we have firm evidence for antimatter, we do not (as yet) have firm evidence for negative mass.
- The common expectation amongst Physicists seems to be that an antimatter particle has exactly the same mass as it's matter counterpart (ie positive mass)
- One way of seeing this is through E=mc2
- It is known that a matter particle and its antimatter counterpart have exactly the same energy E (which is positive)
- The speed of light c is positive, as is c2
- The mass of a particle or its antimatter counterpart is E/c2 = +/+, which is > 0
- But the current experiments at the LHC will confirm or disprove this expectation.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/12/2020 12:49:32
Don't you understand that you have lost the game long time ago?I was going to ask you the same question.
Why do you keep with your pathetic approach?
Have you noticed that nobody agrees with you but they broadly agree with me?
Anyway~
What you seem to be saying is that the mass of the electrons rises because they move faster when hotter.
But the mass of the whole object- including the electrons does not rise.
How is that possible?
The mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its components.
If you had learned some science, you would know that.
BTW, you aren't allowed to use a negative mass to balance things.
Post by: Halc on 28/12/2020 13:34:10
It's alive and well. For any momentum given to the positive mass, there is equal and opposite momentum added to the negative mass. Force in one direction on one and in the opposite direction on the other. Momentum is conserved.Quote from: HalcIt's positive mass that is repelled by negative mass, not the other way around.What happened to "Every Action has an equal and opposite Reaction"?
Quote
If "positive mass is repelled by negative mass", ie Force < 0 or repulsionThat was admittedly worded ambiguously. I said that positive mass is repelled by negative mass. Force is equal and opposite, so in terms of force, both masses are 'repelled' by the other, but a force to the east on a negative mass will cause acceleration to the west, which is what I meant by 'not the other way around'. It is this fact that seems to contradict what the LHC guys are looking for since they seem to expect antimatter (somehow slowed down so they can watch it long enough) to accelerate upward.
Then "negative mass must also be repelled by positive mass", ie Force < 0 or repulsion
...which violates the quoted assertion about "not the other way around".
Quote
In reality, while we have firm evidence for antimatter, we do not (as yet) have firm evidence for negative mass.I seriously doubt that antimatter has negative mass, else there'd be asymmetric behavior between normal matter and antimatter (the one chasing the other). On the other hand there is negative gravitational potential (a function of mass density) which very much does repel normal matter. There's the Dipole Repeller which is vaguely in the opposite direction from the Great Attractor and the far more massive Shapley Attractor. Objects on the far side (upper right) of the Dipole Repeller are accelerated away (right and up) from it all despite the mass of all those attractors pulling things to the left.
- The common expectation amongst Physicists seems to be that an antimatter particle has exactly the same mass as it's matter counterpart (ie positive mass)
Red dot in center with yellow velocity vector is us.
(https://skyandtelescope.org/wp-content/uploads/cosmic_void_dipole_repeller_480px-736x490-c-default.jpg)
I can't find a higher-res image of that, but the colored areas are basically a topo-map of perhaps relative mass density or gravitational potential depth (whatever 'PN' units are) with Shapley being around +1000 and Dipole repeller being around -700 in the center. These are relative numbers, so the '0' can be assigned anywhere, but the repulsion is very much real.
Quote
- The speed of light c is positive, as is c2Yes, but c is just a magnitude, not a vector, so not sure about this argument. But I agree about the bit where matter/antimatter collision produces positive energy. It would cancel to nothing (as it does with virtual particle pairs) if antimatter had negative energy/mass. So not sure why the scientists are possibly expecting something else.
What if they do observe it accelerating 'upward'? That would mean that antimatter has the positive mass and all the normal matter that we know has negative mass. It means we're the antimatter. That would shake things up, no?
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/12/2020 16:12:52
What you seem to be saying is that the mass of the electrons rises because they move faster when hotter.
But the mass of the whole object- including the electrons does not rise.
How is that possible?
The mass of an object is the sum of the masses of its components.
If you had learned some science, you would know that.
I have found excelent explanation for you from Karen Ng, studied Physics Answered March 8, 2013:
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold
"The people who have answered the question before me are correct in their reasoning but they can use the more explicit expression of:
E=((Mrest c^2)^2+(pc)^2)√≡Mequivalent c^2
Mequivalent=(Mrest^2+(p/c)^2)√
So, there are two kinds of mass:
Mequivalent and Mrest
If p=0
Mequivalent = Mrest
In any case, the idea that the rock would be heavier due to higher temp is based ONLY on its p.
If you ignore its p and its Mequivalent then it is clear that there will be no change in the mass.
So again - higher temp doesn't add even one particle/quark.
If you still wish to believe that this is feasible - then please introduce article/calculation to support this imagination.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/12/2020 16:45:50
So, there are two kinds of mass:Yes, I know.
And any mass will do as a way to conserve momentum during pair production.
In any case, the idea that the rock would be heavier due to higher temp is based ONLY on its p.Your lack of understanding is beside the point; the mass still increases with temperature.
If you ignore its p and its Mequivalent then it is clear that there will be no change in the mass.
If you ignore its p and its Mequivalent then it is clear that there will be no change in the mass.If you ignore reality, you can get any answer you want, but you are not doing science.
please introduce article/calculationE = MC2
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/12/2020 17:15:14
How do you get the understanding that the mass should increase due to higher temp?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:12:52E = MC2
Please introduce article/calculation
Where do you see the extra mass due to the overheating energy?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/12/2020 17:44:11
A fast moving proton at CERN has a very clearly higher mass than a proton at rest.
The same is true of fast moving electrons.
In a material, part of the thermal energy is present as the velocity of the electros.
If the temperature is high then the velocities are high.
And, if the velocities are high the mass increases.
So why would a material containing fast (i.e. hot) electrons not have more mass?
It's all beside the point, all energy has mass and that's all it takes to allow pair production.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:30:01
Don't you understand that you have lost the game long time ago?
Why do you keep with your pathetic approach?
I was going to ask you the same question.
Have you noticed that nobody agrees with you but they broadly agree with me?
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/12/2020 19:44:20
A fast moving proton at CERN has a very clearly higher mass than a proton at rest.Clearly to whom? To you?
Do you have any backup for that from CERN?
E=mc^2 doesn't prove that the object has higher mass as it moves faster or gets higher temp.
Have you noticed that nobody agrees with you but they broadly agree with me?So far no one confirms your imagination that pure energy without any nearby matter/mass (as Atom or BH) means new quarks.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/12/2020 00:09:55
Do you have any backup for that from CERN?It's not a secret.
Don't you think they would have said if they had shown that relativity was wrong?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/12/2020 00:12:13
So far no one confirms your imagination that pure energy without any nearby matter/mass (as Atom or BH) means new quarks.As you noticed, the only problem with pair production is balancing the momentum.
Any mass will let you do that,
I don't have to "prove" basic physics. The problem is that you refuse to learn it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/12/2020 05:45:25
So far no one confirms your imagination that pure energy without any nearby matter/mass (as Atom or BH) means new quarks.As you noticed, the only problem with pair production is balancing the momentum.
Any mass will let you do that,
I don't have to "prove" basic physics. The problem is that you refuse to learn it.
How long are you going to ignore real science???
You have offered an article about the pair production.
In that article it was stated that pair production could ONLY take place near Atom or BH.
As based on the BBT, there were no atom and no BH immediately after the Bang, then it is very clear that not even one quark could be created due to the pure energy, heat energy or any source of energy that you dream.
So, as long as you (or any other one) can't offer an article that could CLEARLY explain how the quarks had been created after the bang from any sort of energy while there is no nearby Atom or BH, we should all agree that this idea is the biggest nonsense of the modern science.
ONLY real article please. Without it, don't even try to reply.
I have no intention to waste my time on your nonsense.
Post by: evan_au on 29/12/2020 07:57:14
Quote from: Dave Lev
A fast moving proton at CERN has a very clearly higher mass than a proton at rest.This has been known for a long time. The most powerful accelerators in the 1940s & 1950s were cyclotrons.
Clearly to whom? To you?
- The main problem with these is that as the particles approach the speed of light, their mass increases.
- To keep accelerating the particles despite their increased mass, the Synchrocyclotron reduced the frequency of the AC voltage.
- You can see the experience (and equations) here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchrocyclotron
In the history section, you can see that this design was the basis for CERN's first accelerator, in 1952.
Quote
E=mc^2 doesn't prove that the object has higher mass as it moves fasterNo, but the factor mγ in the above equations does.
- This mass equals the rest-mass of the particle at low speeds
- But rapidly increases above the rest mass as the speed approaches c
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/12/2020 16:29:27
.QuoteQuoteNo, but the factor mγ in the above equations does.
E=mc^2 doesn't prove that the object has higher mass as it moves faster
- This mass equals the rest-mass of the particle at low speeds
- But rapidly increases above the rest mass as the speed approaches c
The mass equals the rest-mass of the particle at low speeds - that is correct
But rapidly increases above the rest mass as the speed approaches c- that is also correct.
However, it is due to (p).
I have already explained this issue:
I have found excelent explanation for you from Karen Ng, studied Physics Answered March 8, 2013:So it is all about the mass at rest VS equivalent mass (Mequivalent) due to p.
https://www.quora.com/Why-does-the-same-object-weigh-more-when-it-is-hot-than-when-it-is-cold
"The people who have answered the question before me are correct in their reasoning but they can use the more explicit expression of:
E=((Mrest c^2)^2+(pc)^2)√≡Mequivalent c^2
Mequivalent=(Mrest^2+(p/c)^2)√
So, there are two kinds of mass:
Mequivalent and Mrest
If p=0
Mequivalent = Mrest
In any case, the idea that the rock would be heavier due to higher temp is based ONLY on its p.
If you ignore its p and its Mequivalent then it is clear that there will be no change in the mass.
So again - higher temp doesn't add even one particle/quark.
Therefore, as the particle speed approaches c, the p increases and therefore its Mequivalent increases.
It is very clear that as the particle speed approaches Zero again, the p also would be zero and therefore its Mequivalent would be back to M rest.
Hence, there is no new particle creation in that process.
Not even a single quark.
Is it clear to you by now?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/12/2020 17:02:16
I have already explained this issue:Everyone here already knew that.
Why did you waste time saying it?
In that article it was stated that pair production could ONLY take place near Atom or BH.And it said why
In normal circumstances the only way to have a mass involved (and thus to balance the momenta) is to have an atom or something nearby.
But, in the very early universe, there is enough mass (as it happens, the entire mass of the universe) nearby.
And that makes pair production possible.
can't offer an article that could CLEARLY explainThat's absurd.
I have offered the explanation.
You just keep ignoring it.
You do not need an atom, or a BH.
What you need is mass.
And there is plenty of that- the whole mass of the universe.
we should all agree that this idea is the biggest nonsense of the modern science.No we shouldn't.
Because that's wrong.
I have no intention to waste my time on your nonsense.And again; it's the D K syndrome.
You think you are right an everyone else in the world is wrong.
How likely is that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/12/2020 18:27:18
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/01/2021 09:57:16
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 29/12/2020 05:45:25And it said why
In that article it was stated that pair production could ONLY take place near Atom or BH.
In normal circumstances the only way to have a mass involved (and thus to balance the momenta) is to have an atom or something nearby.
Thanks
So you fully confirm that "In that article it was stated that pair production could ONLY take place near Atom or something nearby."
I really appreciate this confirmation.
However, what is the meaning of "something nearby".
You have just confirmed that this "something nearby" MUST be Atom or BH.
However, how mass by itself could be considered as "something nearby"?
So, without massive "something nearby" as Atom or BH, there is no way for the pair production process to work – as stated in the article.
You claim:
But, in the very early universe, there is enough mass (as it happens, the entire mass of the universe) nearby.As you claim that energy means mass, then you have to show how "enough Mass" can force other nearby similar enough mass to be transformed into pair production while there is no nearby massive mass as Atom or BH.
And that makes pair production possible.
Sorry, based on the article which you have confirmed - mass by itself isn't good enough for "something nearby" in order to set the pair production.
Hence, you must first show how that "enough mass" had been transformed into "something nearby"" as Atom & BH as they are vital for the pair production process.
So, even if there was enough mass after the Big bang, that mass must first transformed into a BH or Atom and only then the pair production could start..
Without it - the BBT is useless.
Please also be aware that the pair production is actually a random activity.
Therefore, it takes time to set high production/transformation of pair particles.
Therefore, don't you agree that there is way to generate the entire particles (which is needed for the whole universe) in only 10^-6 sec.
So, also by that argument we should set the BBT in the garbage.
Let's go back to your following statement: "in the very early universe, there enough mass to form was mass nearby?
How do you know that in the early Universe there was enough mass to form the nearby mass?
You claim that the answer is: "as it happens, the entire mass of the universe"
Sorry, the idea that it happens does not prove that it happens due to the BBT?
Don't you agree that if we can find better theory then it might "happens" also due to the other theory?
In any case, do you also confirm that if we can prove that there is no mass in energy then you personally are going to set the BBT in the garbage?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/01/2021 11:36:24
You have just confirmed that this "something nearby" MUST be Atom or BH.No
I have not. Please do not tell lies like that; it makes you look silly.
I keep making it clear that the article is inaccurate because it ignores the conditions present in the early universe.
You need an atom or a BH or something.
Do you understand why?
If you knew why you needed a third body then you would recognise that it only needs mass.
You do not need an atom or a BH to get pair production.
You just need something with mass.
Do you accept this simple fact?
If not there's very little chance of you understanding much else, so you might as well give up.
Sorry, based on the article which you have confirmedThis "confirmation" is an hallucination of yours; it isn't real so you can't base anything on it.
you have to show how "enough Mass" can force otherNo That's also wrong.
I have to show that it can allow pair production; not "force" it.
That's just some nonsense you made up. It really would be better if you stopped making up nonsense like that.
How do you know that in the early Universe there was enough massDo you realise what you are saying?
The mass of an atom is large enough to enable pair production.
But you do not accept that the mass of the entire universe is large enough.
Once again, your lack of understanding just makes you look stupid. Why don't you learn some science?
Therefore, don't you agree that there is way to generate the entire particles (which is needed for the whole universe) in only 10^-6 sec.Yes. a microsecond is plenty of time.
We know this because the universe is here.
In any case, do you also confirm that if we can prove that there is no mass in energy then you personally are going to set the BBT in the garbage?Do you not realise that's like saying "if we can prove that black is white...".
You can't prove something if it is not true.
We know that energy has mass- we have measured it.
If you learned science, you would know that.
How do you know that in the early Universe there was enough mass to form the nearby mass?Again, you think an atom is enough mass, but the Universe is not enough mass.
How stupid is that idea?
Post by: puppypower on 02/01/2021 12:05:01
Another way to expand the universe, in a way that generates less entropy, so the universe can remain hotter, longer, is for the primordial atom to simply split into two like a mother cell into two daughter cells. The daughter cells then split, etc., etc. See image below.
In this scenario the increase in entropy will be smaller and more piece meal, with the forming smaller daughter cells lowering energy and increasing entropy each cycle. This dividing process will also cause universal reference to appear to expand relative to each other. Less energy per daughter cell, each cycle, means less contraction of space-time around each cell. One will see the universe appear to expand. This could also be the inflation period.
Where this is heading are the lowest level daughter cells, from which the galaxies will expand like popcorn. The terminal mini daughter cell singularities would be very similar to black holes, and these would become the nucleation centers would allow for pair production. The pair production and equilibrium annihilation process, will lead to a big boom expansion, relative to the galaxies.
As the galaxies expand, there will be powerful energy wave fronts coming in from all directions from the other expanding galaxies; background radiation. This keeps most of the expanding galaxies contained in space, as well as creates eddies for early star formation. It also causes the universe to forever expand relative to the galaxies. The central black holes found in many modern galaxies are remnants of this early event.
(https://previews.123rf.com/images/frenta/frenta1504/frenta150400015/39001828-process-division-of-cell-isolated-on-black-background.jpg)
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/01/2021 12:11:11
the primordial atom to simply split into two lWhat could the dividing wall be made from?
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/01/2021 05:05:53
You do not need an atom or a BH to get pair production.
You just need something with mass.
Do you accept this simple fact?
What a nonsense!!!
1. "something with mass"
What do you mean by "something with mass"?
We have already found that energy can increase the mass of existing matter.
So, by heating a rock or metal bar we can increase their mass.
However, There is no evidence that energy can set "something with mass" while there is no matter at all.
So please offer an article that could backup your nonsense that energy means "something with mass" while there is nothing (not any sort of matter as rock, metal, photon, boson...just nothing!!!)?
2. "simple fact"
Let's assume that there is "something with mass".
However, we all agree that this nonsense that is called "something with mass" is clearly not Atom or BH.
So, can you please backup the nonsense that "something with mass" which is clearly not Atom or BH could set the pair production (without photon or boson) by relevant Article?
Please - backup each nonsense by real article.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/01/2021 09:56:54
What do you mean by "something with mass"?I mean something with mass.
Which word is giving you difficulty.
For example, energy has mass.
A sufficiently high energy ensemble of photons would do the job.
What a nonsense!!!This whole tread is full of nonsense.
That's because you keep posting it.
There is no evidence that energy can set "something with mass"The word "set" makes no sense in that context.
But we do have evidence that photons have mass.
They carry momentum and are affected by gravity.
So we know that energy- in the form photons- has mass.
It is nonsense to try to say otherwise.
It is particularly stupid to try to say that photons don't habe mass after you posted that they do.
E=((Mrest c^2)^2+(pc)^2)√≡Mequivalent c^2
Mequivalent=(Mrest^2+(p/c)^2)√
The Mequivalent is the mass that enables particle production.
Why are you now saying that it doesn't exist?
If you understood high-school physics you wouldn't be asking me to explain why the mass is needed and why it can be essentially anything with mass.
Since you don't have the background knowledge to understand what you are wrong about, here's the wiki entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation
Post by: puppypower on 06/01/2021 14:14:04
the primordial atom to simply split into two lWhat could the dividing wall be made from?
The dividing wall is the speed of light reference, since this is where the continuity with inertial reference and matter breaks down. With the primordial atom, this c-boundary wall is very close and constraining and all that exist beyond the primordial atom, is within the c-reference. This references obeys different sets of rules, such as space-time dissociated to separated time and separated space.
Photons travel at the speed of light, however, they also show finite inertial characteristics such as wavelength; distance, frequency; time and mass/energy equivalent. Photons are partially in inertial reference and not exclusively in the speed of light reference. Photons are like a bridge between the c-refeence and the inertia based primordial atom; inertial scaffolding at the boundary.
The speed of light reference, proper, would make photons appear to be uniform, rather than distinct and variable, like the photons we observe in inertial references. For the finite inertial leg of photon to appear; first photons, they need to get past the c-boundary into the primordial atom; move along the bridge scaffolding.
The split into two daughter cells is increasing the surface area of the boundary with the speed of light reference. This split and increasing surface area causes the references within the daughter cells to appear to expand in space-time; universe appears to expand. The splitting is heading away from the speed of light reference, by virtue of the increasing surface area and the expanding inertial boundary.
In other places, I have tried to show that the speed of light reference, proper, is the ground state of the universe. We need to increase the potential with the ground state to create inertial. What make this harder to see, is the lack of anti-matter in the universe. If we had matter and anti-matter these would lower potential by annihilating and becoming energy/photons. If we remove the anti-matter and have just matter, we still have a potential, but no easy way to lower it. W need to lower potential in a more round-about way using the forces of nature instead of direct annihilation into the energy bridge,
The increasing surface area, implicit of the BB cellular division, is adding inertial potential to the universe. Like with living cells, cell division adds the potential to double the growth in terms of mass and energy. The splitting phases defines how large the universe will be. The number of divisions equals the final inertial potential with the c-reference; universe size. Like with biological cells, the BB cells are triggered to split when they accumulate sufficient energy, in the guise of energy bridge.
The current BBT theory cannot address how the primordial atom came to be. This earlier than the BB knowledge, has an impact on the rest of the theory, even if the BBT appears consistent with other observations. As an analogy, say you met new person and you know nothing of their past. Rather, you size them up based on today and going forward. Based on this short term reference, there is no way of telling whether their trajectory in life was set, before you met. Do they laugh at your jokes because you are funny, or because they have always been polite? If you are too ego-centric you may guess wrong.
If you assume the wrong premiss this will lead to problems that will start to appear in other other observations, such as the galaxy problem. These problems may have an explanation that is consistent with things that happened before the primordial atom. The cell division analogy fixes the galaxy problem.
Post by: puppypower on 06/01/2021 15:07:28
In this model, we are adding potential from the c-reference, to drive each split. This is like the mother cell in biology accumulating food energy to help trigger and supply the needed energy for cell division. What would happen if we stopped adding potential to the last generation of daughter cells? This would indicate the universe is big enough for now. There is a pause and now the final daughter cells will need to lower potential and return back to the c-reference. Reversal by merging backwards; two daughter cells become a single mother cell, does not appear to be an option, since observational data says there was an expansion instead of contraction.
The daughter cells are on their own, to lower potential. In the case of biological cells, where the food supply is cut off just before cell division, the DNA might still double as existing stored energy is used up, but it may not divide into two daughter cells. Instead you would get a larger daughter cell, sometimes with double DNA, where her lowering energy stockpile is transformed into making cellular materials for her expansion; synthesis. This is a round-about way to lower potential. I like the imagery of a mini BB explosion and expansion. This synthesis phase creates the interface for matter and anti-matter .
Our universe appears to be expanding in all direction from any given point. What they tells me, relative to this discussion, references stack at each point in space and time. All energy and matter is still constrained in space and time by the c-reference. When an atom gives off a photon, this happens is zero time which comes from the c-reference.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/01/2021 17:00:16
I was getting long, so I though it best to split this up.It would be better to put it in a separate thread.
Given that you start with this nonsense
"The dividing wall is the speed of light reference"
it should be in the "That CAN'T be true" section.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/01/2021 17:59:21
How long are you going to keep your nonsense and ignore the reality?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:05:53I mean something with mass.
What do you mean by "something with mass"?
Which word is giving you difficulty.
For example, energy has mass.
A sufficiently high energy ensemble of photons would do the job.
If it was stated that the Big Bang is coming with at least some photons or bosons then we could agree that there was mass.
However, based on the BBT, the Big Bang didn't bring with it any sort of matter, object, particale, photon or Boson.
Only Energy (or Pure energy- based on wiki)
As you clearly don't like wiki, then please show other article which could support your imagination.
Without it, you have to accept the idea that energy by itself without any sort of matter or object has no mass.
We get one more approval for that from the article which you have just offered:
If you understood high-school physics you wouldn't be asking me to explain why the mass is needed and why it can be essentially anything with mass.This article it is specifically focused on an OBJECT:
Since you don't have the background knowledge to understand what you are wrong about, here's the wiki entry.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation
"In Newtonian mechanics, linear momentum, translational momentum, or simply momentum (pl. momenta) is the product of the mass and velocity of an object."
Unfortunately for you, based on the BBT the Big Bang itself didn't bring with it any sort of object, matter, photon or boson.
So, let's agree that so far you have totally failed to show any article which could confirm that energy without object or matter means mass.
Therefore, would you kindly keep the BBT at the garbage as long as you can't show that the BBT "pure" energy means mass.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/01/2021 18:37:07
This article it is specifically focused on an OBJECT:And in this wiki article, the object is a photon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering
Did you think you had a point?
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/01/2021 06:53:19
Why do you keep pushing the photon idea while based on the BBT theory there were no Photons or any sort of Bosons during the Big Bang?This article it is specifically focused on an OBJECT:And in this wiki article, the object is a photon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_scattering
Did you think you had a point?
Did you think you had a point?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/01/2021 08:30:52
there were no PhotonsWe know that energy is quantised.
Whether the energy was present as photons, or mesons or what is beside the point.
If it wasn't in the form of some sort of quanta, what form do you think it was in.
Unless you can answer that sensibly, you can not claim that...
there were no Photons or any sort of Bosons during the Big Bang?Your claim is at odds with our observations of the universe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/01/2021 15:27:28
We know that energy is quantised.Wow
Whether the energy was present as photons, or mesons or what is beside the point.
For the last several messages you have pushed the Photon idea while you clearly knew that the Big Bang can't generate any sort of Photon or boson.
Now you offer a twist in the BBT story.
You call it "quantized energy".
That is excellent progress for you. I have to congratulate you for your final understanding that energy must be quantized in order to carry mass.
So, I hope that you do understand that energy (or pure energy) has no mass. It must be "quantized" in order to carry mass.
Therefore, finely we agree on something:
"Quantized energy" has mass, while energy or "pure energy" has no mass!!!
Good luck for you!
So we all agree that that Boson, Photon, Quark, mesons and any sort of Particle are all quantized energy?
However, based on the data that was available for me, the BBT doesn't claim for any sort of quantized energy at the Big Bang.
Therefore:
Would you kindly offer an article that could backup your imagination that the BBT "pure energy" is actually "quantized energy"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/01/2021 17:18:14
Therefore, finely we agree on something:No
"Quantized energy" has mass, while energy or "pure energy" has no mass!!!
We know that all energy is quantized so what you should say is
""Quantized energy" has mass, while " any other sort of energy" does not exist."
Would you kindly offer an article that could backup your imagination that the BBT "pure energy" is actually "quantized energy"?You have got it the wrong way round.
We know that energy is quantized. Every single experiment and observation is consistent with this. It's as near to being a fact as you get in physics.
If you want to claim that it wasn't, you need to prove that.
Go on...
Show us some energy that's not quantised...
For the last several messages you have pushed the Photon idea while you clearly knew that the Big Bang can't generate any sort of Photon or boson.No
You forgot to read and think about what I said.
It doesn't matter if the energy is present as photons or mesons.
Because it is present in some quantized form anyway.
I'm was just trying to stop you leading off down another exercise in stupidity where you say "but all the 4 forces were (probably) merged at that point."
Well, yes they were, and it doesn't matter.
Therefore, finely we agree on something:And all energy is quantized (unless you can show otherwise).
"Quantized energy" has mass,
So all energy has mass.
So there's mass there at the start of the universe, and that mass is all that's needed to keep the momentum conserved during pair production, so there will be pair production.
So there will be particles.
So the universe can exist.
It's remarkable that you have been trying to show that the universe is not here.
Post by: charles1948 on 08/01/2021 20:14:44
Which invites the obvious reply: "Gravitational Energy" ! Is there any evidence that gravitational energy is quantised. If it was, the energy would manifest itself in the form of gravity "particles" or - "gravitons"
Have these "gravitons" been detected in any of our particle detectors such as the LHC?
Post by: syhprum on 08/01/2021 21:04:22
Post by: charles1948 on 08/01/2021 21:24:10
Graviton "particles" are extremely weak much weaker than Neutrino's there is no possibility to detect indivisible ones only their effect en mass.
Thanks syphrum. I take your point that gravitons may be individually extremely weak, and therefore only detectable "en masse", as you say.
Do you think any experiment could be set up, to physically demonstrate the existence of an individual "graviton"?
Post by: Halc on 08/01/2021 22:22:12
Do you think any experiment could be set up, to physically demonstrate the existence of an individual "graviton"?Perhaps so, but it is hard to imagine any system with such fine sensitivity, so not any time soon. Unlike neutrinos which have a tiny but finite probability of collision, gravitons don't collide with anything, so it's not like its going to leave a spot on a detector plate or something.
Post by: charles1948 on 08/01/2021 22:52:10
Do you think any experiment could be set up, to physically demonstrate the existence of an individual "graviton"?Perhaps so, but it is hard to imagine any system with such fine sensitivity, so not any time soon. Unlike neutrinos which have a tiny but finite probability of collision, gravitons don't collide with anything, so it's not like its going to leave a spot on a detector plate or something.
Is the basic difficulty with detecting "gravitons" this - any apparatus set up to detect them, will itself contain "gravitons".
Therefore there will be a problem distinguishing "gravitons" within the apparatus, from external "gravitons" produced by external sources.
Could this problem be resolved, perhaps by magnetic fields?
Post by: Halc on 09/01/2021 02:22:57
Is the basic difficulty with detecting "gravitons" this - any apparatus set up to detect them, will itself contain "gravitons".Gravitons move at light speed and are not 'contained' by or 'within' anything except perhaps a black hole. I also see no particular reason why a given apparatus (LIGO say) need emit gravitons, except for the apparatus being part of Earth which emits gravitons at a rate of about 200 watts, a fraction of the energy used to run my blender.
And no, LIGO cannot detect Earth's gravitons despite its proximity to their origin.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/01/2021 12:19:50
Bored Chemist, in the post above, said: "Show us some energy that is not quantised"OK, Show that it is not quantised.
Which invites the obvious reply: "Gravitational Energy" !
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/01/2021 16:04:12
And all energy is quantized (unless you can show otherwise).Energy isn't quantized.
So all energy has mass
Yes, I can prove it:
Our current universe is full with mass and full with energy.
So, theoretically based on the idea of quantized energy new mass should be created at a booming rate.
Surprisingly, based on hawking radiation theory, there is no room for new particle creation with positive Energy/mass. Hawking told us that for each new created particle with positive Energy, Antiparticle with negative energy should be created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole)."
Due to Einstein formula:
E = m c^2
So, in order to get a negative energy, the mass must be negative.
That by itself is unrealistic.
So, today, with all the available Positive energy/matter and mass - our scientists don't even consider that the energy is quantized.
However, when it comes to the BBT, Somehow at the Big bang moment, while there was no mass or matter and even no space (or when the space was infinite small), the whole energy of our current entire Universe was quantized in that infinite small early universe space.
We know that based on QM each quark or particle must have some minimal space size.
I had long discussion about it with Kryptid when we discuss the BH.
So, how could it be that the energy of the early universe had immediately quantized in order to set the entire Boson, Photon, Quark, mesons, particles for our current entire universe (even if it is infinite) while the whole space of the early universe was still infinite small (in the size of proton)?
That idea is a direct contradiction QM.
Therefore, the assumption that the early Universe got all its particles while it was infinite small is a pure imagination as technically there was not enough room for all the particles, quarks in that infinite small size.
This is one aspect.
From the other hand we clearly know that there is no gravity force without mass and there is no potential energy or kinetic energy without mass.
We have already found that heat energy can increase the mass of the current matter, but it can't add any new matter.
Therefore, the assumption that energy has mass is also absolutely incorrect
So all energy has mass.As energy without mass is useless.
You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.
At the maximum, we have found that heat energy can temporarily increase the mass of the current matter, but it can't add even one extra quark to that matter as after cooling you get back the same mass (some even claim that the left over is less due to the radiation - but this isn't the main discussion).
So, even if you have existing matter, the heat energy does not add even one quark to that matter.
Therefore, energy without matter is useless as energy can only exist while there is matter.
So there's mass there at the start of the universe, and that mass is all that's needed to keep the momentum conserved during pair production, so there will be pair production.Well, that is unrealistic.
Please see the following:
http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html
"The Planck Era (Big Bang To 10^-43 Seconds)
The time from the exact moment of the Big Bang until 10^-38 of a second later is referred to as the Planck Era. While we have no way of knowing what this era was like from the equations of physics (as they break down in this era), it is "assumed" to be as follows. The universe was a tiny hot gaseous soup (a plasma) consisting of packets of "primal" particles at extremely high energies. The universe was smaller than the size of a proton. During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently. The primal particles were packets of radiation unlike anything we know today. Also, the four primary forces of the universe as we know them today were believed to be one united force. The temperature of the universe was 1 x 10^32 degrees Celsius. This hot thick soup was intense and everywhere. It also began to instantaneously expand and cool extremely fast. "
They claim that "The universe was smaller than the size of a proton. During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently."
Sorry - matter and energy were not separated as they are currently as the whole universe was in the size of a proton.
Due to QM at that size there is no room for quantized energy.
Without quantized energy, there is no mass.
So, I have just proved that the early Energy can't have any mass while the size of the Universe was at the size of proton.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/01/2021 16:06:58
And all energy is quantized (unless you can show otherwise).Energy isn't quantized.
So all energy has mass
Yes, I can prove it:
Our current universe is full with mass and full with energy.
So, theoretically based on the idea of quantized energy new mass should be created at a booming rate.
Surprisingly, based on hawking radiation theory, there is no room for new particle creation with positive Energy/mass. Hawking told us that for each new created particle with positive Energy, Antiparticle with negative energy should be created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole. One of the pair falls into the black hole while the other escapes. In order to preserve total energy, the particle that fell into the black hole must have had a negative energy (with respect to an observer far away from the black hole)."
Due to Einstein formula:
E = m c^2
So, in order to get a negative energy, the mass must be negative.
That by itself is unrealistic.
So, today, with all the available Positive energy/matter and mass - our scientists don't even consider that the energy is quantized.
However, when it comes to the BBT, Somehow at the Big bang moment, while there was no mass or matter and even no space (or when the space was infinite small), the whole energy of our current entire Universe was quantized in that infinite small early universe space.
We know that based on QM each quark or particle must have some minimal space size.
I had long discussion about it with Kryptid when we discuss the BH.
So, how could it be that the energy of the early universe had immediately quantized in order to set the entire Boson, Photon, Quark, mesons, particles for our current entire universe (even if it is infinite) while the whole space of the early universe was still infinite small (in the size of proton)?
That idea is a direct contradiction QM.
Therefore, the assumption that the early Universe got all its particles while it was infinite small is a pure imagination as technically there was not enough room for all the particles, quarks in that infinite small size.
This is one aspect.
From the other hand we clearly know that there is no gravity force without mass and there is no potential energy or kinetic energy without mass.
We have already found that heat energy can increase the mass of the current matter, but it can't add any new matter.
Therefore, the assumption that energy has mass is also absolutely incorrect
So all energy has mass.As energy without mass is useless.
You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.
At the maximum, we have found that heat energy can temporarily increase the mass of the current matter, but it can't add even one extra quark to that matter as after cooling you get back the same mass (some even claim that the left over is less due to the radiation - but this isn't the main discussion).
So, even if you have existing matter, the heat energy does not add even one quark to that matter.
Therefore, energy without matter is useless as energy can only exist while there is matter.
So there's mass there at the start of the universe, and that mass is all that's needed to keep the momentum conserved during pair production, so there will be pair production.Well, that is unrealistic.
Please see the following:
http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html
"The Planck Era (Big Bang To 10^-43 Seconds)
The time from the exact moment of the Big Bang until 10^-38 of a second later is referred to as the Planck Era. While we have no way of knowing what this era was like from the equations of physics (as they break down in this era), it is "assumed" to be as follows. The universe was a tiny hot gaseous soup (a plasma) consisting of packets of "primal" particles at extremely high energies. The universe was smaller than the size of a proton. During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently. The primal particles were packets of radiation unlike anything we know today. Also, the four primary forces of the universe as we know them today were believed to be one united force. The temperature of the universe was 1 x 10^32 degrees Celsius. This hot thick soup was intense and everywhere. It also began to instantaneously expand and cool extremely fast. "
They claim that "The universe was smaller than the size of a proton. During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently."
Sorry - matter and energy were not separated as the whole universe was in the size of a proton.
Due to QM at that size there is no room for quantized energy.
Without quantized energy, there is no mass.
So, I have just proved that the early Energy can't have any mass while the size of the Universe is a proton.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/01/2021 16:47:36
Energy isn't quantized.
Yes, I can prove it:
Go on then.
Prove it.
But don't start by saying things that are known to be wrong.
For example this isn't true.
So, theoretically based on the idea of quantized energy new mass should be created at a booming rate.
And you contradict yourself here:
You say
based on hawking radiation theory, there is no room for new particle creation with positive Energy/mass.And then you dismiss Hawking's:
That by itself is unrealistic.
Well, if it's not realistic, you can't use it to show anything.
Actually, you are simply wrong, it is realistic.
I already pointed out that the symmetry problem isn't solved, but it's also not solved for any explanation of the origin of the universe but, since we are here, it's obvious that there is a way round it.
So, most of your post is redundant and irrelevant.
So, today, with all the available Positive energy/matter and mass - our scientists don't even consider that the energy is quantized.That's both a non sequitur, and also obviously false. Most scientists do think that stuff is quantised.
I had long discussion about it with Kryptid when we discuss the BH.It's a pity that you don't seem to have understood it.
However, when it comes to the BBT, Somehow at the Big bang moment, while there was no mass or matter and even no space (or when the space was infinite small), the whole energy of our current entire Universe was quantized in that infinite small early universe space.Not necessarily "at" that moment, it could have been slightly later when the universe had expanded a bit.
So the "it's not big enough" argument isn't valid. It's a straw man.
As energy without mass is useless.Whether it's "useless" or not is a silly thing to discuss.
It's impossible.
You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.I have shown it, it's just that you didn't understand it.
If you get the matter hot enough then the collisions between ions will produce gamma rays of high enough energy to undergo pair production.
Well, that is unrealistic.It's perfectly realistic.
If it wasn't the scientists wouldn't believe it.
You seem to be claiming to be the cleverest scientist in the world, even though you plainly don't understand science.
That's insanity.
During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently.And that compound/ mixture whatever you want to call it, had mass.
It had the whole mass of the universe.
Due to QM at that size there is no room for quantized energy.Did you read that, and think about it?
QM is the behaviour of quantised things.
What you have said is that because of the behaviour of quantised things, things were not quantised.
Did you not realise how stupid that was?
So, I have just proved that the early Energy can't have any mass while the size of the Universe is a proton.No
As usual, you proved that you don't understand science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/01/2021 10:02:55
So let me know if you confirm the following understanding:
A. General understanding:
1. There is a possibility to transform photon to particle pair by using the gravity of a nearby atom. However, a photon is needed for this transformation. In this case, the total energy in the photon will be equal to the total energy in the particle pair. Therefore, they both will have positive mass/energy
2. New particle pair creation: There is a possibility to create new particle pair out of pure energy by using the gravity & EM of the BH. In this case, there is no need for any sort of quark or photon.
3. QM - Based on QM there is a need for a minimal size for any particle.
B. BBT understanding:
BBT energy at the planck era:
"http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html
"The Planck Era (Big Bang To 10^-43 Seconds)
The time from the exact moment of the Big Bang until 10^-38 of a second later is referred to as the Planck Era"
The BBT energy was concentrated at the first stage (10^-43 to 10^-38 of a sec) in only a proton size/space.
My questions are as follow:
1. As that total energy of the whole universe at the Big bang moment was locked at infinite small space (of a size of proton) how could the energy quantized and set almost infinite no of quarks/particles that are needed for the entire Universe without violating the QM?
2. When it comes to the current time:
We clearly see the activity around our SMBH and the impact of its ultra strong energy/EM.
Please be aware that based on the Hawking radiation theory, if there is an activity of new pair production, it must be based on one with positive energy and other with negative energy.
So, why during the BBT, both particle pair have got the positive BBT energy, while today the new particle pair around a SMBH must get ZERO energy (as the positive energy of one particle should be identical to the negative energy of the other one)?
Why at the Big bang moment there was a room for the energy quantized (as the whole space of the early universe was only at the size of a proton), while today, with all the unlimited space in our current Universe - new pair of particles with both positive mass/energy is impossible to be created around a SMBH/BH?
Can you please offer article to support this understanding?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:06:58I have shown it, it's just that you didn't understand it.
You have failed to show that heat energy could create new matter.
If you get the matter hot enough then the collisions between ions will produce gamma rays of high enough energy to undergo pair production.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/01/2021 10:40:07
There is a possibility to transform photon to particle pair by using the gravity of a nearby atom. However, a photon is needed for this transformation.Gravity isn't involved much, but mass is.
2. New particle pair creation: There is a possibility to create new particle pair out of pure energy by using the gravityNo
It's not gravity that does it.
3. QM - Based on QM there is a need for a minimal size for any particle.No
For example, there's no observed lower boundary to the size of an electron.
Do you see why I keep saying you should learn science?
Can you please offer article to support this understanding?Why are you obsessed with articles?
It's simple straightforward physics.
As you heat things up, they emit larger amounts of radiation, and that radiation shifts to shorter wavelengths (and thus to higher energies).
If you heat it far enough, you start to get gamma rays with enough energy to undergo pair production.
No article is going to make that any more true.
As that total energy of the whole universe at the Big bang moment was locked at infinite small space (of a size of proton) how could the energy quantized and set almost infinite no of quarks/particles that are needed for the entire Universe without violating the QM?Because doing that doesn't violate QM; it's just that you don't understand QM.
So, why during the BBT, both particle pair have got the positive BBT energy, while today the new particle pair around a SMBH must get ZERO energy (as the positive energy of one particle should be identical to the negative energy of the other one)?As far as I am aware, there hasn't been a breakthrough in theoretical physics since I wrote this yesterday afternoon.
I already pointed out that the symmetry problem isn't solved,
The answer was "we don't know" and the answer is still "we don't know".
Why did you ask the question again?
Are you an idiot?
Do you just like looking stupid?
Post by: charles1948 on 10/01/2021 20:24:24
"That idiot who wants to turn the whole of astronomy upside-down".
The thing is, you can never tell who's an idiot, and who isn't, until all the evidence is in.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/01/2021 20:41:09
The thing is, you can never tell who's an idiot, and who isn't, until all the evidence is in.True, but if someone is trying to turn science on it's head, but hasn't actually got ANY evidence, (or indeed a decent understanding of how science works, you can be pretty sure he's the idiot, can't you?
Also, Copernicus was trying to solve an actual problem with the astronomy of his day- all those blasted epicycles.
Dave is trying to solve imaginary problems.
Post by: charles1948 on 10/01/2021 21:49:58
True, but if someone is trying to turn science on it's head, but hasn't actually got ANY evidence, (or indeed a decent understanding of how science works, you can be pretty sure he's the idiot, can't you?
Also, Copernicus was trying to solve an actual problem with the astronomy of his day- all those blasted epicycles.
Dave is trying to solve imaginary problems.
Well, that's what I mean. When Copernicus put forward his heliocentric theory in the 16th century, it was in a sense, a solution to "an imaginary problem".
Planetary movements could be quite well accounted for by existing Aristotelian "Earth-centred" theory. Based on those circular "epicycles", which you point out.
The theory enabled future planetary phenomena, such as conjunctions, to be predicated with an acceptable degree of accuracy. Given the lack of precise clocks, and the dependency on unaided human eyesight for measuring planetary positions.
There was thus no practical "need" to replace the geocentric theory, by a heliocentric one.
Copernicus himself only did it, because he thought it provided a better "mathematical" solution. He never challenged the Aristotelian concept of circular orbits Only Kepler did that, a while later. When he invoked "elliptical" orbits
The thing is, all this was theoretical wrangling. It only became a matter of practical concern, with the invention of the telescope. This device transformed astronomy. In its simplest form, as used by Galileo, it's just two glass lenses in a tube.
Yet without it, we might still be arguing today, over whether the geocentric theory can be maintained - if we add more and tinier "epicycles" to refine it. (Ironically, as you know, Galileo himself never accepted, or even perhaps knew about, Kepler's "elliptical" ideas. Galileo always stuck to circles as the only conceivable form of celestial motion)
The point is this - can we progress any further with the BBT, until we invent some as yet undiscovered form of instrument - a kind of equivalent of a telescope. Which will enable the theory to be put to definitive observational test?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/01/2021 22:51:50
The point is this - can we progress any further with the BBT, until we invent some as yet undiscovered form of instrument - a kind of equivalent of a telescope. Which will enable the theory to be put to definitive observational test?It's a work in progress.
But the point is that it works, whereas Dave's idea doesn't.
the BBT might be wrong, but it's not nearly as wrong as his "theory" which is impossible.
Yet he's claiming the BBT is impossible- simply because he can't understand how it works.
It would be like proposing to replace the heliocentric model with the assumption that the planets follow square paths.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/01/2021 00:18:45
When Copernicus put forward his heliocentric theory in the 16th century, it was in a sense, a solution to "an imaginary problem".
Copernicus' ideas and Dave Lev's ideas aren't even remotely comparable.
Post by: charles1948 on 11/01/2021 15:16:58
Copernicus' ideas and Dave Lev's ideas aren't even remotely comparable.
Don't be too hasty in your judgement, Kryptid! Dave's ideas may well be read by some budding young scientist, who gets inspired by them, and goes on to create a revolutionary advance in Physics.
If that happens, you might want to forget your present-day sceptical remarks, and claim:
"I always said it was a good idea all along!"
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/01/2021 15:21:14
No.
Copernicus' ideas and Dave Lev's ideas aren't even remotely comparable.
Don't be too hasty in your judgement, Kryptid! Dave's ideas may well be read by some budding young scientist, who gets inspired by them, and goes on to create a revolutionary advance in Physics.
If that happens, you might want to forget your present-day sceptical remarks, and claim:
"I always said it was a good idea all along!"
Even if Dave's heap of errors, misunderstandings and self contradictions somehow inspires someone to do science (and that seems unlikely...) it will not make a difference to the fact that he was wrong all along, will it?
Do you understand that it's not a matter of " as far as we know he is wrong", but a matter of " it was mathematically proven a hundred years ago that he is wrong"?
Do you understand the difference?
Post by: charles1948 on 11/01/2021 15:48:27
No.
Even if Dave's heap of errors, misunderstandings and self contradictions somehow inspires someone to do science (and that seems unlikely...) it will not make a difference to the fact that he was wrong all along, will it?
Do you understand that it's not a matter of " as far as we know he is wrong", but a matter of " it was mathematically proven a hundred years ago that he is wrong"?
Do you understand the difference?
Yes, I understand the difference. But can we be sure that our "mathematics" isn't just a human invention - that doesn't necessarily apply to the way the Universe operates.
As an example: 2,000 years ago, Euclid proved that the angles of a triangle always add up to 180°.
And he was apparently right. But he was drawing his triangles on a flat, 2-dimensional sheet of papyrus.
Whereas, the actual Universe is 3-dimensional. Containing solid 3-dimensional objects such as spheres.
And if you draw a triangle on a sphere, don't its angles add up to more than 180°?
So Euclid's maths don't always work in the real, true, 3-D Universe. Therefore, how can we regard maths as unchallengeable arbiters of truth?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/01/2021 18:14:45
The thing that makes us sure that maths works is that, when we applied it to 3D (and 4D) space, it still worked.
What you are saying is that , if we are wrong about essentially everything in science then Dave may possibly be right.
Yes, but he's still overwhelmingly likely to be wrong, isn't he?
So Euclid's maths don't always work in the real, true, 3-D UniverseEuclid knew this.
It's called plane geometry.
He also knew that the world is round.
There is as much support for the flat earth as there is for Dave's view.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/01/2021 20:42:43
Don't be too hasty in your judgement, Kryptid! Dave's ideas may well be read by some budding young scientist, who gets inspired by them, and goes on to create a revolutionary advance in Physics.
That wouldn't make Dave's ideas correct.
If that happens, you might want to forget your present-day sceptical remarks, and claim:
"I always said it was a good idea all along!"
No. In order for me to say that, this hypothetical young scientist you speak of would have to have ideas that are actually correct. That would exclude the ideas as presented by Dave Lev.
Therefore, how can we regard maths as unchallengeable arbiters of truth?
Euclid wasn't wrong. Euclidean geometry applies to 2 dimensions. Once you step into 3 dimensions, you are stepping outside of Euclidean geometry. His math works just fine.
Post by: evan_au on 11/01/2021 21:07:26
Quote from: charles1948
can we progress any further with the BBT, until we invent some as yet undiscovered form of instrument - a kind of equivalent of a telescope. Which will enable the theory to be put to definitive observational test?That's a good point.
And the Big Bang Theory was hotly contested until someone invented a new kind of instrument, in 1964 - a large horn antenna originally used to bounce radio signals off the then-new artificial satellites in Earth orbit.
- They discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
- This was strong evidence for the Big Bang, and the competing theories pretty much fizzled out at that point
- Penzias & Wilson received the Nobel Prize in 1978 for this work
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#History
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/01/2021 17:30:05
Sorry, even electron must have some minimal physical property.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 10/01/2021 10:02:55No
3. QM - Based on QM there is a need for a minimal size for any particle.
For example, there's no observed lower boundary to the size of an electron.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Reduced_Compton_wavelength
"The Compton wavelength is a quantum mechanical property of a particle."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
"In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction."
https://drrafaelferreira.com.br/vszq22/9tnp2d5.php?ef7478=who-invented-quantum-mechanics
"According to Planck, quantities of energy could be thought of as divided into "elements" whose size (E) would be proportional to their frequency (ν): where h is Planck's constant."
So, what is the real meaning of physical property? How can we discuss about physical property while we ignore the size of that physical property?
We clearly see that any quanta of energy must have some physical property or minimal size as also stated by Planck.
Therefore, any particle which have quanta of energy and physical property, must have some minimal size.
Hence, how any scientist could accept the idea that in the size of proton we can fit the whole Energy/mass/particles of our current entire Universe (even if it is infinite)?
Therefore,, the BBT assumption that all the particles of our entire Universe were already embedded at the early universe while its size was only at the size of proton is absolutely imagination.
As you clearly don't know, then how do you know that what you know or don't know is correct or incorrect?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:02:55The answer was "we don't know" and the answer is still "we don't know".
So, why during the BBT, both particle pair have got the positive BBT energy, while today the new particle pair around a SMBH must get ZERO energy (as the positive energy of one particle should be identical to the negative energy of the other one)?
Actually, I think that you know.
You know that the assumption that ONLY the BBT energy could be transformed into new particle pair is one more imagination.
You can't explain why today energy can't have mass and be transformed into real new positive particles pair, while based on the BBT imagination, that process was feasible only for 10^-38 of a sec after the bang.
Therefore, you claim "we don't know" in order to bypass that key contradiction in the BBT.
Do you see why I keep saying you should learn science?Sorry, as you don't know, it's better for you to learn some real science instead of just BBT "science".
Can you please offer article to support this understanding?You can't offer any real Article to support your ideas as the BBT is a direct contradiction for real science.
Sorry, our BBT scientists don't understand the real meaning of the BBR in the CMBR.Quote from: charles1948can we progress any further with the BBT, until we invent some as yet undiscovered form of instrument - a kind of equivalent of a telescope. Which will enable the theory to be put to definitive observational test?That's a good point.
And the Big Bang Theory was hotly contested until someone invented a new kind of instrument, in 1964 - a large horn antenna originally used to bounce radio signals off the then-new artificial satellites in Earth orbit.
- They discovered the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR)
- This was strong evidence for the Big Bang, and the competing theories pretty much fizzled out at that point
- Penzias & Wilson received the Nobel Prize in 1978 for this work
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_of_cosmic_microwave_background_radiation#History
They estimate that this BBR radiation had been generated ONLY at the recombination Era which took place for about 60M years. This time duration is relatively brief time frame with reference to the BBT total age of the Universe.
That estimation is one more imagination as there is no way to hold that kind of brief radiation (60 MY) that moves at the speed of light in a finite universe space for 13.4 BY or even for the infinity time.
Please also be aware that based on the expansion theory it is feasible that some galaxies are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. So, theoretically, they could move faster than that CMBR. Therefore, there is no way for them to get the same radiation from all directions.
Don't be too hasty in your judgement, Kryptid! Dave's ideas may well be read by some budding young scientist, who gets inspired by them, and goes on to create a revolutionary advance in Physics.Thanks charles1948
If that happens, you might want to forget your present-day sceptical remarks, and claim:
"I always said it was a good idea all along!"
Do appreciate your support!
Please be aware that my theory is based on Einstein theory with some modifications.
Einstein had told us that the BBT is incorrect.
He had stated that new particle should be created at the Universe while galaxies are expanding from each other.
He also had rejected the idea that the space itself is expanding.
Unfortunately, those BBT scientists which are using Einstein formulas for the BBT, reject his theory.
However, I'm positively sure that one day, sooner or later, all the scientists would understand that the BBT is useless and Einstein was fully correct in his messages/theory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/01/2021 18:45:53
How can we discuss about physical property while we ignore the size of that physical property?It's not a problem: size = 0
It's only you who is choosing to ignore the size.
Therefore, any particle which have quanta of energy and physical property, must have some minimal size.Non sequitur.
You have not demonstrated that claim.
Therefore,, the BBT assumption that all the particles of our entire Universe were already embedded at the early universe while its size was only at the size of proton is absolutely imagination.No
You seem to have already forgotten that I explained how particles could be produced.
Please try to pay attention.
As you clearly don't know, then how do you know that what you know or don't know is correct or incorrect?There's a rock in my garden, I can barely shift it.
I don't know how it got there.
But I can say that it wasn't dropped there by a pigeon, because that would be impossible,
Sometimes, you don't need a better explanation to know that the given explanation is wrong.
You can't explain why today energy can't have massI can, and I have, but you keep ignoring it.
Therefore, you claim "we don't know" in order to bypass that key contradiction in the BBT.There is no real contradiction; it's just that you keep refusing to understand it.
Sorry, as you don't know, it's better for you to learn some real science instead of just .There's no such thing as BBT "science".
If you knew science, you would know that.
Sorry, our BBT scientists don't understand the real meaning of the BBR in the CMBR.Yes we do.
You refuse to understand it, even when it is explained to you.
there is no way to hold that kind of brief radiation (60 MY) that moves at the speed of light in a finite universe space for 13.4 BYYes there is.
There's a way for it to happen. We have explained it to you.
You don't listen.
Therefore, there is no way for them to get the same radiation from all directions.And yet, when you look, it is there.
Please be aware that my theory is based on Einstein theory with some modifications.It is possible that Charles only knows one thing about Einstein's work- his famous equation
E=mc2
That shows that mass and energy are equivalent- they both bend spacetime in the same way.
Energy has mass (and mass has energy).
So the one thing which everybody knows about Einstein's work is that he proved that energy has mass.
And then we have Dave saying "
energy can't have massbut claiming that his ideas are
based on Einstein theory
It doesn't take much understanding of physics to see that Dave is wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/01/2021 05:15:45
How can you ignore all the data which I have offered:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:30:05It's not a problem: size = 0
How can we discuss about physical property while we ignore the size of that physical property?
Sorry, even electron must have some minimal physical property.I hope that at least you agree that particles have physical property.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compton_wavelength#Reduced_Compton_wavelength
"The Compton wavelength is a quantum mechanical property of a particle."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum
"In physics, a quantum (plural quanta) is the minimum amount of any physical entity (physical property) involved in an interaction."
https://drrafaelferreira.com.br/vszq22/9tnp2d5.php?ef7478=who-invented-quantum-mechanics
"According to Planck, quantities of energy could be thought of as divided into "elements" whose size (E) would be proportional to their frequency (ν): where h is Planck's constant."
So, what is the real meaning of physical property? How can we discuss about physical property while we ignore the size of that physical property?
We clearly see that any quanta of energy must have some physical property or minimal size as also stated by Planck.
Therefore, any particle which have quanta of energy and physical property, must have some minimal size.
Hence, how any scientist could accept the idea that in the size of proton we can fit the whole Energy/mass/particles of our current entire Universe (even if it is infinite)?
Therefore, the BBT assumption that all the particles of our entire Universe were already embedded at the early universe while its size was only at the size of proton is absolutely imagination.
So, let's start to understand what's the difference between Matter vs Particle?
https://wikidiff.com/particle/matter
"As nouns the difference between matter and particle is that matter is substance, material while particle is a very small piece of matter, a fragment; especially, the smallest possible part of something."
Hence - "particle is a very small piece of matter"
Now let's try to understand what's the meaning of "physical Properties of Matter".
https://packscience.weebly.com/chapter-2---physical-properties-of-matter.html
Matter is anything that takes up space and has mass. Everything is made of matter. All matter has properties that allow us to describe.
Therefore - matter is anything that takes up space and has mass.
As you specifically claim that energy has mass, then this mass must take space.
Hence, even if we discuss on a particle which is a very small piece of matter, that particle which has mass must take space.
It might be very tiny space as the mass in that particle is very tiny, but it can't be absolutely zero.
It is possible that Charles only knows one thing about Einstein's work- his famous equationNO!!!
E=mc2
That shows that mass and energy are equivalent- they both bend spacetime in the same way.
Energy has mass (and mass has energy).
So the one thing which everybody knows about Einstein's work is that he proved that energy has mass.
It's better for you to learn some science:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadron
"Massless virtual gluons compose the numerical majority of particles inside hadrons. The strength of the strong force gluons which bind the quarks together has sufficient energy (E) to have resonances composed of massive (m) quarks (E > mc2) .
So, gluons by itself is mass less energy.
However, once that energy is locked in hadron and the strong force of the gluons binds the quarks together then, and only then - we can claim that it: "has sufficient energy (E) to have resonances composed of massive (m) quarks (E > mc2)"
Therefore, energy as a gluons is massless energy as long as it isn't integrated part in hadron.
Einstein had told us that the energy of Particle or Hardon is E=mc^2.
However, he didn't claim that energy has mass and he also didn't claim that energy means particles.
We also know that there are some particles which are mass and some other which are mass less, while all have energy.
It is amazing that you offer an electron & photon as examples for particles in order to prove that there is mass in energy, while they both are mass less particles.,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero.
Therefore, this is another evidence why energy doesn't mean mass.
Hence, the order should be as follow:
Energy by itself is just energy without any sort of mass - for example free gluons.
We also know that free gluons by itself isn't a particle.
Therefore, there is a need for special structure to set a mass particle as Hadron.
Once the gluons is locked in a hardon its energy means 99% of the mass in that particle.
So, the same energy can be mass or mass less depends on the structure that it is located.
Conclusion - Energy by itself has no mass and any matter or particle must take up some minimal space in order to carry mass.
You specifically used an example of electron or photon that are mass less particles in order to show that it doesn't need space, while from the other hand you do understand the mass particles are needed to support the BBT.
So, you twist the science law and you twist Einstien formula inorder to support the imagination that "pure" BBT energy means mass and the entire mass/energy of our current Universe could take up space which is less than proton size.
Your imagination is clearly incorrect and it's better for you to set the BBT in the garbage.
The sooner is better.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/01/2021 08:59:12
How can you ignore all the data which I have offered:You have not offered any evidence.
You have quoted lots of stuff from wiki.
But I am a scientist; I already know that stuff and, unlike you, I UNDERSTAND it.
So I understand that it does not actually support your claim.
Do you see that telling me something which I already know will probably not change my mind?
So, for example
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero.You have missed the fact that there are two sorts of mass- which is odd because you were going on about it earlier.
A massless particle has zero "rest mass " or "invariant mass".
But it still has relativistic mass.
The gluon is an example of such a particle.
If you understood the stuff you keep quoting you would realise that it doesn't mean what you want it to.
And that's why I say you should learn science.
One way in which you could do this would be to pay attention to the replies you get here.
For example, here's where I already explained this to you
So we know that energy- in the form photons- has mass.
It is nonsense to try to say otherwise.
It is particularly stupid to try to say that photons don't habe mass after you posted that they do.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 28/12/2020 16:12:52The Mequivalent is the mass that enables particle production.
E=((Mrest c^2)^2+(pc)^2)√≡Mequivalent c^2
Mequivalent=(Mrest^2+(p/c)^2)√
Why are you now saying that it doesn't exist?
Why don't you pay attention?
The rest of your post was also nonsense.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/01/2021 07:17:58
No, I didn't miss any fact.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:15:45You have missed the fact that there are two sorts of mass- which is odd because you were going on about it earlier.
In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero.
A massless particle has zero "rest mass " or "invariant mass".
But it still has relativistic mass.
I fully agree with your explanation about the rest mass and relativistic mass.
So, a mass less particle with a rest mass of Zero, would get a relativistic mass only due to its velocity with reference to its local space time.
However, based on the BBT, the matter doesn't move with reference to the local space time.
Our BBT scientists told us that during the inflation the matter moves with the expanding space at 50 Billion times the speed of light while the matter actually stays at rest.
Therefore, the matter isn't violating the relativity law as it is practically moving with its space-time at 50 Billions times the speed of light. .
Hence in one hand - in order to overcome the relativity law, based on the BBT, any matter should be at rest with reference to it's the local space time.
However, in the other hand, in order to get the relativistic mass, the matter must move in almost the speed of light with reference to its local space time.
That is one more key contradiction in the BBT story.
You can't tell us one story in order to overcome the one problem (relativity) while on the other hand you tell us the opposite story in order to overcome other problem (relativistic mass) .
This doesn't represent a real science. At the maximum it is a science fiction.
The gluon is an example of such a particle.A gluon in rest with reference to its local space time has zero mass. Therefore, based on the BBT fiction, even if it is drifted at 50 Billion times the speed due to the inflation in space it won't get any sort of relativistic mass.
If you understood the stuff you keep quoting you would realise that it doesn't mean what you want it to.
And that's why I say you should learn science.
One way in which you could do this would be to pay attention to the replies you get here.
Therefore:
"If you understood the stuff you keep quoting you would realize that it doesn't mean what you want it to.
And that's why I say you should learn science.
One way in which you could do this would be to pay attention to the replies you get here"
Why don't you pay attention?Why don't you pay attention?
The rest of your post was also nonsense.
It's time for you to stop your nonsense and set your lovely BBT in the garbage!
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/01/2021 09:00:24
However, based on the BBT, the matter doesn't move with reference to the local space time.No, because that would breach the uncertainty principle.
Please learn science.
Our BBT scientists told us that during the inflation the matter moves with the expanding space at 50 Billion times the speed of light while the matter actually stays at rest.No
The movement within space time is called the peculiar velocity.
Please learn physics
A gluon in rest with reference to its local space time has zero mass.But, since nothing was at rest, that's irrelevant.
Please learn physics.
And that's why I say you should learn science.
One way in which you could do this would be to pay attention to the replies you get here.
Why don't you pay attention?I do.
But I pay attention to people who know what they are talking about, and you are not on that list.
If you want me to pay you any heed, you need to learn some science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/01/2021 07:42:58
NoNo
The movement within space time is called the peculiar velocity.
Please learn physics
We focus on the first moment after the Big Bang.
Acording to the BBT story 10^-43 Seconds after the Big Bang (at the Planck Era) the SPACE size of the whole early universe was at the Proton size:
http://www.earlyearthcentral.com/early_universe_page.html
The Planck Era (Big Bang To 10^-43 Seconds)
"The universe was a tiny hot gaseous soup (a plasma) consisting of packets of "primal" particles at extremely high energies. The universe was smaller than the size of a proton."
It is also stated very clearly that"
"During this phase physicists believe matter and energy were not separated as they are currently."
Therefore, as there is no separation in the energy/matter, there is no any sort of quantized energy in that proton size space.
That by itself kills your imagination about quantized energy:
We know that all energy is quantized so what you should say isTherefore, before you claim that: "we know that..." its better for you to learn the BBT story.
""Quantized energy" has mass, while " any other sort of energy" does not exist."
In any case, as that energy was locked at the Planck Era at a universe space of a proton size, there is no way for any imaginary "quantized energy" (That clearly were not there) to move outside the space of the whole early universe.
Hence, all the imaginary "quantized energies" could only move with the expansion of the space itself.
Therefore, they all have to be at rest with peculiar velocity = Zero, while their Recessional velocity is directly due to the total Universe proton size space expansion.
Hence:
1. At the Planck era there was no "quantized energy".
2. If there was any "quantized energy" - its peculiar velocity was clearly zero.
3. Without peculiar velocity, it couldn't has any real mass.
4. Without real mass there is no way to start the particle pair process.
I could stop at this point.
Never, the less, let's assume that somehow "quantized energies" (or "mass less particles") could exist at a early universe proton size and some of them could even have a peculiar velocity which is different from all the other Recessional velocity.
However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light. We will call them: "mass particles"
As some of those mass particles might be very close to the edge of the proton, what would be the outcome as they bang the edge of the Universe space while their peculiar velocity is close to the speed of light?
Please - don't tell me that the edge of the proton size is also moving at the speed of light due to the Recessional velocity as in this case - the peculiar velocity will have to be zero and they would be considered as "mass less particles"
Hence, if the "mass particles" have peculiar velocity (which must be different from the Recessional velocity)- some of those mass particles have to bang the edge of the early universe.
Therefore, the question is as follow:
Can those "mass particles" that have high peculiar velocity break the edge of the early universe and move outside to the aria without space or they should bang inwards?
If they can move outwards - then the idea of no space outside the early universe is just a fiction. Also, as they move outside from all the other mass less particles at their peculiar velocity, they won't have any more impact on all the other left over "mass less particles" which have zero/low peculiar velocity.
If they bang inwards - they have to move at ultra high peculiar velocity (at almost the speed of light) with reference to the other "mass less particles"
However, in order to set the particle pair production - a nearby mass should be located.
So, how a mass less particle that should be considered as a mass particale (as a photon) that is moving at the speed of light with reference to other mass less particles could be considered for them as "nearby mass"?
Without "nearby mass", there is no pair production process.
Sorry - the BBT story is totally wrong.
Please learn some physics and improve your knowledge in the BBT story before you share your nonsense with us.
From now on, I will totally ignore any nonsense that you might highlight without backup it with relevant article!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 11:26:42
Therefore, as there is no separation in the energy/matter, there is no any sort of quantized energy in that proton size space.Please try to keep up with points which have already been addressed.
Not necessarily "at" that moment, it could have been slightly later when the universe had expanded a bit.
So the "it's not big enough" argument isn't valid. It's a straw man.
its peculiar velocity was clearly zero.Please try to keep up with points which have already been addressed.
No, because that would breach the uncertainty principle.
Please learn science.
I could stop at this point.You should have stopped some time ago.
However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light.That's not how relativity works.
Even the smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero.
Also, it was very hot, anything would be traveling at very high speeds anyway.
Can those "mass particles" that have high peculiar velocity break the edge of the early universe and move outside to the aria without space or they should bang inwards?You are the one who invented them. You get to decide what their properties are. But remember they are entirely a figment of your imagination.
You can have them unicorn shaped if you like, but they can't be used to prove or refute anything, because you just made them up.
Rather than writing fairy stories, you should study science (and also try to remember what has already been pointed out to you)
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/01/2021 13:48:07
Why don't you stop your nonsense or at least backup it by real article?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:42:58That's not how relativity works.
However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light.
Even the smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero.
Do you think that you know science better than Flip Tanedo, assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Riverside:
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/massless-particles-cant-be-stopped
"Massless particles are purely energy. “It’s sufficient for a particle to have energy to have a meaningful sense of existence,” says Flip Tanedo, assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Riverside."
"Photons and gluons, two force-carrying particles, are fundamental, so they don’t host the internal tug-of-war of a composite particle. They are also unaffected by the Higgs field. Indeed, they seem to be without mass."
"The two particles physicists know to be (at least approximately) massless—photons and gluons—are both force-carrying particles, also known as gauge bosons. Photons are associated with the electromagnetic force, and gluons are associated with the strong force. (The graviton, a gauge boson associated with gravity, is also expected be massless, but its existence hasn’t been confirmed yet.)"
It is also stated the massless particles always travel at the speed of light.:
"These massless particles have some unique properties. They are completely stable, so unlike some particles, they do not lose their energy decaying into pairs of less massive particles.
Because all their energy is kinetic, they always travel at the speed of light. And thanks to special relativity, “things traveling at the speed of light don't actually age,” Tanedo says. “So a photon is actually not aging relative to us. It’s timeless, in that sense.”
So, how can you claim that "smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero" while Massless particles MUST move at the speed of light?
Please learn some physics and then give a call.
Please address and backup your points by real article.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:42:58Please try to keep up with points which have already been addressed.
Therefore, as there is no separation in the energy/matter, there is no any sort of quantized energy in that proton size space.
Otherwise, there is no meaning for your nonsense points.
As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 15:35:31
As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.Why the obsession with articles?
Do you understand that I can write an article and post it on the web?
Anyway, it's not that I am saying anything controversial- it's all well known science.
So, as i keep pointing out, the problem is that you don't understand science.
You seem to have missed your own point.
The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.
So they don't feature in
However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light.
I apologise for failing to state the obvious clearly enough for you to understand it.
So, for the benefit of the slow learners...
That's not how relativity works.
Even the smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the relativistic mass above zero.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 15:36:34
As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.If everyone did that , nobody would ever respond to your posts, would they...?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/01/2021 18:59:45
it's not that I am saying anything controversial- it's all well known science.You are constantly highlight points that are Cleary incorrect just in order to show that my messages are wrong.
I have just proved that you have a fatal error with regards to the speed of light of massless particles and you even do not apologize on that.
Now you try to twist the story:
The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.Sorry - there are no other massless particles that could move at low velocity. It was clearly stated in the article.
So you keep on with the same negative approach.
I actually do believe that you have deep knowledge in science and I am positively sure that you knew that massless particles can't move at a low velocity.
I also believe that you know that my messages are correct, but you keep on with your objections as the BBT is more important to you than real science.
Therefore, it is very clear to me by now that in order to disqualify my messages against the BBT you are ready to lie.
Hence, I can't believe you anymore and I ask you to backup your lies with real articles.
No.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:48:07If everyone did that , nobody would ever respond to your posts, would they...?
As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.
Nobody in this forum has used any sort of lie in order to disqualify my understanding.
Unfortunately, you keep on with your lies.
Therefore, I have no intention to accept those lies any more.
Shame on you!
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 19:20:30
You are constantly highlight points that are Cleary incorrect just in order to show that my messages are wrong.Stop saying things that are clearly incorrect.
Then I won't be able to highlight them and show that your messages are wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 19:23:38
I also believe that you know that my messages are correctNo.
You said that things had to be moving fast to have relativistic mass, and I pointed out that even slow things have (very small) relativistic mass.
This is not important to the early universe, because practically nothing was moving slowly.
But you tried to use something which was wrong and irrelevant to make a point.
That's not scientific discussion, is it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 19:25:42
Unfortunately, you keep on with your lies.I have not told any lies.
I might have made the odd mistake, like not being clear that I was talking about the relativistic mass.
If you think I keep lying, you should have no difficulty quoting things I have said which are dishonest.
Go on.
Quote them.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/01/2021 02:52:38
NoQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:59:45No.
I also believe that you know that my messages are correct
You said that things had to be moving fast to have relativistic mass, and I pointed out that even slow things have (very small) relativistic mass.
We have discussed about massless particles which could break the edge of the total early universe proton space size due to their high peculiar velocity.
We know that there are different types of particles. Some are mass particles and some are massless particles.
Please tell us which kind of verified massless "things" were integrated/generated by the Big Bang energy and could move at low speed (much low than the speed of light) in order to gain some relativistic mass.
As you wish to believe in those "things" instead of real massless particles, would you kindly tell us what was the peculiar velocity of those "things"?
Do you also claim that no verified massless particle (as photon) had been generated by the Big Bang?
So are you sure that there were no massles particles or "things" that could have a peculiar velocity of almost the speed of light immediately after that bang?
Can you please backup all your understanding by relevant article/s?
If not, why do you keep on with all of those lies?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2021 10:36:35
We have discussed about massless particles which could break the edge of the total early universe proton space size due to their high peculiar velocity.No; you talked about them.
I ignored you because I was still trying to get you to understand that even a slow particle has relativistic mass.
So there was mass in the early universe so pair production was possible.
You then went off on some rant about massless particles traveling at C which is true, but can not be relevant to a discussion of slow particles.
Please tell us which kind of verified massless "things" were integrated/generated by the Big Bang energy and could move at low speed (much low than the speed of light) in order to gain some relativistic mass.That makes no sense.
We don't need anything to go slowly.
Even things that are travelling at C can still gain mass.
If I reflect light off a mirror that is moving towards the source, the reflected photons have more energy and thus a higher mass than they did before reflection.
All you need to enable pair production is mass.
And there was mass there
So we could have pair production.
would you kindly tell us what was the peculiar velocity of those "things"?For the sake of discussion, they would probably have a Boltzmann distribution of velocities.
As you wish to believe in those "things" instead of real massless particles,I never said anything like that.
You made it up, or you have failed to understand the science I was talking about.
If you think I did then please point it out.
Can you please backup all your understanding by relevant article/s?
Why the obsession with articles?
Do you understand that I can write an article and post it on the web?
Anyway, it's not that I am saying anything controversial- it's all well known science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2021 10:38:20
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/01/2021 10:39:52
Can you please backup all your understanding by relevant article/s?I can now.
Please see this brief article on the web.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.msg625354#msg625354
Now do you see why demanding articles just makes you look silly?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/01/2021 12:53:05
Sorry, you can't just backup your nonsense by your own nonsense even if you believe that your nonsense should be considered as "science".Can you please backup all your understanding by relevant article/s?I can now.
Please see this brief article on the web.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.msg625354#msg625354
Now do you see why demanding articles just makes you look silly?
You have totally failed to backup the BBT imagination by real science articles.
Actually, the energy in the BBT can't even cross the Era Planck size and it clearly can't set any sort of particle pair.
However, the biggest obstacle of the BBT theory is time and space.
The assumption that the BBT can create the time and the space in our universe is the biggest imagination EVER. (Much more than any imagination about mass or energy.)
Sorry - you and all the BBT scientists could play in your imagination with energy and mass as you wish, however, no one could play with space or time.
The space & time in our Universe was there forever and ever.
The BBT can't create time or space. Einstein had confirmed that message.
No one can create time or space. The BBT isn't the God of the Universe. Even in the Billie they do not claim for that.
Any person/scientist in this planet which believes that the space and time had started somehow at a specific moment in the past should back off and clear the aria for real science.
In our real Universe the Time and space was always there.
There was a time while there was no matter in our Universe and it was clearly infinite empty space. However, don't forget that even in empty space there is some energy.
Our job is to find how the matter & energy had been evolved into all the galaxies that we see while the space & time in our Universe MUST be unlimited (to the infinity).
As the BBT scientists won't accept the simple idea that they have no legal authorization to play with time and space, we all should ignore the BBT nonsense and clear the table for real science.
Any new theory for our universe should start while the infinite space and infinite time was always there!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 13:01:44
Sorry, you can't just backup your nonsense by your own nonsense even if you believe that your nonsense should be considered as "science".So, you, missed the point again.
Of course it's nonsense; that's the point.
An article on the web can be nonsense.
Why do you keep demanding "articles"?
Any person/scientist in this planet which believes that the space and time had started somehow at a specific moment in the past should back off and clear the aria for real science.OK
We can see the expansion of space.
We can see that , if we extrapolate that backwards there's a "crunch". There is a point- about 14 billion years ago when everything which we can see today was in the same place
If you don't accept the big bang, then you need to explain what happened before the experimentally observed expansion started.
What is your explanation?
(also, please stop posting stuff about songs).
Our job is to find how the matter & energy had been evolved into all the galaxies that we see while the space & time in our Universe MUST be unlimited (to the infinity).It can't.
Olber showed that.
As the BBT scientists won't accept the simple ideaOf course we don't.
Because it's plainly wrong.
If you understood science you wouldn't keep going on about an idea that is dead.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/01/2021 16:19:45
Why do you lie?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:53:05OK
Any person/scientist in this planet which believes that the space and time had started somehow at a specific moment in the past should back off and clear the aria for real science.
We can see the expansion of space.
We can see that , if we extrapolate that backwards there's a "crunch". There is a point- about 14 billion years ago when everything which we can see today was in the same place
If you don't accept the big bang, then you need to explain what happened before the experimentally observed expansion started.
We don't see any expansion is space.
We only see expansion of the galaxies.
The assumption that the expansion of the galaxies is due to the expansion in space is one of the BIGGEST mistakes of the modern science.
Therefore, you should set the BBT in the garbage.
Well, Olber had assumed that if the universe is infinity then we should get the light form a galaxy which is located at the infinity in that universe.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:53:05It can't.
Our job is to find how the matter & energy had been evolved into all the galaxies that we see while the space & time in our Universe MUST be unlimited (to the infinity).
Olber showed that.
However, that assumption is clearly incorrect.
The Universe is infinity.
There are galaxies up to the infinity.
However, due to the expansion of the galaxies, as it is located further away, it should move faster away. Therefore, at some very far away space-time the velocity of the galaxy is so high that even relativity can't help to get any light from that galaxy.
So, we can only get light from galaxies which are located up to a limited distance.
That distance might be 13BLY, 130Bly or more than that.
However, it is not due to its distance from us, but due to its ultra high recessional velocity from us.
Therefore, even as the infinite universe is totally not symmetrical and we are actually located much closer to one side (but still far away from the edge), at any spot that we would be in that Universe we should observe up to limited distance.
Hence, the CMBR is almost identical in each direction.
So, technically at any spot that we would be in our infinite Universe, the impact of the radiation would come from a limited radius sphere around us.
We can call this sphere an Observable or Visible Universe.
But it is just a local point in the infinite Universe
I have already explained this issue to you, but as you have already rejected this real science explanation in the past, I assume that you should do it again.
You don't care about real science - you only care about the BBT nonsense of space expansion.
Sorry again - there is no space expansion in our universe
You and all the BBT scientists lie about it!!!.
The space was fixed in the past and it would be fixed in the future.
It can't increase its size by 1 Pico mm even per 10^10...0 trillion LY.
As you clearly believe that we see the expansion in space - you live in lie. However, you don't just lie to all of us, but you specifically lie to yourself.
Please wake up and get out from the BBT imagination.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 17:22:24
Why do you lie?You have not yet shown any evidence that I do.
That's because, in the real world, I don't.
We only see expansion of the galaxies.We see the galaxies getting further apart.
The thing between them is space.
So we see space getting bigger.
But the point is moot.
What we see is expansion.
If you play that back, you get a crunch.
However, that assumption is clearly incorrect.Why?
Please answer that without recourse to "tired light" ideas which have already been shown to be false.
However, due to the expansion of the galaxies, as it is located further away, it should move faster away. Therefore, at some very far away space-time the velocity of the galaxy is so high that even relativity can't help to get any light from that galaxy.That's only possible if space itself is expanding.
You didn't seem to like that idea.
However, it is not due to its distance from us, but due to its ultra high recessional velocity from us.You only get that in an expanding universe.
An expanding universe implies that it expanded "from somewhere".
And that's what we call the Big Bang.
So, if you don't accept the BBT you can't have your expansion.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/01/2021 19:10:45
What a nonsense.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:19:45We see the galaxies getting further apart.
We only see expansion of the galaxies.
The thing between them is space.
So we see space getting bigger.
If I move further away from you does it mean that the space between us is getting bigger due to the expansion in space?
In the same token if we move closer to each other does it mean that there is crunch in space?
Sorry - galaxies can move in any direction and at any velocity without changing the space.
The space is fixed and it will always be fixed with or without your confirmation.
What we see is expansion.Nonsense...
If you play that back, you get a crunch.
Our BBT scientists claim that new matter could only be created at the Big Bang moment.
However, Einstein has told us very clearly that new matter is constantly generated in our Universe.
Therefore, as the galaxies are moving away from each other new galaxies pop up/added in between.
All the particles in the accretion disc of our SMBH are new particles.
Those particles would be converted into new molecular and set new stars and new BH.
Each BH would hold massive galaxy in the Future.
Therefore, if you play the time back, the galaxies would come closer, but each galaxy would shrink eventually to a tiny BH.
The Milky Way had started some time ago as a very tiny BH. Same story with Andromeda or any other massive galaxy.
So, if you play the galaxies expansion back, you don't get any crunch as there is no expansion in the space itself.
More Nonsense.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:19:45That's only possible if space itself is expanding.
However, due to the expansion of the galaxies, as it is located further away, it should move faster away. Therefore, at some very far away space-time the velocity of the galaxy is so high that even relativity can't help to get any light from that galaxy.
It is possible due to the idea of galaxies over galaxies - if you wish, rocket over rocket.
I have already deeply explained that process.
Rocket over rocket can do the job.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:19:45You only get that in an expanding universe.
However, it is not due to its distance from us, but due to its ultra high recessional velocity from us.
Think about galaxies generations.
if each tiny BH is ejected from its mother galaxy at velocity V, while each BH would be converted to massive galaxy - then after 10 generations (assuming that all are moving in one direction, the younger galaxy would move at 10 times V with regards to the first galaxy.
Is it clear to you?
No need for space expansion. Only new particle creation as stated by Einstein is good enough.
An expanding universe implies that it expanded "from somewhere".Well, it is not expanding Universe, but expanding galaxies.
Even so, I agree with you as it implies that the galaxies must eventually start "from somewhere".
However, that somewhere had started infinite time ago by some sort of a bang (or small bang).
The bang had created the first BH in our infinite and empty Universe, while that BH is the mother of all the infinite galaxies that exists today in our infinite Universe.
So, yes it started from somewhere, but that somewhere is just tiny spot at the infinite empty universe space and not the whole space of the Universe as you wish to believe based on the BBT.
And that's what we call the Big Bang.Yes, I agree - the matter had stated by a Bang.
However, one BH is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.
So, if you don't accept the BBT you can't have your expansion.I assume that you have already got an answer for that message.
Good luck!
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 19:27:29
If I move further away from you does it mean that the space between us is getting biggerYes.
For example, you might increase the space from two metres to three.
I think this may be a linguistic problem.
However, one BH is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.No, it isn't - because of the conservation of energy.
No matter how hot it was at the outset, in an infinite time, it would have gone cold.
You have not yet shown any evidence that I do.Still waiting for you to try to prove your silly claim that I'm a liar.
That's because, in the real world, I don't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 19:37:27
Is it clear to you?It is clear to me that you don't know how to add velocities.
You have been told before that you can't use newtonian physics in these sorts of calculations.
You didn't use the right formula, did you?.
The one you used is a Newtonian one, and what you need is a relativistic one.
If you actually understood what you were talking about, you would have realised that.
But you didn't.
Because you don't.
And you were told this before
That's still wrong.
You can't just add relativistic velocities as if they were apples.
So is the problem stupidity or dishonesty?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/01/2021 19:59:24
SorryQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:10:45Yes.
If I move further away from you does it mean that the space between us is getting bigger
For example, you might increase the space from two metres to three.
I think this may be a linguistic problem.
We move in our planet in all directions while the total space in the planet is fixed.
So, there is no change in the space of the planet due to our movement.
In the same token the total size of the Universe is fixed with or without the movement of the galaxies in that space.
Therefore, the movements of the galaxies in the Universe space don't change the total space of the infinite Universe.
Einstein had told us very clearly that new particle creation is realQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:10:45No, it isn't - because of the conservation of energy.
However, one BH is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.
No matter how hot it was at the outset, in an infinite time, it would have gone cold.
He also gave the explanation for that process.
I'm not going to argue about that issue any more.
If you think that you that Einstein is foolish than it is your personal problem.
Still waiting for you to try to prove your silly claim that I'm a liar.Yes you are liar.
As you claim that we see the expansion in space while we only see expansion in galaxies - then this is a clear lie.
You twist again and again the data in order to confuse me.
Please stop it once and for all.
It doesn't matter if we use Newtonian one or relativistic one for the correct answer.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:10:45It is clear to me that you don't know how to add velocities.
Is it clear to you?
You have been told before that you can't use newtonian physics in these sorts of calculations.
As long as we agree that 10 times v is bigger than 9 times v it's good enough to explain the ultra high velocity of the far end galaxies.
So, even if 10,000 generation of galaxies is needed for the farthest galaxy that we can still see, this is perfectly OK.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/01/2021 20:02:46
Yes you are liar.You keep saying that.
But you keep failing to prove it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/01/2021 04:11:22
I have a solid prove for you.Yes you are liar.You keep saying that.
But you keep failing to prove it.
It is called "Redshift".
Redshift is all about relative Newtonian velocity.
If we see an object with redshift of 0.1 then we know that its Newtonian velocity must be 0.1c with reference to us.
In the same token, when we see an object with redshift 1 it tells us that its Newtonian velocity is exactly 1c with reference to us.
The fastest galaxy that we can still observe has a redshift of about 13.
So, we can still see a galaxy that its Newtonian velocity is 13c with reference to us.
However, as we can still see those galaxies, it proves that Einstein was perfectly correct with his relativity theory.
So, although galaxies have Newtonian velocity of 13c their relativity velocity must be below c otherwise we couldn't see them any more.
I assume that as we will improve our tools we might see galaxies with higher redshift (15 or 20?).
So, there must be a maximal velocity for the direct observable light radiation that we can still see.
However, the CMBR radiation is different kind of radiation as it is actually a microwave radiation.
It works as RADAR.
Think about a pilot in a plane.
He can only observe to a very limited distance.
However, by using its microwave radar he can "see" objects from very far away distances (at least 100 times further).
https://www.univie.ac.at/geographie/fachdidaktik/FD/site/external_htmls/imagers.gsfc.nasa.gov/ems/micro.html
"Because microwaves can penetrate haze, light rain and snow, clouds and smoke, these waves are good for viewing the Earth from space."
That is why we get the CMBR radiation with a redshift of almost 1100.
That CMBR microwave radiation tells us that it came from objects/galaxies which are moving away at Newtonian velocity of 1100c with reference to us.
So, there is a sphere for maximal observable light (about 13 c) and there is a sphere for maximal observable microwave (1100c).
That is the answer for what we really see in our infinite universe.
In the same token, the CMBR microwaves radiation can better penetrate the haze of our universe
Our BBT scientists had twisted the real meaning of redshift.
They call it "redshift in Astronomy" and somehow they twist that data to time or distance (due to Hubbel law I assume).
Sorry, the meaning of redshift in real science has the same meaning in astronomy.
It is all about Newtonian velocity and ONLY about Newtonian velocity.
Not distance, not time.
Therefore, with regards to the following:
"In the 1960's a startling discovery was made quite by accident. A pair of scientists at Bell Laboratories detected background noise using a special low noise antenna. The strange thing about the noise was that it was coming from every direction and did not seem to vary in intensity much at all. If this static were from something on our world, like radio transmissions from a nearby airport control tower, it would only come from one direction, not everywhere. The scientists soon realized they had discovered the cosmic microwave background radiation. This radiation, which fills the entire Universe, is believed to be a clue to it's beginning, something known as the Big Bang."
No No
We actually see the CMBR microvwaves radiation that comes from all the very far away galaxies around us which are moving away at almost 1100c (Newtonian velocity).
That CMBR microwave radiation can penetrate the haze of our universe. Therefore we can see them in all directions.
Due to that twisted data, our BBT scientists have totally got lost.
Its wake up time for all of you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/01/2021 08:38:28
I have a solid prove for you.OK, so quote something which I have said, and which is not true (and which I knew wasn't true).
That's the only way to prove your assertion that I'm a liar.
And, if you don't do that- or apologise, I'm going to ask the mods to ban you for your libellous allegation.
Do you understand that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/01/2021 05:44:12
OK, so quote something which I have said, and which is not true (and which I knew wasn't true).As you insist...
That's the only way to prove your assertion that I'm a liar.
it's not that I am saying anything controversial- it's all well known science.You are constantly highlight points that are Cleary incorrect just in order to show that my messages are wrong.
I have just proved that you have a fatal error with regards to the speed of light of massless particles and you even do not apologize on that.
Now you try to twist the story:The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.Sorry - there are no other massless particles that could move at low velocity. It was clearly stated in the article.
So you keep on with the same negative approach.
I actually do believe that you have deep knowledge in science and I am positively sure that you knew that massless particles can't move at a low velocity.
I also believe that you know that my messages are correct, but you keep on with your objections as the BBT is more important to you than real science.
Therefore, it is very clear to me by now that in order to disqualify my messages against the BBT you are ready to lie.
Hence, I can't believe you anymore and I ask you to backup your lies with real articles.No.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:48:07If everyone did that , nobody would ever respond to your posts, would they...?
As I have stated - I will totally ignore any point without backup article.
Nobody in this forum has used any sort of lie in order to disqualify my understanding.
Unfortunately, you keep on with your lies.
Therefore, I have no intention to accept those lies any more.
Shame on you!
Let me add the following:
you clearly lie when you have stated that:
The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.As any mass less particale MUST move at the speed of light as was clearly explained at the following article:
https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/massless-particles-cant-be-stoppedThere are no mass less particles that could move at low velocity.
"Massless particles are purely energy. “It’s sufficient for a particle to have energy to have a meaningful sense of existence,” says Flip Tanedo, assistant professor of physics at the University of California, Riverside."
"Photons and gluons, two force-carrying particles, are fundamental, so they don’t host the internal tug-of-war of a composite particle. They are also unaffected by the Higgs field. Indeed, they seem to be without mass."
"The two particles physicists know to be (at least approximately) massless—photons and gluons—are both force-carrying particles, also known as gauge bosons. Photons are associated with the electromagnetic force, and gluons are associated with the strong force. (The graviton, a gauge boson associated with gravity, is also expected be massless, but its existence hasn’t been confirmed yet.)"
It is also stated that the massless particles always travel at the speed of light.:
"These massless particles have some unique properties. They are completely stable, so unlike some particles, they do not lose their energy decaying into pairs of less massive particles.
Because all their energy is kinetic, they always travel at the speed of light. And thanks to special relativity, “things traveling at the speed of light don't actually age,” Tanedo says. “So a photon is actually not aging relative to us. It’s timeless, in that sense.”
So, how can you claim that "smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero" while Massless particles MUST move at the speed of light?
Therefore, your answer that some mass less particles could move at small velocity and gain mass is clearly lie as there are no massless particles that move at small velocity - and you know that!
That's not how relativity works.
Even the smallest velocity (or other form of energy) is enough to increase the mass above zero.
Shame on you as your mission is to base your arguments on lie just in order to confuse me.
Therefore, from now on I do not believe to any message from you.
If you wish to continue the discussion it is your obligation to backup your messages by real article.
Let's start with the following:
Please offer an article (not yours) that shows which kind of massless particle moves at "small velocity" .
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2021 08:59:05
Let me add the following:If you read that carefully, you will see that we are both saying the same thing.
you clearly lie when you have stated that:
Quote from: Bored chemist on 16/01/2021 15:35:31
The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C.
As any mass less particale MUST move at the speed of light as was clearly explained at the following article:
"The particles that have zero rest mass are not the ones that I was talking about because they are already travelling at C."
Simplifying that we get: "particles that have zero rest mass ... are ...travelling at C."
And you say
"any mass less particale MUST move at the speed of light "
So, you say I'm lying because I say the same thing you do.
At best, you might have found a minor error where I overlooked the lack of strictly massless particles with velocities other than C.
|It didn't affect the point I was making, because, as I said, I was talking about slow particles.
We both agree that they have rest mass.
The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.
Are you saying that is wrong?
The reason I said it was that you had just said this
However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light.
And I was pointing out that you are wrong.
You claim to know the physics.
If you know it then you must have lied when you said "in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high "
Or you must have lied when you said that you didn't need to learn physics.
Which lie did you tell?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/01/2021 09:40:07
At best, you might have found a minor error where I overlooked the lack of strictly massless particles with velocities other than C.Yes, you are wrong!
|It didn't affect the point I was making, because, as I said, I was talking about slow particles.
We both agree that they have rest mass.
The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.
Are you saying that is wrong?
Mass less particles have zero rest mass.
However, as they move at the speed of light they have relativistic mass due to their velocity.
Never the less, all the massless particles in the UNIVERSE MUST move at the speed of light..
Hence, you are totally wrong with the assumption that there are massless particles that move at "velocities other than C" or "slow velocity".
Therefore, your following point is clearly incorrect (or lie if you wish)
The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.There are no massless particles that move slow and have relativistic mass.
Is it clear to you by now or you insist to waste our time?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2021 11:49:29
I presume you are an idiot, or you are deliberately misinterpreting what I said.At best, you might have found a minor error where I overlooked the lack of strictly massless particles with velocities other than C.Yes, you are wrong!
|It didn't affect the point I was making, because, as I said, I was talking about slow particles.
We both agree that they have rest mass.
The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.
Are you saying that is wrong?
Mass less particles have zero rest mass.
However, as they move at the speed of light they have relativistic mass due to their velocity.
Never the less, all the massless particles in the UNIVERSE MUST move at the speed of light..
Hence, you are totally wrong with the assumption that there are massless particles that move at "velocities other than C" or "slow velocity".
Therefore, your following point is clearly incorrect (or lie if you wish)The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.There are no massless particles that move slow and have relativistic mass.
Is it clear to you by now or you insist to waste our time?
All particles have mass.
Either they have zero rest mass, but are in motion and therefore have kinetic energy and therefore have relativistic mass.
Or they have non-zero rest mass in which case they obviously have mass.
You were still wrong when you said that things had to move fast to have relativistic mass.
Hence, you are totally wrong with the assumption that there are massless particles that move at "velocities other than C" or "slow velocity".
I obviously wasn't talking about massless particles.
I never assumed that there were massless particles with speeds less than C.
I may have not made that clear, but that's not the same as lying.
What I actually said was
I was talking about slow particles.Since they are slow, they are obviously not massless.
I never said that they were massless.
What I said was that, they still have a rest mass and a relativistic mass.
Even if they are slow, there is still some M from E=MC2
So you were wrong to say "However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light."
You seem to believe everything else Einstein said.
The most famous thing he said was that mass and energy are equivalent.
Do you not accept that, if I am pushed across the room, I gain mass because I gain energy?
Now, once again, please quote something which I said which I knew to be false.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/01/2021 19:40:41
I obviously wasn't talking about massless particles.Sorry, this is incorrect!
I never assumed that there were massless particles with speeds less than C.
I may have not made that clear, but that's not the same as lying.
We had long discussion on the pair particle production at the BBT process.
You have stated that:
You do not need an atom or a BH to get pair production.As an example for something with mass you had offered a photon:
You just need something with mass.
So we know that energy- in the form photons- has mass.However, photon is actually a massless particle that its velocity is c.
So, you had used an example for massless particle and therefore you lie when you had stated that:
I obviously wasn't talking about massless particles.You lie before and you continue to lie also now.
Don't you have any intention to stop those lies?
Please - don't waste my time any more on this nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/01/2021 20:11:40
We had long discussion on the pair particle production at the BBT process.And you forgot about this bit of it
A photon has mass.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/01/2021 05:44:37
You lie again.We had long discussion on the pair particle production at the BBT process.And you forgot about this bit of it
A photon has mass.
Photon is a massless particle whose invariant mass is zero
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
"In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons".
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/01/2021 10:35:28
If they wanted to say the photon has no mass they would have said so, wouldn't they?You lie again.We had long discussion on the pair particle production at the BBT process.And you forgot about this bit of it
A photon has mass.
Photon is a massless particle whose invariant mass is zero
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
"In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons".
Why do you think they had to put the word "invariant" in there?
It is to distinguish it from relativistic mass- which the photon has in accordance with Einstein's equation.
So, the photon has no rest mass (or invariant mass) but it has relativistic mass.
So it has mass.
And it would be better if you learned some science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/01/2021 19:01:57
You have stated that
I obviously wasn't talking about massless particles.When I have highlighted that you were taking about Photon which is clearly a massless particle, your reply is::
So, the photon has no rest mass (or invariant mass) but it has relativistic mass.Therefore, my answer to you is:
And it would be better if you learned some science.
It would be better if you first respect yourself.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/01/2021 19:53:31
A photon has mass.Since you seem to have an obsession with articles...
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
You seem to stuck with the short answer to recognise that the long answer is what's important here.
It has mass in the sense that it can carry momentum
And that means that it can act as the mass you need for pair production.
And that's the thing you keep being wrong about.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/01/2021 21:08:25
It has mass in the sense that it can carry momentumOK
And that means that it can act as the mass you need for pair production.
And that's the thing you keep being wrong about.
As you are The master of the BBT science, please answer the following (no need to backup any answer with any article) just your free message:
1. Before the Big Bang?
What was there before the Big Bang?
Are you sure that there was no space, no time, no energy no matter in the entire Universe before the Big Bang?
Actually, what is the meaning of a Universe without space?
If there was a bang at one no space, why there couldn't be other bang at other no space?
So what is the chance that there was other bang before or after the Big bang?
2. Time
If there was other bang at different no space location, why can't we start the time from that other bang?
3. BBT Energy/momentum:
You highlight the idea of Momentum.
So, how that BBT momentum/energy had been created/transformed into no space while there was no other space or energy or even other bang before that Big bang?
4. Space
How the space itself had been created by a bang?
We know about energy transformation or momentum, but is there any possibility for space transformation?
So what could be the source of energy/force/momentum... that could set the proton size of the Early Universe while there was no space at any no space?
4. Curvature in the Universe
Our scientists tell us that there is a curvature in our Universe.
They also add that due to curvature our 3D space acts as a 2D planet surface.
So, if that surface is expanding, don't you agree that it should overlap itself?
Hence, the expansion in 2D planet surface can't increase the planet size.
Therefore, if there is a curvature in our Universe, how the space could increase from that proton size?
Hence, why can't that curvature in our Universe force it to stay at that proton size?
So could it be that we actually living in a proton size while due to curvature idea we only think that our universe is quite big and has no edge?
Let's assume that that the universe can really expands in 3D outside that proton size.
In this case, why can't we assume that there is an edge for the Universe as based on the BBT there is an aria with space and aria without space at that stage.
Hence:
If there is a curvature in space - Our universe should stay at a proton size forever.
If there is no curvature - our real universe Must be infinite (or at least significantly big).
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/01/2021 23:38:10
Let's move on.Does that mean you finally grasped the fact that you were wrong and had been calling me a liar for no reason?
If so, I'm happy to move on, subject to a simple condition.
In the future, when I tell you something, you have to accept that it's true.
The reasoning behind that is simple.
You have consistently demonstrated an utter lack of ability to tell fact from fiction.
So, are we going to move on, or are you still going to question textbook science?
Post by: charles1948 on 23/01/2021 00:10:00
So, are we going to move on, or are you still going to question textbook science?
Never question textbook science on this site. It doesn't pay. The entire site is set up to promote scientific orthodoxy.
But I suspect there's a dissident among the Inner Party.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/01/2021 00:29:35
Never question textbook science on this site.
It's perfectly fine to do so if you have evidence. Evidence is the all-important word in that sentence, by the way. Misunderstandings are not evidence (which are almost always what the people in New Theories try to use as evidence).
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 00:37:22
Never question textbook science without evidence on this site. It doesn't pay.
FTFY
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 00:38:46
But I suspect there's a dissident among the Inner Party.You seem to be hallucinating the existence of a party (inner or otherwise).
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/01/2021 05:23:15
NoQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:08:25Does that mean you finally grasped the fact that you were wrong and had been calling me a liar for no reason?
Let's move on.
I still fully disagree with you about the BBT process for pair production.
The BBT "pure Energy" that was delivered "free of charge" to our proton Universe size would never ever represent/ create/ or transformed into even one particle pair.
The reasons for that are as follow:
1. Einstein had to told us that in any mass there is energy (E=mc^2), but he didn't say that in any energy there is mass.
2. If you insist that there is mass in any energy then why our BBT scientists are 100% sure that the energy which exists today in our universe (including EM energy) couldn't be transformed into real new particle pair?
Why do you reject the idea that the EM energy around our SMBH can't generate new positive particale pair while we clearly see the strong light of the photons that had been created during that process.
Why only the BBT energy had been set all the particles in the Universe (based on Einstien law E=mc^2) while today that formula doesn't work any more?
Hence, as long as they don't know why the energy of today can't set new particle pair (or even a photon) while they are so sure that the BBT energy could easily do it - this assumption of the BBT pair particle process is clearly not realistic.
3. In any case, based on the BBT theory the energy in the first pure energy could only create particles with relativistic mass but with zero rest mass. Photon and gluons are the ONLY particle in the whole Universe that could meet that description.
However, as the gluons never observed as a free particle. Therefore, the only real particle that can meet the BBT request is Photon.
4. With regards to photon: Photon is actually a cell of electromagnetic energy. As the BBT energy can't be EM than it clearly can't generate any Photon. Even if you personally bring those photons to the BBT it won't help. Photon must move at the speed of light. Therefore although it meets the requirement for relativistic mass, it can't meet the request for nearby mass as requested by pair production process due to its ultra high velocity. Therefore, even one trillion photons won't help to set even one new pair of particle.
5. You are surly fully aware about all of that information. Therefore, in order to break the science limitation, you had suggested that there are other relativistic mass particles (with zero rest mass) that should move at low velocity. However, so far you couldn't offer which kind of particle could meet this imagination request.
That by itself is good enough to kill the BBT idea at the same moment of the bang.
Evidence is the all-important word in that sentence,Is it?
What is the fit between all the evidences that we have about our universe to the BBT?
Is it 100%?
Do we know what was there before the Big Bang?
Do we know how the BBT energy had been delivered to the early Universe?
Do we know how the space itself had been created at no space and why it is expanding?
Do we know why the BBT energy could set a pair production while the energy today can't set that process any more?
If the answer to all the questions is yes, then we can stop at this point.
If not:
Don't you agree that the BBT comes before any evidence?
Don't you agree that our BBT scientists set the BBT on the table and then they try to fit any new evidence to that BBT?
Actually, it seems to me that in most of the new discoveries there is no fit to the BBT. So first our scientists are quite surprise. Then they invent new patch for the BBT to close the gap.
How many times did they update the BBT from day one of this theory?
What is the current version on that BBT?
As a design engineer, if I was in charge on that BBT software, I would probably set it in the garbage after a few versions.
That what any real design engineer would do. We are lucky that our astronomy scientists do not control on our electronics equipments. In this case, we could stuck at the early electronics time as we stuck with the BBT for almost 100 years.
Why even for just one moment our scientists can't eliminate the BBT and focus only on all the evidences that we have today and then find a theory that meets all of those evidences by 100%?
Don't you agree that only 100% fit (without any message as "we don't know") should be considered as the real theory for our Universe? Hence, a theory with 90% fit or with some integrated sections of "we don't know" should be set in the garbage?
So, let me ask you some questions about "evidence"
1. Space expansion:
Where is the evidence for space expansion? You personally told me that we only see expansion of the galaxies. So why do we claim that we observe the space expansion?
2. CMBR
CMBR doesn't give any evidence for the BBT.
It is a microwave radiation that comes from all directions at almost the same amplitude and therefore it represents the whole Universe.
So, why that CMBR doesn't represent the radiation from the entire Universe around us?
Why do we insist to use it only for the BBT story?
3. Redshift
Don't you agree that redshift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity?
So why do we twist the real meaning of redshift when it comes to BBT?
4. SMBH Accretion disc
Do we see the ultra strong light (Photons) that is ejected from the accretion disc?
Do we see the particles at the accretion disc that are moving at almost at the speed of light?
So, why can't we believe that what we see are actually new created particles?
Why do we reject the clear message from Einstein that new particles are created at our current Universe in order to compensate the matter/galaxies that are drifting away?
Why only the BBT can create new particles while we reject the particles creation activity that we clearly see in front of our eyes?
5. Falling stars into the accretion disc
So far we didn't find any evidence for any falling matter/ gas cloud or stars into the accretion disc of our SMBH.
On the contrary. We ONLY see matter that ejected from the accretion disc. We clearly see that ultra long molecular get stream (27,000LY) that is ejected upwards/downwards from the poles of the SMBH at almost the 0.8 c.
Why do we insist that this matter in an outcome of a falling star instead of new created matte, while the evidence tells us that no star is falling in and we only see matter that is ejected outwards from the SMBH.
So why do we reject the clear evidence that we see?
6. SMBH size
Our scientists don't have a basic clue how all the SMBH in our Universe had been created. The most difficult issue for them is how a young massive galaxies that are located at almost 13 BLY away could establish their SMBH size in so short time after the BBT.
Why they reject the idea that a SMBH/BH should be able to generate the mass that is needed for itself as the mass that is needed for its own galaxy?
Think about the efficiency of that real pair particle production process of our Universe.
One particle is falling into the SMBH and increases its mass, while the other particle is drifting outwards to the accretion disc and would be used later on to form new star.
The efficiency of the pair production in this process is 100%, while based on the BBT - the efficiency was less than 0.00..1% as most of the new particles pair had been eliminated at the same moment of their creation.
7. Curvature in space
Do you confirm that our scientists do not observe any sort of curvature in space?
Hence, there is no evidence for curvature in our Universe space. So why our BBT scientists are 100% sure that there is curvature in the space?
So please
Would you kindly use real observations and real evidences for our Universe theory instead of imagination ideas as the BBT?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 12:43:28
NoFTFY
I still fully disagree withyouscience about theBBTprocess for pair production.
It's the same pair production process that we can observe in a lab today.
1. Einstein had to told us that in any mass there is energy (E=mc^2), but he didn't say that in any energy there is mass.He didn't need to.
Emmy Nether had already told us that. the combination of energy/ mass is strictly conserved (except at the start and end of time).
If you insist that there is mass in any energyIt happens regardless of anyone insisting on anything. It's nothing to do with me; I'm just the messenger here.
In any case, based on the BBT theory the energy in the first pure energy could only create particles with relativistic mass but with zero rest mass.It does not matter how often you try to pretend that pair production can't happen; it still happened.
I can prove that.
We are here.
As the BBT energy can't be EM ...Who said it can't?
Though it doesn't really matter much. we know that energy is quantised even if it's energy associated with the other forces.. I already pointed this out.
There was energy
That energy must have been in some combination of the 4 fundamental forces.
Those forces only exist by virtue of force carries- the photon, which carries the EM force, is the best known.
So if there was EM energy there were photons.
It really would be better if you paid attention.
You are surlyNot especially
surly
/ˈsəːli/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
bad-tempered and unfriendly.
"the porter left with a surly expression"..
aware about all of that information.Yes I am, and it would be much better if you were also properly informed about it.
Please learn some science. That way you might stop making silly mistakes like those I have highlighted above.
What is the fit between all the evidences that we have about our universe to the BBT?Yes.
Is it 100%?
If you think otherwise, please show us examples (real ones- not the nonsense you have posted so far)
Do we know why the BBT energy could set a pair production while the energy today can't set that process any more?We know that it can.
#It's just that you don't understand it- see above,.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/01/2021 14:33:17
So please show us how the energy of our current universe transformed into real positive particale pair.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:23:15It happens regardless of anyone insisting on anything. It's nothing to do with me; I'm just the messenger here.
If you insist that there is mass in any energy
It's the same pair production process that we can observe in a lab today.Sorry - no real pair production took place at any Earth Lab.
Why our scientists do not observe the biggest real mighty lab in the Universe, which is the accretion disc of the SMBH?
So why our scientists claim that the SMBH EM energy can't transformed into real positive pair particles today?
Emmy Nether had already told us that. the combination of energy/ mass is strictly conserved (except at the start and end of time).You miss the whole idea of Emmy Nether.
I have told you before and you still don't understand it.
It does not matter how often you try to pretend that pair production can't happen; it still happened.We are here, but not due to the BBT.
I can prove that.
We are here.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:23:15
What is the fit between all the evidences that we have about our universe to the BBT?
Is it 100%?
Yes.
If you think otherwise, please show us examples (real ones- not the nonsense you have posted so far)
As long as you don't know what was there before the Big Bang, then you can't know for sure what was there after the bang.
Why don't you answer the following?
So, let me ask you some questions about "evidence"
1. Space expansion:
Where is the evidence for space expansion? You personally told me that we only see expansion of the galaxies. So why do we claim that we observe the space expansion?
2. CMBR
CMBR doesn't give any evidence for the BBT.
It is a microwave radiation that comes from all directions at almost the same amplitude and therefore it represents the whole Universe.
So, why that CMBR doesn't represent the radiation from the entire Universe around us?
Why do we insist to use it only for the BBT story?
3. Redshift
Don't you agree that redshift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity?
So why do we twist the real meaning of redshift when it comes to BBT?
4. SMBH Accretion disc
Do we see the ultra strong light (Photons) that is ejected from the accretion disc?
Do we see the particles at the accretion disc that are moving at almost at the speed of light?
So, why can't we believe that what we see are actually new created particles?
Why do we reject the clear message from Einstein that new particles are created at our current Universe in order to compensate the matter/galaxies that are drifting away?
Why only the BBT can create new particles while we reject the particles creation activity that we clearly see in front of our eyes?
5. Falling stars into the accretion disc
So far we didn't find any evidence for any falling matter/ gas cloud or stars into the accretion disc of our SMBH.
On the contrary. We ONLY see matter that ejected from the accretion disc. We clearly see that ultra long molecular get stream (27,000LY) that is ejected upwards/downwards from the poles of the SMBH at almost the 0.8 c.
Why do we insist that this matter in an outcome of a falling star instead of new created matte, while the evidence tells us that no star is falling in and we only see matter that is ejected outwards from the SMBH.
So why do we reject the clear evidence that we see?
6. SMBH size
Our scientists don't have a basic clue how all the SMBH in our Universe had been created. The most difficult issue for them is how a young massive galaxies that are located at almost 13 BLY away could establish their SMBH size in so short time after the BBT.
Why they reject the idea that a SMBH/BH should be able to generate the mass that is needed for itself as the mass that is needed for its own galaxy?
Think about the efficiency of that real pair particle production process of our Universe.
One particle is falling into the SMBH and increases its mass, while the other particle is drifting outwards to the accretion disc and would be used later on to form new star.
The efficiency of the pair production in this process is 100%, while based on the BBT - the efficiency was less than 0.00..1% as most of the new particles pair had been eliminated at the same moment of their creation.
7. Curvature in space
Do you confirm that our scientists do not observe any sort of curvature in space?
Hence, there is no evidence for curvature in our Universe space. So why our BBT scientists are 100% sure that there is curvature in the space?
So please
Would you kindly use real observations and real evidences for our Universe theory instead of imagination ideas as the BBT?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 14:42:50
Sorry - no real pair production took place at any Earth Lab.Page 6 here
https://www.tcd.ie/Physics/study/current/undergraduate/lecture-notes/py1t10/JFSTR10.pdf
Shows a photograph of pair production from 1932
Why don't you learn some science?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 14:44:34
You miss the whole idea of Emmy Nether.You don't understand it any more than you understood pair production- which is to say you don't understand it at all.
I have told you before and you still don't understand it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 14:45:11
Why don't you answer the following?Because there's no point.
You do not pay attention.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 14:46:15
As long as you don't know what was there before the Big Bang, then you can't know for sure what was there after the bang.That's just silly, isn't it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/01/2021 15:51:38
Actually it is about a "Production of an electron-positron pair in a liquid hydrogen bubble chamber (Anderson 1932)".Sorry - no real pair production took place at any Earth Lab.Page 6 here
https://www.tcd.ie/Physics/study/current/undergraduate/lecture-notes/py1t10/JFSTR10.pdf
Shows a photograph of pair production from 1932
Why don't you learn some science?
However, it is still good example as it is stated that:
"2. Creation of particles
Mass-Energy equivalence suggests that it may be possible to create new particles."
So based on that, why our scientists do not accept the simple idea that new positive mass pair particles should be created today in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/01/2021 16:37:24
Only you say it's impossible.
Sorry - no real pair production took place at any Earth Lab.The reason you got it so wrong is that you refuse to do one thing.
Learn some science.
.
So based on that, why our scientists do not accept the simple idea that new positive mass pair particles should be created today in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein?They are.
But they are not created "from nothing", which is what you seem to want to happen.
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/01/2021 17:37:25
We do not discuss about new pair creation out of nothing.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/01/2021 15:51:38They are.
So based on that, why our scientists do not accept the simple idea that new positive mass pair particles should be created today in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein?
But they are not created "from nothing", which is what you seem to want to happen.
For the last few weeks we focus on the BBT idea of creating matter from existing energy.
If you agree that today new positive mass pair particles should be created in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein from existing energy, then you have just solved the enigma of the Universe.
If you reject this idea for today then you also should reject this idea or the early BBT time.
If based on your BBT imagination the energy of the early Universe could form new particle pair then it is your obligation to explain why the energy of today can't do the same.
There must be one law to energy.
As you wish to believe that energy means mass, then at any stage of the Universe that message should be correct.
If that message isn't correct for today then it can't be correct also for the early BBT time.
Therefore, as long as you consider that matter could ONLY be created by the BBT energy, then this BBT should be set in the garbage.
I'm not going to waste my time on your nonsense any more!
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/01/2021 17:57:15
If you agree that today new positive mass pair particles should be created in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein from existing energy, then you have just solved the enigma of the Universe.If you were as clever as you claim, you would remember that I posted a link to a picture of it. Of course I agree with it.
But it doesn't "solve the enigma".
It would, at best, convert that enigma into " well, we can get pair production from high energy gamma photons.
But where did the gammas come from?"
What you don't seem to understand is that there were lots of those in the immediate aftermath of the BB.
But, if you are saying that the particles are being produced, and they have been for an infinite time then you have a problem.
Why haven't they finished yet?
For any finite rate, they eventually run out of photons.
Unless, of course, you are saying that they come from nowhere.
Well, you claim (this time) that they don't come from nowhere.
So where did they come from?
They can't be from the BB, because those gammas didn't get past recombination.
So where are they from?
If based on your BBT imagination the energy of the early Universe could form new particle pair then it is your obligation to explain why the energy of today can't do the same.It can- in the right conditions.
That is why it is possible to take a picture of it.
But the condition is that you need a high energy gamma ray.
And you don't have a plausible source for those to suddenly pop into existence, do you?
(It isn't going to help if you say that they are created by any of the known processes which create gammas- please don't waste time with that idea).
There must be one law to energy.In this context, there is.
Mass/energy is conserved.
The mass of the gamma disappears and the mass of the particles appears.
I have been saying that all along.
If that message isn't correct for todayIt is correct today.
The problem is that you don't understand it.
That's why you post nonsense.
I'm not going to waste my time on your nonsense any more!Do you plan to stop wasting it on your nonsense?
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/01/2021 04:15:54
It is the first time that you claim for: "high energy gamma photons"QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:37:25If you were as clever as you claim, you would remember that I posted a link to a picture of it. Of course I agree with it.
If you agree that today new positive mass pair particles should be created in the Universe as confirmed by Einstein from existing energy, then you have just solved the enigma of the Universe.
But it doesn't "solve the enigma".
It would, at best, convert that enigma into " well, we can get pair production from high energy gamma photons.
But where did the gammas come from?"
you also add that:
What you don't seem to understand is that there were lots of those in the immediate aftermath of the BB.Please remember that gamma ray and Photon are all about Electromagnetic radiation/frequency.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_ray
A gamma ray, or gamma radiation (symbol γ or {\displaystyle \gamma }\gamma ), is a penetrating form of electromagnetic radiation arising from the radioactive decay of atomic nuclei.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon_energy
"Photon energy is the energy carried by a single photon. The amount of energy is directly proportional to the photon's electromagnetic frequency"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra-high-energy_gamma_ray
"Ultra-high-energy gamma rays interact with magnetic fields to produce positron-electron pairs"
Therefore, without magnetic fields and EM radiation there is no way to get high energy gamma photons immediate after of the BB & pair production.
Actually, in all the articles that I have found about the BBT they only claim for "pure energy".
Not even a single word about EM radiation, magnetic fields or high energy gamma photons.
So please, as you are the most clever BBT scientist on the planet, would you kindly show us your confirmation (real article please) for this new imagination of BBT EM radiation/energy, magnetic fields and "lots high energy gamma photons in the immediate aftermath of the BB".
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/01/2021 08:48:07
It is the first time that you claim for: "high energy gamma photons"I forgot that you don't know science, so I didn't say something that is obvious.
That would be obvious to anyone who does- it's a direct consequence of the conservation laws and Einstein's equation.
Please remember that gamma ray and Photon are all about Electromagnetic radiation/frequency.I'm a spectroscopist.
How likely was it that I wouldn't know that?
On the other hand, you admitted you didn't know it
It is the first time that you claim for: "high energy gamma photons"
they only claim for "pure energy".What do you think EM radiation is?
Not even a single word about EM radiation,
Do you think it is radiation with tomato sauce or something?
It is pure energy.
And, again, we have an illustration of your lack of understanding of science.
And you still need to understand that an article isn't God.
I don't need an article to show that EM radiation is pure energy- because I can use logic to do it.
I just have to ask "Well, what else is it?"
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/01/2021 05:21:30
So you have no real article to backup your imagination for: "high energy gamma photons".QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:15:54I forgot that you don't know science, so I didn't say something that is obvious.
It is the first time that you claim for: "high energy gamma photons"
That would be obvious to anyone who does- it's a direct consequence of the conservation laws and Einstein's equation.
That by itself proves that your idea is nonsense.
At least you confirm that the EM is vital for the process of the pair production/creation.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:15:54I'm a spectroscopist.
Please remember that gamma ray and Photon are all about Electromagnetic radiation/frequency.
How likely was it that I wouldn't know that?
I hope that you aren't going to reject this idea latter on.
No, pure energy can't be considered as EM energy.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:15:54What do you think EM radiation is?
they only claim for "pure energy".
Not even a single word about EM radiation,
Do you think it is radiation with tomato sauce or something?
It is pure energy.
And, again, we have an illustration of your lack of understanding of science.Your lack of understanding of science keeps you away from understanding the real meaning of EM
In order to help you get better understanding in real science, let's see the following article:
"We can get a good understanding of electromagnetic waves (EM) by considering how they are produced."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/24-2-production-of-electromagnetic-waves/
"The electric and magnetic waves are shown together at one instant in time in Figure 3. The electric and magnetic fields produced by a long straight wire antenna are exactly in phase. "
So, EM is a combination of electric and magnetic waves/fields.
The electric field (E) shown surrounding the wire is produced by the charge distribution on the wire.
There is an associated magnetic field (B) which propagates outward as well (see Figure 2).
Therefore, without real source of electric/magnetic fields there is no way to generate EM.
I don't need an article to show that EM radiation is pure energy- because I can use logic to do it.You need an articale as your logic is totally wrong.
Can you use your logic to claim that "pure" heat energy means Electric energy?
How do you dare to claim that a pure energy means EM while you have no valid source for electric/magnetic fields at the Big Bang moment?
Without electric/magnetic fields there is no EM.
Without EM there is no "high energy gamma photons"
Without "high energy gamma photons" (and Magnetic field) there is no pair particle production
Without pair production there is no BBT.
So please try to improve your knowledge in science, ignore your wrong logic and then give a call.
In the meantime, please keep the BBT at the garbage.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/01/2021 08:44:45
So you have no real article to backup your imagination for: "high energy gamma photons"I don't need one.
It's standard text-book science.
The problem is that you refuse to learn science.
That by itself proves that your idea is nonsense.Not really.
Here's the line from Wiki
" The photon must have higher energy than the sum of the rest mass energies of an electron and positron (2 ⋅ 511 keV = 1.022 MeV, resulting in a photon-wavelength of 1.2132 picometer) for the production to occur. "
And, obviously, if you want to make heavier particles- like protons- the same thing applies. The photons need enough energy.
Since a proton is roughly 2000 times heavier than an electron, you need gammas with about 2000 times teh energy.
That means something like 2000 MeV.
And that's a high energy gamma.
So, my idea is perfectly obvious and true and sensible.
But you said it was proven to be nonsense because you don't understand that an article is worthless.
Do you now see that you were stupidly wrong?
No, pure energy can't be considered as EM energy.Well, since you make that claim without evidence, I can refute it without evidence.
It is.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/01/2021 20:43:23
Yes you must backup your imagination by real article about the "high energy gamma photons" at the Big Bang Moment.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:21:30I don't need one.
So you have no real article to backup your imagination for: "high energy gamma photons"
It's standard text-book science.
You quote this message from the pair production article and not from the BBT article.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:21:30Not really.
That by itself proves that your idea is nonsense.
Here's the line from Wiki
" The photon must have higher energy than the sum of the rest mass energies of an electron and positron (2 ⋅ 511 keV = 1.022 MeV, resulting in a photon-wavelength of 1.2132 picometer) for the production to occur. "
And, obviously, if you want to make heavier particles- like protons- the same thing applies. The photons need enough energy.
Since a proton is roughly 2000 times heavier than an electron, you need gammas with about 2000 times teh energy.
That means something like 2000 MeV.
And that's a high energy gamma.
This message isn't an explanation or evidence for the Photon energy at the Big Bang moment.
Therefore, you didn't offer a link to that article.
That proves again your basic approach to twist the data in order to support the BBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
" The photon must have higher energy than the sum of the rest mass energies of an electron and positron (2 ⋅ 511 keV = 1.022 MeV, resulting in a photon-wavelength of 1.2132 picometer) for the production to occur. "
That message is fully correct as it gives basic knowledge about the requested photon energy in order for the pair production to occur.
"For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the photon must be above a threshold of at least the total rest mass energy of the two particles, and the situation must conserve both energy and momentum."
However, there is no claim that this kind of photon energy took place also at the Big Bang moment.
It is just your personal imagination that set the connection between the high energy gamma photons to the BBT.
Therefore, you have failed to show that other BBT scientists support your personal imagination.
In any case, without EM - not even a single photon could be created. You have already confirmed this message.
However, you wish to believe that a pure energy means EM.
I have proved by real article why this assumption is a fatal mistake:
In order to help you get better understanding in real science, let's see the following article:As I have proved, pure energy can't be considered as EM.
"We can get a good understanding of electromagnetic waves (EM) by considering how they are produced."
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/24-2-production-of-electromagnetic-waves/
"The electric and magnetic waves are shown together at one instant in time in Figure 3. The electric and magnetic fields produced by a long straight wire antenna are exactly in phase. "
So, EM is a combination of electric and magnetic waves/fields.
The electric field (E) shown surrounding the wire is produced by the charge distribution on the wire.
There is an associated magnetic field (B) which propagates outward as well (see Figure 2).
Therefore, without real source of electric/magnetic fields there is no way to generate EM.
Without EM there is no "high energy gamma photons"
Without "high energy gamma photons" (and Magnetic field) there is no pair particle production
Without pair production there is no BBT.
Therefore, not even a single photon could be created by the Big Bang.
Yes I have offered clear evidence about the EM.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:21:30Well, since you make that claim without evidence, I can refute it without evidence.
No, pure energy can't be considered as EM energy.
However, as usual you prefer to reject real science and stay with your own imagination about the BBT.
As you don't understand EM and how it is created, it's better for you to find better job in your life.
The BBT is useless, and your imagination about the BBT is also useless.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/01/2021 20:46:07
Yes you must backup your imagination by real article about the "high energy gamma photons" at the Big Bang Moment.No.
I said shortly after the BB.
Don't make up lies like that.
Do you now understand that you need high energy gammas to produce particles like protons by pair production?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/01/2021 20:46:40
As I have provedYou have proved little or nothing.
You just keep saying things that are wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/01/2021 21:08:27
You have proved little or nothing.Yes I did.
Unfortunately, you are the one that twist the data and ignore the real information about the EM that had been clearly introduced in that EM article just in order to backup your wrong BBT.
Do you now understand that you need high energy gammas to produce particles like protons by pair production?The real question is:
How the BBT could generate high energy gammas protons only by pure energy.
As I have proved, EM waves can't be created by pure energy.
However, as EM is needed for a photon creation - then there is no way for the BBT to generate those kinds of photons.
Therefore, it's the time to set your BBT imagination in the garbage.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/01/2021 21:14:37
Yes I have offered clear evidence about the EM.You didn't even answer my point which proves that you are wrong.
What do you think EM radiation is?
Do you think it is radiation with tomato sauce or something?
It is pure energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/01/2021 21:16:47
As I have proved, EM waves can't be created by pure energy.No.
You seem not to understand what "prove" means.
You have asserted that "EM waves can't be created by pure energy".
But you have offered no evidence nor any proof.
What do you think it means to "prove" something?
Post by: charles1948 on 28/01/2021 22:00:19
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/01/2021 22:11:18
Bored Chemist, why don't you arrange a boxing match with Dave Lev. Then you could physically slug it out between the pair of you. To determine who's the boss?Because, whoever won, he would still be wrong.
I don't want to take the risk that "the last word" on a science page is from someone who doesn't understand the basics of science.
He doesn't even know what "proof" is.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/01/2021 04:14:17
Bored Chemist, why don't you arrange a boxing match with Dave Lev. Then you could physically slug it out between the pair of you. To determine who's the boss?Thanks
Because, whoever won, he would still be wrong.You work against the law of this forum
I don't want to take the risk that "the last word" on a science page is from someone who doesn't understand the basics of science.
He doesn't even know what "prof" is.
In this thread I can represent my personal ideas as a new theory.
You can also do so by opening new theory tread and present your personal understanding or imagination:
However, it is forbidden to use personal theory/imagination in order to knockout other theory.
You twist the data in order to show that your personal imagination represents the current mainstream.
This is clearly incorrect
With regards to the "high energy gamma photons", you have stated:
Quote
Quote from: Bored chemist on 26/01/2021 17:57:15I was quite sure that you actually represent the BBT mainstream.
What you don't seem to understand is that there were lots of those in the immediate aftermath of the BB.
However, now I fully understand that this is your personal imagination.
In order to backup this lie, you have used a message from the pair particle article and not from a BBT article:
Here's the line from WikiTherefore, you hide the source for this message.
" The photon must have higher energy than the sum of the rest mass energies of an electron and positron (2 ⋅ 511 keV = 1.022 MeV, resulting in a photon-wavelength of 1.2132 picometer) for the production to occur. "
Hence, you are using manipulation, twisted information and lies to promote your personal theories in my thread.
Shame on you!!!
I request the manager of this site to keep you away from my threads.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/01/2021 09:03:06
You can also do so by opening new theory tread and present your personal understanding or imagination:I am just presenting mainstream science.
I was quite sure that you actually represent the BBT mainstream.You were right. That's what I'm doing.
And, if I wasn't then the mods would be telling me to stop misrepresenting it.
So, by your own argument, you know that you are wrong.
You twist the dataI'm not twisting the data.
The data says what the data says.
It says you are wrong .
Therefore, you hide the source for this message.The source for that was a wiki page (and I made that clear).
You say I hid this from you.
Nonsense
Here is the post where you cited the same article.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg607610#msg607610
How is it hidden if it is in a place that you know about?
In order to backup this lieWhat it says in the wiki page is not a lie.
you have used a message from the pair particle article and not from a BBT articleYour point is absurd.
If an elementary maths class tells me that 2+2=4 am I only allowed to use that information in an elementary maths lesson?
If the physics of pair production works today then it must have worked shortly after the BB.
Hence, you are using manipulationI haven't needed to manipulate anything. The facts are on my side.
twisted informationI haven't twisted anything.
and lies toI haven't lied- and as I said, if you keep slandering me like that you will get into trouble.
to promote your personal theoriesIt's not my personal theory, it is mainstream physics.
in my thread.It's the forum's thread. You signed up to that idea when you joined.
Shame on you!!!I'm not the one who should be ashamed of putting 5 lies into one sentence.
I request the manager of this site to keep you away from my threads.You don't need to.
If I was breaking the rules, the mods would have done something.
They haven't because all I'm doing is putting forward well known science
If you had learned the science when I first suggested it, you would be moving on to better things by now.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/01/2021 10:02:14
Yes, you hide this information.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:14:17The source for that was a wiki page (and I made that clear).
Therefore, you hide the source for this message.
You say I hid this from you.
Nonsense
Here is the post where you cited the same article.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg607610#msg607610
How is it hidden if it is in a place that you know about?
If you quote something, it is your obligation to offer its source. Just to claim that it is from wiki isn't good enough as I had the impression that you took it from real BBT article.
Therefore, you clearly confused me as this was your intention.
In any case, this article is a general information about the Pair production process:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
Not even a single word about the BBT or the conditions immediately after the Big Bang.
They discuss about the pair production process from photon:
"The probability of pair production in photon–matter interactions increases with photon energy and also increases approximately as the square of atomic number of the nearby atom.[2]"
So, you can use it, but not as a BBT article.
However, the main question is how those "high energy gamma photons" had been created by the Big Bang
You already confirmed that Photon is all about EM energy.
I have offered clear explanation that EM is a combination of electric & magnetic waves/fields.
Therefore, in order to get EM you must have electric & magnetic waves/fields.
So far you ignore that request.
Those conditions were not available at the early Universe.
Our scientists do not claim that there were electric & magnetic waves/fields at the Big Bang moment.
It is only you that wish to believe in that fiction.
Therefore, you keep on with your approach to twist the data and clearly do not represent the mainstream.
Please show real BBT article to confirm your personal imagination.
Please also be aware that based on the BBT the pair production process took place 10^-38 sec after the bang
So, it is your obligation (or actually our mainstream scientists) to offer a clear explanation by real article how those "high energy gamma photons" had been formed from the Pure BBT energy in less than 10^-38 sec after the bang (Before the pair production process) .
There is other issue of a size which you ignore.
In that article they clearly discuss about the size of "classical electron radius"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"where alpha is the fine structure constant, Re- is the classical electron radius, Z is the atomic number of the material".
Hence, our scientists must show how they can set all the electron-positrons pair in our entire Universe is a very compact size as a proton size while each electron-positron must have some minimal radius size.
So far you have totally ignored the requested EM in order to set a photon and you also ignored the minimal requested radius size for electron - positron.
As long as you ignore those key elements for the BBT and backup your replies by real articles, I will ignore all your messages.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/01/2021 12:03:22
Yes, you hide this information.You are saying that I hid information which I copied and pasted from a wiki page that you had cited even though I pointed out that it was from wiki?
I had the impression that you took it from real BBT article.What difference does it make?
You said that I was making up the requirement to have a high energy gamma photon in order to get pair production.
So you have no real article to backup your imagination for: "high energy gamma photons".
That by itself proves that your idea is nonsense.
And I pointed out that it is true.
To do this, I quoted from the wiki page about pair production- because that is what the question was about.
That process still happens today.
It has nothing to do with the BBT.
If you got confused, that's because you are not clever enough to understand your own argument.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/01/2021 12:16:28
So far you ignore that request.You have already said that there would be such fields- even in a vacuum, never mind in the early universe.
I ignored your request because it was silly.
You said
Our scientists do not claim that there were electric & magnetic waves/fields at the Big Bang moment.
It is only you that wish to believe in that fiction.
but you believe in it too.
Here is where you pointed out that such fields would exist.
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole.Obviously, if you have a particle and an antiparticle they will have opposite charges and so there will be a field between them.
So you have been asking me to prove something you already knew.
This is what I mean when I say you should learn some science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/01/2021 14:35:38
No, I didn't say that nonsense.So far you ignore that request.You have already said that there would be such fields- even in a vacuum, never mind in the early universe.
I ignored your request because it was silly.
This is a lie.
You saidOur scientists do not claim that there were electric & magnetic waves/fields at the Big Bang moment.but you believe in it too.
It is only you that wish to believe in that fiction.
Here is where you pointed out that such fields would exist.
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole.Yes, that is correct and that is what I said.
Our scientists fully confirm that there are electric & magnetic waves/fields around a BH/SMBH.
Therefore, due to that electric & magnetic waves/fields , new photons and new particle pairs are created over there.
We can clearly observe the outcome of that new photons/particles creation at the accretion of our SMBH.
However, when it comes to the first moment after the Big Bang - there was no BH over there.
I hope that at least you confirm this data
Hence, without BH there are no electric & magnetic waves/fields.
Therefore, our scientists only claim for pure energy at the Big Bang moment.
So, when you claim that immediately after the bang there was electric & magnetic waves/fields you clearly lie.
Therefore, the BBT pure energy without EM can't generate even one photon.
Obviously, if you have a particle and an antiparticle they will have opposite charges and so there will be a field between them.You won't have any particle without EM.
.
Therefore, if you start the BBT only with pure energy and without any real particle then you can't claim that you have particle and an antiparticle or any photon.
Without any BH/photon/particle to start with, there is no way for the BBT to start the pair production process.
Hence, the BBT is lost at the same moment of the Bang.
This is what I mean when I say you should learn some science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/01/2021 14:48:40
No, I didn't say that nonsense.You accepted that spontaneous fluctuations give rise to particles.
"vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear"
And if it happens today near a BH then it would have happened in the early universe.
So there were particles.
You already accepted it and now you are trying to pretend that you didn't.
Well, bad luck. There's a record of what you said.
This is a lie.I'm not the one telling lies.
You are claiming that you didn't say something when you plainly did.
You won't have any particle without EM.You already accepted that you do. They appear spontaneously from a vacuum.
"vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear".
So were you lying when you said they do, or lying when you said they don't?
One or the other must be false.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/01/2021 15:24:21
You accepted that spontaneous fluctuations give rise to particles.No, this is incorrect.
"vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear"
And if it happens today near a BH then it would have happened in the early universe.
So there were particles.
It happens today near a BH, so you need a nearby BH for that process.
As there was no BH in the early Universe, then there is no new particle at that imagination Universe.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand?
You already accepted that you do. They appear spontaneously from a vacuum.As usual you twist the data.
"vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear".
You take only portion of the message in order to support your imagination and totally ignore the real impact of "nearby BH".
I'm not the one telling lies.Yes, you are.
You are claiming that you didn't say something when you plainly did.
Twisting the data is lie.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/01/2021 15:50:19
You take only portion of the message in order to support your imagination and totally ignore the real impact of "nearby BH".The nearby BH does not create the pairs; it is irrelevant.
What do you think the word "spontaneously" means?
t happens today near a BH, so you need a nearby BH for that process.No.
It happens spontaneously. The BH changes the outcome (n the case of hawking radiation) by swallowing one of the pair of particles produce.
But the production of the particles is a spontaneous event.
If you understood science you would know that rather than calling me a liar, wouldn't you?
Why is it so difficult for you to understand?I understand what spontaneous means.
You keep trying to pretend that there are no particles whereas science (specifically QM) says that there would be.
Why not just accept that you are wrong, and go and learn some physics?
Twisting the data is lie.I have not twisted anything.
I just keep on posting well documented mainstream science.
I don't need to "twist" it to show that you are wrong, because you are wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/01/2021 04:55:18
Is it real?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:24:21The nearby BH does not create the pairs; it is irrelevant.
You take only portion of the message in order to support your imagination and totally ignore the real impact of "nearby BH".
Don't you have some basic knowledge in English?
What is the meaning of "Near BH"?
Let me help you:
Near = Close and Close = near
By Google:
"located at short distance away..a big house in the near distance."
close to, close by not far (away), from a short distance, from in the vicinity of in the neighborhood,within reach of a stone's throw away, a jump away, from within sniffing distance of, approach
So, the meaning of:
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole.
Is:
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear Near to the event horizon of a black hole.
or
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear a short distance to the event horizon of a black hole.
If all of that doesn't help you, it's better for you to go back to class A and improve your basic knowledge in English before you start to show your severe misunderstanding in science.
What do you think the word "spontaneously" means?Let's go back to Google:
"impulsively, on the spur of the moment.
mutations can occur spontaneously"
There is no "spontaneously" in the following message:
""An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole."
However, in this case I fully agree with you that this process is "spontaneously", occur on the spur of the moment or just randomly.
Therefore, as the electric & magnetic waves/fields of a BH is stronger more particle–antiparticle pair appear close to the event horizon of that black hole at a given time.
Hence, as the BH is more massive it would generate more particle–antiparticle pair at a given time.
Please be aware that both particle–antiparticle pair carries ONLY positive mass.
There is no negative mass in our entire Universe..
The BH changes the outcome (n the case of hawking radiation) by swallowing one of the pair of particles produce.The basic concept of hawking radiation s correct.
However, as there is no negative mass in our entire Universe, hawking radiation does not decreases the mass of a BH but it actually increases its mass.
Hence, while the BH/SMBH is swallowing one particle, the other antiparticle is ejected outwards directly to the accretion disc.
Due to the Ultra high forces, EM, High Pressure and ultra high temp at the accretion disc, new Atoms/molecular would be created over there from those new particles.
Eventually they would be ejected at 0.8c as a molecular jet stream from the poles of the SMBH
Sooner or later they will fall back at the galactic disc and be used to form new stars.
Our whole solar system had been created over there.
If I remember correctly, our SMBH generates 12 new stars per year
.There are some SMBH that generates even 400 new stars per year
Once you understand that process, you actually understand how our Universe really works.
You keep trying to pretend that there are no particles whereas science (specifically QM) says that there would be.
They appear spontaneously from a vacuum.Please prove your imagination that there is no need for a BH for a particle–antiparticle pair to appear.
"vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear".
The BH must be there.
The particle–antiparticle pair appear due to the BH's ultra high gravity force and its EM radiation.
Without EM and ultra high gravity there is no way to get the particle–antiparticle pair process.
If you take out the BH itself from there and eliminate the EM and/or the gravity you kill that process for good.
Sorry, you twist the real meaning of the following clear message:
"the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole".
You can't just eliminate the BH from this message and hope for the best.
This isn't science.
It is a twisting science.
How do you dare to claim that the BBT can generate new particle while there is no BH over there?
As you claim that it is "spontaneously" activity, you also should know that it must take time to generate significant amount of particles.
So, even if the BBT could create a BH time is needed for the pair production process.
Therefore, there is no way for the entire particles in our universe to be created in less than 10^38 of a second.
Is it clear to you?
Therefore, as you and all the BBT scientists are twisting the science - you all have failed to understand how our Universe really works.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/01/2021 17:48:00
Please prove your imagination that there is no need for a BH for a particle–antiparticle pair to appear.I already cited a picture of this happening.
Here's a copy.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Why do you say "your imagination" when it's a documented fact?
Is it because you don't know the science?
Post by: charles1948 on 31/01/2021 17:55:15
Please prove your imagination that there is no need for a BH for a particle–antiparticle pair to appear.I already cited a picture of this happening.
Here's a copy.pair prodn.JPG (95.76 kB . 817x564 - viewed 3902 times)
Why do you say "your imagination" when it's a documented fact?
Is it because you don't know the science?
The photo shows a bubble-chamber image from 1932. Isn't there any more recent evidence?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/01/2021 18:13:14
The photo shows a bubble-chamber image from 1932. Isn't there any more recent evidence?As I said, I had already cited this .
At the time I picked an old image deliberately to show that this was not some new found physics that Dave had an excuse to not know about.
There is, of course, plenty of newer data.
The problem is that he doesn't learn science even when we put it right in front of him.
Post by: charles1948 on 31/01/2021 18:48:32
The photo shows a bubble-chamber image from 1932. Isn't there any more recent evidence?As I said, I had already cited this .
At the time I picked an old image deliberately to show that this was not some new found physics that Dave had an excuse to not know about.
There is, of course, plenty of newer data.
The problem is that he doesn't learn science even when we put it right in front of him.
Thanks BC. But didn't you really only show the antiquated bubble-chamber photo for this reason:
The old photo seems to offer tangible visible evidence of particle tracks.
Which can't be done by modern particle physics. Modern theory relies entirely on the interpretation of electrical signals read by computer chips in the electronic "detectors"
These "detectors" can't take photos.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/01/2021 18:56:54
Partly because of their educational value- as you say, you can really see what's going on.
The problem seems to be that, even if I did the experiment in front of Dave, he hasn't the background understanding to take the message in which is why he can say things like
How do you dare to claim that the BBT can generate new particle while there is no BH over there?only a week or so after being shown that it happens.
I predict that he will say this is "twisting" something- but he won't say what or how.
Post by: charles1948 on 31/01/2021 19:12:44
People still build bubble chambers and cloud chambers.
Partly because of their educational value- as you say, you can really see what's going on.
The problem seems to be that, even if I did the experiment in front of Dave, he hasn't the background understanding to take the message in which is why he can say things likeHow do you dare to claim that the BBT can generate new particle while there is no BH over there?only a week or so after being shown that it happens.
I predict that he will say this is "twisting" something- but he won't say what or how.
Why should you care what he says? You seem to be getting obsessed with him. I mean, why do you want to "predict" what he says. Who cares what he says.
He's just a poster expressing ideas that you don't agree with. What's wrong with that?
Are you going to get him thrown off?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/01/2021 19:17:48
He's just a poster expressing ideas that you don't agree with. What's wrong with that?It's not me that he's disagreeing with, is it?
Post by: charles1948 on 31/01/2021 19:20:01
He's just a poster expressing ideas that you don't agree with. What's wrong with that?It's not me that he's disagreeing with, is it?
So get him thrown off for disagreeing with main-stream Science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/01/2021 20:24:36
No, just get him to realise that facts are facts.He's just a poster expressing ideas that you don't agree with. What's wrong with that?It's not me that he's disagreeing with, is it?
So get him thrown off for disagreeing with main-stream Science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/02/2021 07:28:37
This experimental isn't relevant to our discussion.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:55:18I already cited a picture of this happening.
Please prove your imagination that there is no need for a BH for a particle–antiparticle pair to appear.
Please see the following:
It is all about shooting Atom into Hydrogen bubble chamber
However, there was no Hydrogen bubble chamber/sea at the Big Bang Moment.
Actually, the main task of the BBT story is to tell us how the Hydrogen Atoms had been formed from a "pure energy"
Based on the BBT the first Hydrogen Atom had been created at the recombination Era - about 380 MY after the Bang.
So, is it real to start the BBT story while the Universe is already full with Hydrogen Atoms?
Don't you agree that the new particle pair process is needed to tell us the story of the Hydrogen creation and not vice versa? Do we find any idea of that experimental at the pair production article?
If you read carefully the article about the pair creation process you would find that there is only one possibility for the pair process activity to take place by "pure energy". That process is based on the "pure energy" of the BH itself and we have deeply discussed on that activity.
Therefore, the Hydrogen chamber isn't relevant to the BBT as the main task of the BBT is to explain how can we get that Hydrogen Chamber or sea.
Only BBT scientist can use the idea of Hydrogen Chamber for the Big Bang moment in order to explain the creation of the first Hydrogen atom that took place 380 M Year later on.
Conclusion:
There is only ONE known activity for the creation of pair particles by "pure energy"
That process is based on BH energy.
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole."
We also get a confirmation for this process by Hawking explanation.
However, as I have stated, both particles MUST carry only positive mass.
So, as based on the BBT there was no BH at the Big Bang moment there is no way to transform that energy into particle pair activity.
The BBT is useless and should be set immediately at the garbage.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/02/2021 07:29:37
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole.It seems that our BBT scientists refuse to understand the real meaning of that message.
They clearly can read that it is stated that a BH is needed for the pair production process but they refuse to understand why the BH is so important.
They could easy solve the enigma by ask themselves what are the key features of the BH?
If they do so, they would find two main elements:
1, Ultra strong Gravity
2. Electric & magnetic waves/field (EM)
That's all.
Actually, at CERN our scientists try to simulate those two features.
EM - They are using EM power. So, they have a perfect fit with this BH feature
Gravity - this is much more difficult request for CERN. Actually they try to simulate the gravity by magnetic fields, but it isn't the same.
Therefore, they could achieve a Boson but no more than that.
As the SMBH is actually the Biggest CERN facility in the Universe, it can generate New Bosons, new quarks and new particle pairs.
Unfortunately, our BBT scientists do not wish to accept the idea of new particle creation in our current universe. Therefore they twist the science data about that process and ignore the clear observation that all the BH/SMBH are ejecting molecular jet stream while not even a single star or gas cloud falls in.
So, they wish to force the Universe to work according to their BBT imagination instead of accepting the real science data about the pair production and the clear observations as they are.
If they do so they would understand how our Universe really works.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/02/2021 08:59:55
Please see the following:Why?
Do you not realise that I know about it?
That's why I was able to show you a picture of it.
However, there was no Hydrogen bubble chamber/sea at the Big Bang Moment.Correct.
And that is part of the reason why we don't have photographs from back then.
Do you understand the title of the video you (pointlessly) posted?
The purpose of the bubble chamber isn't to produce the pairs- that happens anyway.
The point of the chamber is to let you detect and study the pairs.
The chamber forms an image of a process that happens anyway.
Actually, the main task of the BBT story is to tell us how the Hydrogen Atoms had been formed from a "pure energy"And I have done so.
If you understood science, you would realise that.
So, is it real to start the BBT story while the Universe is already full with Hydrogen Atoms?No
That's just some nonsense you have made up.
Therefore, the Hydrogen chamber isn't relevant to the BBTYou asked for evidence of pair production, a bubble camber is very good evidence of that.
Now that I have given you what you asked for, you say it is not relevant.
Well, why did you ask for it then?
There is only ONE known activity for the creation of pair particles by "pure energy"No
You can use pair production. I posted a picture of it earlier, but you are still ignoring it for some silly reason.
It does not need a BH.
It does not need a bubble chamber either, it can happen more or less anywhere if there is a high energy particle, and something with mass.
Those criteria were met in the early universe.
So pair production was possible shortly after the big bang.
.
We also get a confirmation for this process by Hawking explanation.Well- sort of.
It has never actually been observed.
But, if you accept that it happens, then you accept that pair production happens.
And if it happens today near a black hole, there's nothing to have stopped it happening in the early universe.
So you have accepted all the ideas which real science uses in the BBT model.
Only BBT scientist can use the idea of Hydrogen Chamber for the Big Bang moment in order to explain the creation of the first Hydrogen atom that took place 380 M Year later on.You point is as stupid as if you were saying that, because we use aa microscope to see bacteria we are saying that a microscope causes infections.
The bubble chamber is just a tool to observe interactions like pair production.
we have deeply discussed on that activity.We have discussed it, but you still clearly do not understand it.
"An alternative view of the process is that vacuum fluctuations cause a particle–antiparticle pair to appear close to the event horizon of a black hole.
It seems that our BBT scientists refuse to understand the real meaning of that message.
They clearly can read that it is stated that a BH is needed for the pair production process
Imagine this
Two men meet- by chance near a building. They get into an argument about football.
One runs into the building and the other one leaves.
Did the building cause the argument?
Two particles are created by spontaneous fluctuations in the vacuum.
One of them falls into a black hole.
Did the hole cause the spontaneous process?
Do you understand that the BH does not cause the spontaneous creation of the matter/antimatter pair, it simply swallowed one to the particles?
Please learn some science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/02/2021 04:50:44
It does not need a BH.
It does not need a bubble chamber either, it can happen more or less anywhere if there is a high energy particle, and something with mass.
Those criteria were met in the early universe.
So pair production was possible shortly after the big bang.
Let's verify if that pair creation process is feasible for the BBT
Please see the following video clip
Why pair production cannot occur in vacuum?
In this video it is stated that due to pair annihilation process of electron/positron we get a photon.
However for the opposite process, an external real mass (as nucleus is needed).
This confirms your explanation that photon could be transformed into the pair particle but a nearby mass is needed.
Now, let's go back to the Big Bang.
Based on this theory, the energy of the BBT was "pure energy".
However, we already know that photon is actually Pure EM energy.
We also know that in order to get EM energy a magnetic field is needed.
As the BBT doesn't claim for magnetic field, then this pure BBT energy won't create even one photon.
Never the less, let's assume for one moment that the BBT energy could be converted into mass less particles as Photon.
The main question is how those photons could set the pair production process.
You have stated before that although Photon is considered as mass less particle (rest mass =0) as it is moving at the speed of light (or high velocity) it should have realistic mass.
However, that concept is clearly incorrect.
We can get a prove for that in the following video clip:
How is a light photon affected by Gravity?
It is stated that photon isn't affected by gravity. A photon would change its frequency due to gravity (red shifted) but it won't be affected by gravity.
Therefore, a Photon wouldn't set any gravity on other mass less particle.
So, as the BBT at the maximal imagination could set only mass less particles as photons and as those photons aren't affected by gravity, there is no way to get a nearby mass which is requested for the pair production process.
Therefore the BBT imagination wouldn't create even one real particale pair.
The bubble chamber is just a tool to observe interactions like pair production.So you confirm that the Bubble chamber isn't relevant to the idea of creating new particles from pure energy.
The purpose of the bubble chamber isn't to produce the pairs- that happens anyway.As you clearly know that the chamber "isn't to produce the pairs".
The point of the chamber is to let you detect and study the pairs.
The chamber forms an image of a process that happens anyway.
Then you know that the chamber is not relevant to our discussion about the pair production process.
However, you have offered that experimental as prove for the pair production process.
Therefore, you actually try again to confuse me with wrong data.
I'm quite sure that as a BBT scientist you also clearly know that photon isn't affected by gravity.
Therefore, it can't set any gravity force on any other nearby photon.
Hence, the idea of using the realistic mass of a photon as a nearby mass which is requested for the pair process is not realistic.
Therefore, you keep on with your approach to confuse me with this wrong data.
That proves that you lie to me again and again.
Please, before you claim for being scientist, try to respect yourself and don't offer wrong data or lie.
Shame on you!
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/02/2021 09:09:04
We also know that in order to get EM energy a magnetic field is needed.And we know that QM variations in the vacuum will give us a field (and, indeed, they will give us photons).
And we know that your grasp of science is not good enough.
As the BBT doesn't claim for magnetic field,It's not a matter of "the BBT claims".
It's just science.
Spontaneous pair production will do the job.
Did you notice that the guy in that video clip is telling you exactly the same things which I told you, which you said were lies.
For example he talks about very high energy, gamma, photons at 01:05
His first obvious mistake is at about 01:58 where he talks about producing a photon with an energy of about 1.02 MeV.
What actually happens (in most cases) is the production of a pair of photons with energies of 0.511 MeV each.
Now, that's an easy mistake to make.
Another "mistake" is that he doesn't talk about pair production in the early universe.
Nobody would expect him to do so in an introductory talk like this one.
So he doesn't cover the case where the mass needed to balance the momentum of pair production comes from other energy, rather than from a nucleus.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation_radiation
Never the less, let's assume for one moment that the BBT energy could be converted into mass less particles as Photon.Well, as I said. the science shows that it will, because the energy- whatever form it is initially present as- will be coupled into the photons produced spontaneously.
That's essentially where photons come from in "ordinary" transitions like light from a light bulb.
If you knew the science, you would be aware of that.
Then you know that the chamber is not relevant to our discussion about the pair production process.It is relevant to demonstrating that the process happens.
It answered your request for information.
Please prove your imagination that there is no need for a BH for a particle–antiparticle pair to appear.
Are you saying that your question was irrelevant?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/02/2021 09:14:48
I'm quite sure that as a BBT scientist you also clearly know that photon isn't affected by gravity.No
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
Of course photons are affected by gravity.
Why do you keep making up nonsense like that?
However, you have offered that experimental as prove for the pair production process.You can see the pair of particles produced.
So it is proof of pair production.
Therefore, you actually try again to confuse me with wrong data.The data is right.
What causes your confusion is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Shame on you!I am not ashamed of pointing out well known science.
Are you ashamed of not paying attention?
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/02/2021 04:30:10
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:50:44No
I'm quite sure that as a BBT scientist you also clearly know that photon isn't affected by gravity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
Of course photons are affected by gravity.
Well, it is quite clear that you don't care about real science.
You have decided to ignore all the valid data that I have offered
Instead you focus on the impact of a BH on the Light.
This is quite different as a massive BH or galaxy sets ultra high gravity force.
We actually discuss on a fairly low gravity.
I have proved that even star can't reduce the velocity of a Photon due to its gravity:
"How is a light photon affected by Gravity?
It is stated that photon isn't affected by gravity. A photon would change its frequency due to gravity (red shifted) but it won't be affected by gravity.
Therefore, a Photon wouldn't set any gravity on other mass less particle."
However, the Gravitational_lens is due to the curvature of space time of the ultra high gravity force as BH or far away massive galaxy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens
"In general relativity, light follows the curvature of spacetime, hence when light passes around a massive object, it is bent. This means that the light from an object on the other side will be bent towards an observer's eye, just like an ordinary lens."
Hence, this doesn't represent our case.
We discuss on a nearby mass as a nuclease.
You even claimed that BH isn't needed: (It does not need a BH.)
In any case, many thanks for this example.
Please remember that we discuss about a pair production process from a photon.
The space is full with galaxies, BH, Stars, Planets, Asteroids and even hydrogen Atoms.
However, empty space isn't really empty. In any given space/square there must be some sort of matter.
So a photon that had been emitted 13By ago has to cross near millions of BH/Stars/Galaxies and trillions over trillions hydrogen atoms and nucleases.
We clearly observe the outcome of that by the Gravitational_lens
However, after all of that, how could it be that not even a single photon had not lost his life or energy for the new particle pair?
Actually, even the atmosphere around the Earth is full with air and nucleases.
If your following imagination was correct:
You can use pair production. I posted a picture of it earlier, but you are still ignoring it for some silly reason.Then, any photon that would move in the space which is full with hydrogen Atoms or penetrate into our atmosphere must cross near mass and therefore should be converted into a new pair of particle.
It does not need a BH.
It does not need a bubble chamber either, it can happen more or less anywhere if there is a high energy particle, and something with mass.
Those criteria were met in the early universe.
So pair production was possible shortly after the big bang.
However, that isn't the case.
So, the imagination of converting photon to new particle pair isn't working.
Let's go back to the Hydrogen chamber.
In this experimental our scientists shoot Atom into that chamber and clearly detect/observe the particle pair process.
However, your mission isn't to convert Atom energy into particle pair, but to convert photon energy into that pair.
So, what might be the outcome of shooting energetic photons beam into that hydrogen chamber?
If we would shoot trillions of photons would be get even one particle pair?
Don't you agree that the answer is clearly no?
If you still wish to hold your imagination of pair production from photon then please show the real observation for that.
Please remember, in the Hydrogen chamber we could really observe the pair particles due to the collision with Atom.
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?
I hope that by now you confirm that the activity in our Universe prove that photons do not contribute their energy to set the particle pair process even if there is a nearby mass.
Hence, you have to agree that as the whole BBT imagination is based on that imagination then by eliminating one imagination the other one should go directly to the garbage.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2021 08:45:20
You have decided to ignore all the valid data that I have offeredUnless your data includes gravitational lensing then it isn't valid.
In reality, gravity affects photons much the same as it affects you and me.
If we would shoot trillions of photons would be get even one particle pair?Wrong. The answer is clearly "yes".
Don't you agree that the answer is clearly no?
If you use hard gammas, then most of them would turn into pairs.
"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?
You cited it in the first place.
Then you complained when I used a quote from it because you had the bizarre idea that I was hiding where I got my quote.
And now I am quoting it again.
And I am pointing out that it says the exact opposite of what you say.
Why is that?
Why did you not understand it?
You should learn some science, shouldn't you?
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.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/02/2021 17:41:09
Unless your data includes gravitational lensing then it isn't valid.No
In reality, gravity affects photons much the same as it affects you and me.
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. "Yes I do.
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
Do you remember that page?
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 04:30:10You do not answer the question:
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.
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/02/2021 19:01:59
NoI said the nature of the effect was "much the same" rather than "exactly the same" ..
Gravity doesn't slow down the photon velocity as it might affect any other real mass.
So, your grumbling about that detail is pointless.
As I have already informed the gravitational lensing is actually a curvature in space time due to the ultra gravity force.And the path of a a satellite through space is also due to gravity curving space.
Even so, that curvature in space is the base for the curvature in the light/photon.
It is, in this regard, much the same as the way that a photon is affected.
So, your "proof" is meaningless.
And photons still have (relativistic) mass.
So they can still bring about pair production.
The important criterion is that they can carry momentum- and they do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon#Relativistic_energy_and_momentum
Well, first you have to prove that the pure BBT energy could set those gammas.No I do not.
Those gamma rays were part of an experiment you suggested using a bubble chamber.
You invented them.
However, the reason why there were gammas early in the universe is simple.
There was a lot of energy- what forms could it have taken?
You have to agree that there were no Dynamo or magnets at the early Universe.Nonsense.
Therefore, there is no EM. W
Elephants make sound.
There are no elephants in my room.
Therefore there is no sound in my room.
Dynamos make EM fields
There are no dynamos in the early universe
therefore there are no EM fields in the early universe.
Do you understand why your statement is stupid?
There can be other sources of EM fields.
I already pointed this out but, because you do not understand science, you did not realise what I had said.
Well, as I said. the science shows that it will, because the energy- whatever form it is initially present as- will be coupled into the photons produced spontaneously.
That's essentially where photons come from in "ordinary" transitions like light from a light bulb.
If you knew the science, you would be aware of that.
Do you understand what that means.
EM fields form spontaneously in the universe.
You do not need a dynamo.
why are you so sure that those photons are energetic?This law of physics, which you would be aware of if you knew some science.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equipartition_theorem
Why do you refuse to learn?
This is one more explanation why photons/gammas can't be created at the early Universe.No. It is one more reason why you should learn science. Then you would know that what you wrote is nonsense.
However, now I understand that this isn't realistic.Your view of what happens is unrealistic. This is because you do not know the science.
The space is full with mass and atoms.Space is more or less empty- hence the name "space",
So if that idea was correct, then any photon/gammas had to be converted to the particle pair.Not really.
You seem to be arguing against yourself.
You said that gammas could not form pairs because they need a nearby mass in order to balance the momentum changes.
But you say that in space where there is no mas, they should form pairs.
What is "unrealistic" here is your view that the photons should only do what you want them to do.
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?We can see pair production from gammas.
Someone got a Nobel prize for it.
"For photons with high photon energy (MeV scale and higher), pair production is the dominant mode of photon interaction with matter. These interactions were first observed in Patrick Blackett's counter-controlled cloud chamber, leading to the 1948 Nobel Prize in Physics.[3] If the photon is near an atomic nucleus, the energy of a photon can be converted into an electron–positron pair:"
You do not answer the question:You quoted my answer...
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/02/2021 06:34:28
Dynamos make EM fields
There are no dynamos in the early universe
therefore there are no EM fields in the early universe.
Thanks
So let's agree on something:
1. There was no magnet and no dynamo in the early Universe.
2. Therefore, there was no electricity and no EM in that early Universe.
Well, as I said. the science shows that it will, because the energy- whatever form it is initially present as- will be coupled into the photons produced spontaneously.Sorry, in order for energy to be coupled into the photons produced spontaneously, that energy must be Electricity.
That's essentially where photons come from in "ordinary" transitions like light from a light bulb.
Take out the electricity from the "light bulb" and you have no light and no "spontaneously" photons. .
If you have an idea how to get light at the "light bulb" without electricity, Dynamo or magnets then please share your great knowledge with us.
Are you sure that we can light the bulb by whatever energy form it is initially present as kinetic, potential or gravity?
EM fields form spontaneously in the universe.Would you kindly backup this great knowledge by any real article?
You do not need a dynamo.
As Electronic Engineer I would love to get more information about that idea.
Maybe we can be milliners with your great knowledge.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/02/2021 08:50:41
hanksNo; because you forgot the important bit.
So let's agree on something:
1. There was no magnet and no dynamo in the early Universe.
2. Therefore, there was no electricity and no EM in that early Universe.
There can be other sources of EM fields.
I already pointed this out but, because you do not understand science, you did not realise what I had said.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/02/2021 09:09:04
Well, as I said. the science shows that it will, because the energy- whatever form it is initially present as- will be coupled into the photons produced spontaneously.
That's essentially where photons come from in "ordinary" transitions like light from a light bulb.
If you knew the science, you would be aware of that.
Do you understand what that means.
EM fields form spontaneously in the universe.
You do not need a dynamo.
Sorry, in order for energy to be coupled into the photons produced spontaneously, that energy must be Electricity.No.
You made that false statement without evidence and I am dismissing it in the same way.
Take out the electricity from the "light bulb" and you have no light and no "spontaneously" photons. .Yes you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
That's what makes them spontaneous.
If you have an idea how to get light at the "light bulb" without electricity, Dynamo or magnets then please share your great knowledge with us.I don't need to share it with anyone but you.
The people who actually understand science already know it.
As Electronic Engineer I would love to get more information about that idea.No.
That's not true is it?
If you really wanted to know more you would have done what I have been asking you to do for ages, and you would have learned stuff.
You don't want to learn more.
You just want to stay ignorant and pretend that everybody else is wrong but you magically know how everything works.
It's not going to work, is it?
People like me will point out things like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
which shows that you do get fields produced from nothing.
Maybe we can be milliners with your great knowledge.I have no wish to start making hats.
But since you refuse to learn science perhaps you should start making hats rather than pretending that you are an "Electronic Engineer".
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/02/2021 17:32:59
Did you read that article?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:34:28.
Take out the electricity from the "light bulb" and you have no light and no "spontaneously" photons.
Yes you do.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
That's what makes them spontaneous.
It is stated:
"In quantum field theory, forces—such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges—can be thought of as due to the exchange of virtual photons between the charges. Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction."
So, the Virtual photons are the outcome of the electromagnetic repulsion.
Hence, in the early Universe, without EM there is no way to get those virtual photons and therefore there are no real photons.
If you still think differently - please offer better article to support your misunderstanding
It is true if you like it or not.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:34:28No.
As Electronic Engineer I would love to get more information about that idea.
That's not true is it?
People like me will point out things like thisIt's better for you learn some science and basic electronics before you try to highlight your misunderstanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
which shows that you do get fields produced from nothing.
You don't need to be electronic engineer or scientist in order to understand that without EM there are no photons.
So far you have failed to show how photons could be created without EM.
Hence, without EM the BBT is useless.
By the way, this is just the first step before getting to the Gammas...
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/02/2021 19:21:20
Did you read that article?Yes.
It is stated:
"In quantum field theory, forces—such as the electromagnetic repulsion or attraction between two charges—can be thought of as due to the exchange of virtual photons between the charges. Virtual photons are the exchange particle for the electromagnetic interaction."
I read it.
I also read the rest of it.
I guess you stopped when you saw that bit because you didn't dare read teh rest.
What it goes on to say is this
The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.
and
Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron).
And if you had really wanted to find out how it's possible to get virtual photons out of nowhere, you would have read about those phenomena.
And that's why I say that this
I would love to get more information about that idea.is a lie.
If you really wanted to get more information, you would have read about it.
It's better for you learn some science and basic electronics before you try to highlight your misunderstanding.I didn't misunderstand anything.
It's just that you didn't actually read the stuff which you say you are interested in, even though I pointed it out to you.
So far you have failed to show how photons could be created without EM.No.
I pointed you to the right effects but you didn't read them did you?
Did you read the articles cited in that wiki page?
If you were really interested in the idea that EM fields form spontaneously in the universe. But you didn't did you?
By the way, this is just the first step before getting to the Gammas...I'm glad to see that you now accept that the gammas are needed.
That rules out your idea of how the Universe behaves.
Post by: charles1948 on 05/02/2021 19:27:16
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/02/2021 19:31:13
Nobody wants to read anything that contradicts their viewsDave could avoid that discomfort by not posting antiscientific nonsense on a science page.
Post by: charles1948 on 05/02/2021 20:07:11
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/02/2021 20:27:22
Who decides what is "anti-scientific". You, or Dave?No, Those are silly options.
The evidence decides- as always.
So, for example, a picture of pair production shows that pair production happens- no matter how loudly Dave cries about it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/02/2021 20:37:57
The Casimir effect, where the ground state of the quantized electromagnetic field causes attraction between a pair of electrically neutral metal plates.Do you claim that in the early universe there were electrically neutral metal plates?
If there was no matter just after the bang, how that Casimir effect could work?
Vacuum polarization, which involves pair production or the decay of the vacuum, which is the spontaneous production of particle-antiparticle pairs (such as electron-positron).https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
"vacuum polarization describes a process in which a background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs that change the distribution of charges and currents that generated the original electromagnetic field. "
Hence, the background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs and not the other way.
Therefore, without EM there is no vacuum polarization.
Yes.Please read it again.
I read it.
I also read the rest of it.
You have a fatal misunderstanding.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/02/2021 20:44:58
Do you claim that in the early universe there were electrically neutral metal plates?No
I'm not an idiot.
But I am saying that, since the Casimir effect works in the lab today, you can use it as evidence for the spontaneous production of virtual particles which give rise to an electric field.
And that's what you asked me to show.
Therefore, you must have EM in order to get that vacuum polarization.You didn't understand it.
That background field is always there - it is an innate property of space.
Hence, the background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairsYes, it does.
And if you produce an positron and an electron then they have opposite charges and so there is an EM field between them.
The spontaneous generation of particles- as shown by the Casimir effect- must give rise to electric fields.
Please read it again.You keep saying that sort of thing at the bottom of posts where you made silly mistakes.
You have a fatal misunderstanding.
Why do you do that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/02/2021 21:06:36
But I am saying that, since the Casimir effect works in the lab today, you can use it as evidence for the spontaneous production of virtual particles which give rise to an electric field.No
And that's what you asked me to show.
I have asked how EM could be created while there is no any kind of matter after the bang.
You have totally failed to show that EM could be created at those conditions of the early Universe.
No, you didn't understand it.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 20:37:57You didn't understand it.
Therefore, you must have EM in order to get that vacuum polarization.
That background field is always there - it is an innate property of space.
You must have ORIGINAL EM to start the vacuum polarization process.
Without that original EM there is no vacuum polarization to start with.
And if you produce an positron and an electron then they have opposite charges and so there is an EM field between them.No
The produce of the positron and an electron effects the original EM.
This is very normal procedure as in any electrical equipment you consume current or energy for its operation.
Please read it again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
"vacuum polarization describes a process in which a background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs that change the distribution of charges and currents that generated the original electromagnetic field. "
So, the background electromagnetic field must be there in order to start the produces of virtual electron–positron pairs.
However, due to that produces of virtual electron–positron pairs it changes the distribution of charges and currents that generated the original electromagnetic field. Those changes effects the conditions of the Original EM.
So, for example, a picture of pair production shows that pair production happens- no matter how loudly Dave cries about it.The pair production happens ONLY by EM.
You had just offered the confirmation for that.
Hence, as there was no Magnets, electrically neutral metal plates or Dynamo at the early Universe - there was no EM.
Therefore, without EM there is no Photons or any pair process.
However
We all agree that the SMBH generates EM.
This EM sets the vacuum polarization which is the base for all the photons and pair process activity at the accretion disc.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that simple data?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/02/2021 21:19:10
You have totally failed to show that EM could be created at those conditions of the early Universe.You claim the early universe was a vacuum- with nothing in it.
The Casimir effect shows that a vacuum- with nothing in it - spontaneously produces particle pairs.
So, I have shown that pair production happens in what you say are the early conditions of the universe.
It's just that you won't listen.
No,No
You must have EM to start the vacuum polarization process.
Spontaneous pair production just happens.
You do not need a pre-existing EM field to produce it.
That's why it's called spontaneous.
(I think that's the third time I have explained that exact point to you- why don't you listen?)
Please read it again:No matter how many times I read it, you still will not understand it.
This is very normal procedure as in any electrical equipment you consume current or energy for its operation.And it is far from normal in the vacuum ; but it happens.
As I have pointed ot several times before, it's an aspect of quantum mechanics.
You can" borrow" small quantities of energy from the vacuum- as long as you pay them back within the time frame stipulated by the uncertainty principle. It's well documented science.
Did you know that?
The pair production happens ONLY by EM.No, it's spontaneous and your use of CAPITAL letters does not change that.
Hence, as there was no Magnets, electrically neutral metal plates or Dynamo at the early Universe - there was no EM.No.
Because there is another source of EM fields- the spontaneous production of particle / antiparticle pairs.
This EM sets the vacuum polarizationNo
We all agree that the SMBH generates EM.Wait a minute; an uncharged black hole can't produce an EM field any more than the vacuum can.
Now, I understand that a vacuum can do that . You say it can not.
So you are saying that an uncharged BH can not produce any EM field.
And, if that's the case then your whole idea falls down because there is no mechanism to produce any charges or EM fields.
A black hole also does not have metal plates or a dynamo.
You either have to accept that you are wrong about the fact that EM fields can exist spontaneously, or you have to accept that a BH can't make them either.
Which sort of wrong are you?
Who decides what is "anti-scientific". You, or Dave?Scientific ideas are not self-contradictory.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/02/2021 21:50:08
You claim the early universe was a vacuum- with nothing in it.No
The Casimir effect shows that a vacuum- with nothing in it - spontaneously produces particle pairs.
I didn't claim anything about the early Universe.
Our scientists claim that the early Universe was in the size of a proton after the Bang.
They also claim that there was no matter just pure energy.
So, please show us how under those conditions, the EM could be created in order to set the pair process in less than 10^-38 of a sec after the bang.
The Casimir effect shows that a vacuum- with nothing in it - spontaneously produces particle pairs.This is incorrect.
You need electrically neutral metal plates for this process.
Without it spontaneously produces particle pairs won't work.
You do not need a pre-existing EM field to produce it.Yes you do.
Spontaneous pair production just happens.That is correct
So, the creation of the pair production is Spontaneous.
However, the EM must be there constantly.
Without it there is no pair production.
You can" borrow" small quantities of energy from the vacuum- as long as you pay them back within the time frame stipulated by the uncertainty principle. It's well documented science.That explanation reminds me the Hawking radiation idea.
Sorry, there is no way to borrow energy (or negative energy/mass) in order to pay later on.
In our real universe if you have no money you have no food.
So, the Universe won't let you to borrow energy if there was no energy over there.
Hence, the EM energy Must be there before any sort of pair production activity.
NoQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 21:06:36No, it's spontaneous and your use of CAPITAL letters does not change that.
The pair production happens ONLY by EM.
The "spontaneous" related to the pair production process - not to the EM. (as I have explained)
No.NO, NO, NO!
Because there is another source of EM fields- the spontaneous production of particle / antiparticle pairs.
If you didn't understand it so far I really can't help you any more.
So you are saying that an uncharged BH can not produce any EM field.No
Only rotatable BH/SMBH can produce EM.
A black hole also does not have metal plates or a dynamo.Rotatable BH has dynamo and it generates EM.
Magnetar and Pulsar are perfect examples for objects that can generate EM.
We also know that our rotatable SMBH generates EM.
Post by: charles1948 on 05/02/2021 22:28:23
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/02/2021 23:32:55
I didn't claim anything about the early Universe.You claimed that it had no particles or photons in it.
in less than 10^-38 of a sec after the bang.Why have you made up that number?
Wouldn't the first 10^-18 seconds still be considered as "early"?
Has anyone ever complained at you for being a billionth of a billionth of a second late?
This is incorrect.Again, you are saying that you need a microscope for bacteria to exist.
You need electrically neutral metal plates for this process.
Without it spontaneously produces particle pairs won't work.
The Casimir effect is just a way to observe the particles.
They are produced anyway (otherwise you need to explain how the vacuum "knows" that it is between two plates in order to "switch on" the particle production.
Sorry, there is no way to borrow energy (or negative energy/mass) in order to pay later on.Just plain wrong.##
In our real universe if you have no money you have no food.
It follows from the uncertainty principle.
If it takes a finite amount of time to measure how much energy you have then, for a shorter time, there is no way to say whether you have that much energy or not.
You might not like it, but that's the real universe.
It is, for example the explanation of the widths of spectral lines 9and a whole lot of other stuff too).
As I said.
It's well documented science.
Did you know that?
NO, NO, NO!Yes.
The field is there.
Rotatable BH has dynamo and it generates EM.Only if it has charge.
And unless you already had an EM field, you couldn't get a charge.
So your BH would be uncharged and, even if it rotated, it would not produce a magnetic field and, as I said
You either have to accept that you are wrong about the fact that EM fields can exist spontaneously, or you have to accept that a BH can't make them either.
Which sort of wrong are you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/02/2021 23:35:43
Who decides what is "anti-scientific". You, or Dave?Science learns from mistakes and is - in principle- self correcting even if one member of teh scientific community is nuts.
Post by: charles1948 on 05/02/2021 23:40:28
Post by: Kryptid on 06/02/2021 06:42:13
Please stop it. You are wasting space on the Internet.
I agree, but apparently it can't be helped as far as the site rules go.
Doesn't "peer-reviewing" mean that a scientist with a new idea, gets stopped from publishing.
No.
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/02/2021 06:47:12
1. Do you confirm that Photon is all about EM and without EM there are no photons (assuming that there are no other matter)?
Yes or No?
2. Do you confirm that based on the BBT theory there was no matter after the bang, only pure energy while the size/space of the Universe was at the proton size?
Yes or no?
3. Do you confirm that at that moment in the early universe stage, there were no EM and no matter at all?
Yes or no?
4. You claim that:
The Casimir effect is just a way to observe the particles.No
They are produced anyway (otherwise you need to explain how the vacuum "knows" that it is between two plates in order to "switch on" the particle production.
You miss the whole point of the
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
"In quantum field theory, the Casimir effect is a physical force acting on the macroscopic boundaries of a confined space which arises from the quantum fluctuations of the field. It is named after the Dutch physicist Hendrik Casimir, who predicted the effect for electromagnetic systems in 1948."
So, it is all about quantum fluctuations:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
In quantum physics, a quantum fluctuation (or 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 tiny random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons.
Hence, that quantum fluctuations are tiny random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fields which represent the electromagnetic force carried by photons.
So, it is all about the energy that is locked in elementary particles as a photon
Therefore, we do not observe any pair particle creation in the open vacuum space as there is no EM over there.
The only location for pair production in our universe is around an object that generates EM as SMBH.
So, photon is all about EM. There is no way for the photon to be created in a vacuum without EM.
Therefore, all the photons that we see in the Universe come from galaxies that generates those photons by using their EM field.
There is no way to get photons from just empty space.
You need an object to generate the photons.
Therefore, empty vacuum space has no EM and it would never ever generate any photon.
5. In order to support your nonsense you had offered the idea of Vacuum_polarization
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_polarization
"vacuum polarization describes a process in which a background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs that change the distribution of charges and currents that generated the original electromagnetic field. "
So, the background electromagnetic field must be there in order to start the producers of virtual electron–positron pairs.
Please read this explanation carefully.
Do you understand English?
It is clearly stated:
"vacuum polarization describes a process in which a background electromagnetic field produces virtual electron–positron pairs"
Therefore, without the background electromagnetic field there is no vacuum polarization.
Is it clear to you.
Then it continues with:
"virtual electron–positron pairs that change the distribution of charges and currents that generated the original electromagnetic field"
Hence, the creation of the virtual electron–positron pairs changes the currents that generated the original electromagnetic field.
Therefore, without the background electromagnetic field there is no original electromagnetic field and no particle pair creation.
Conclusion:
As the BBT dosen't claim for magnets or EM due to the Bang, there is no way for it to have the requested EM to generate any photon or particle pair.
We clearly know that our SMBH has ultra high EM.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:50:08Only if it has charge.
Rotatable BH has dynamo and it generates EM.
And unless you already had an EM field, you couldn't get a charge.
So your BH would be uncharged and, even if it rotated, it would not produce a magnetic field and, as I said
We observe that EM power by the molecular jet stream that is boosted at 0/8c from its magnetic poles.
Without EM there is no way to get that molecular jet stream that moves in the opposite direction with regards to the SMBH mighty gravity force - up to 27,000 LY.
Why our scientists don't even try to calculate what kind of EM is needed for this activity.
So, you can play with your imagination about EM and charge as much as you wish
However, our SMBH tells us that it is has ultra EM field (even if you don't like it)
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/02/2021 11:29:08
. Do you confirm that Photon is all about EM and without EM there are no photons (assuming that there are no other matter)?Photons are spontaneously produced by the vacuum.
Yes or No?
This is shown to be true by things like the Casimir effect.
2. Do you confirm that based on the BBT theory there was no matter after the bang, only pure energy while the size/space of the Universe was at the proton size?Yes
Yes or no?
3. Do you confirm that at that moment in the early universe stage, there were no EM and no matter at all?No.
Yes or no?
Because the universe spontaneously generates photons and particle pairs which give rise to EM fields.
This has been proven to be true by actual experiments .
It is still true, even if you say that it isn't AND USE CAPITAL LETTERS.
They are tiny random fluctuations in the values of the fields which represent elementary particles, such as electric and magnetic fieldsThat's correct.
If you start with a field that is zero- which is what you claim for the very early universe and then you introduce a fluctuation in that field it musty stop being zero.
And if the field stops being zero then you have an EM field.
As I said.
This isn't new- it is just that you do not understand it.
So, the rest of your post is based on a mistake and there's no point in my commenting on it.
.
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/02/2021 12:02:30
Photons are spontaneously produced by the vacuum.Let's assume that this idea is correct.
This is shown to be true by things like the Casimir effect.
Let's assume that photons are spontaneously produced by the vacuum.
So, why we don't see all of those new photons that are spontaneously produced by the vacuum?
If that is correct, then why our Universe is so dark while you and our BBT scientists are so sure that photons are spontaneously produced by the vacuum at any location in the Universe- with or without EM?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/02/2021 12:34:49
Let's assume that this idea is correct.OK
Everything that BC says is correct.
So, why we don't see all of those new photons that are spontaneously produced by the vacuum?Well, for a start, nobody ever said that there were any of them.
Also because they are virtual photons.
They don't last very long.
The chance of one reaching your eye before it annihilates itself is very small.
That's why it takes quite delicate work like the Casimir effect experiment to show that they exist.
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/02/2021 14:21:06
OkQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:02:30Well, for a start, nobody ever said that there were any of them.
So, why we don't see all of those new photons that are spontaneously produced by the vacuum?
Also because they are virtual photons.
They don't last very long.
The chance of one reaching your eye before it annihilates itself is very small.
Let's assume agin that this idea is correct.
However, I hope that you agree that the limitations of annihilations and virtual particles was valid in the early universe as it is valid today and the the idea of those new photons that are spontaneously produced by the vacuum is also valid today as it was valid in the early Universe.
Never the less, somehow in the early universe trillions over trillions of virtual Photons had converted to real photons while the universe space was very compact.
Today our universe is much bigger than that early universe. It might be bigger by trillions over trillions times.
So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe trillions over trillions of real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/02/2021 15:58:33
OkIt is not an assumption.
Let's assume agin that this idea is correct.
It has been tested.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/02/2021 16:00:44
However, I hope that you agree that the limitations of annihilations and virtual particles was valid in the early universe as it is valid today and the the idea of those new photons that are spontaneously produced by the vacuum is also valid today as it was valid in the early Universe.It isn't me who needs to "agree" that.
I already said it.
We were waiting for you to catch up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/02/2021 16:07:36
So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe trillions over trillions of real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?Do you remember when you were banging on about mass?
How you went on and on about the fact that you need mass to get pair production?
And eventually you came too understand that the energy in the universe has mass and so itcould balance the momentum conservation?
Do you remember that?
OK, now do you think that, in the vacuum of space, there is much mass?
Presumably you now see that in almost all the universe there simply isn't enough mass for the process to happen often enough for us to see it.
Now the interesting thing here is that I didn't tell you anything new when I said that you need mass and most of space is empty.
You already knew that you need mass for pair production, and you know that space hasn't got much mass in it.
So why didn't you work our the answer for yourself?
Is it because you really don't understand the science?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/02/2021 19:07:54
So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe trillions over trillions of real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?Do you remember when you were banging on about mass?
How you went on and on about the fact that you need mass to get pair production?
And eventually you came too understand that the energy in the universe has mass and so itcould balance the momentum conservation?
Do you remember that?
OK, now do you think that, in the vacuum of space, there is much mass?
Presumably you now see that in almost all the universe there simply isn't enough mass for the process to happen often enough for us to see it.
Now the interesting thing here is that I didn't tell you anything new when I said that you need mass and most of space is empty.
You already knew that you need mass for pair production, and you know that space hasn't got much mass in it.
So why didn't you work our the answer for yourself?
Is it because you really don't understand the science?
This answer shows that you don't have a clue what should be the answer to my question.
You clearly don't know why in the compact space of the early universe trillions over trillions of real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe and therefore, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum.
You also have stated:
People like me will point out things like thisBut again, you don't know why that idea of Virtual_particle could only work for the BBT.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle
which shows that you do get fields produced from nothing.
So, you keep protecting the BBT while you know that you don't know why all your ideas could only work for the BBT
Sorry, you don't represent real science.
You only protect unrealistic and irrelevant theory.
Why is it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2021 19:42:09
This answer shows that you don't have a clue what should be the answer to my question.OK what you said was full of meaningless padding.
.
Never the less, somehow in the early universe trillions over trillions of virtual Photons had converted to real photons while the universe space was very compact.Now, let's look at what you said.
Today our universe is much bigger than that early universe. It might be bigger by trillions over trillions times.
So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe trillions over trillions of real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is bigger by trillions over trillions than the early universe, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?
Well, you kept using the phrase " trillions over trillions" as if it meant something important.
Obviously a trillion over a trillion is 1.
But you seem to think that it means a large number.
I suggest you learn maths but...
so, let's take that error out.
"Never the less, somehow in the early universe many virtual Photons had converted to real photons while the universe space was very compact.
Today our universe is much bigger than that early universe. It might be a lot bigger .
So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe many real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is much bigger than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is much bigger than the early universe, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?"
And then we can look at this phrase.
"Today our universe is much bigger than that early universe. It might be a lot bigger ."
Well, that's silly. Everyone knows that it is a lot bigger.
So we might as well drop that bit too.
And then we can look at this
"Never the less, somehow in the early universe many virtual Photons had converted to real photons while the universe space was very compact."
Well, for a start nevertheless is one word and it has a meaning which doesn't apply here. So we can drop it. And the "somehow" is redundant too.
So, when ewe take out the trash, your question seems to be
"In the early universe many virtual Photons had converted to real photons while the universe space was very compact.
So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe many real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is much bigger than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is much bigger, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?"
Have I understood it correctly?
Because, if I have the answer is simple.
This bit is wrong.
" therefore, the chance to get new real photons is much bigger,"
Because the likelihood of a photon pair being created is dependent on the presence of a nearby mass to carry the momentum.
And
in almost all the universe there simply isn't enough mass for the process to happen often enough for us to see it.
So, you see, I did answer your question.
Or, at least I think I did but it's hard to tell because you buried the question in a whole lot of nonsense about trillions divided by trillions and such.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/02/2021 19:45:33
So, you keep protecting the BBT while you know that you don't know why all your ideas could only work for the BBTalso does not make sense.
I missed the big bang by about 14 billion years; I was born too late.
So if I see evidence of, for example, pair production or virtual photons then they must also apply to the universe today.
And I have seen evidence of those things.
So I see that they work in the universe today.
So it is clearly untrue that these "ideas could only work for the BBT".
They still happen today.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/02/2021 13:09:03
You only protect unrealistic and irrelevant theory.Everything I have presented is mainstream science, backed by evidence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/02/2021 05:16:56
So, how could it be that in the compact space of the early universe many real photons had been created, while today when the size of the Universe is much bigger than the early universe and therefore, the chance to get new real photons is much bigger, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?"Ok
Have I understood it correctly?
Once you understand the question, let's move to your reply:
Let's focus on each one and verify if it can work:
1. The mass in our current Universe
in almost all the universe there simply isn't enough mass for the process to happen often enough for us to see it.Our current Universe is full with mass. Even if you ignore all the stars and galaxies, it is still full with ISM:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_medium
"In astronomy, the interstellar medium (ISM) is the matter and radiation that exists in the space between the star systems in a galaxy. This matter includes gas in ionic, atomic, and molecular form, as well as dust and cosmic rays. It fills interstellar space and blends smoothly into the surrounding intergalactic space. The energy that occupies the same volume, in the form of electromagnetic radiation, is the interstellar radiation field."
"In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 106 molecules per cm3 (1 million molecules per cm3). In hot, diffuse regions of the ISM, matter is primarily ionized, and the density may be as low as 10−4 ions per cm3."
So, how can you claim that there is not enough real mass in our current Universe?
2. Nearby mass for the pair photon production process:
Because the likelihood of a photon pair being created is dependent on the presence of a nearby mass to carry the momentum.Based on the BBT, there was no mass before the bang. Our scientists also do not claim for real mass immediately after the bang. Therefore, even if the pure energy of the Big Bang represents/sets infinite virtual photon pairs, how could those virtual photons converted to real photons while there is no real nearby mass to start with.
I would like to remind you that based on the BBT the first Hydrogen nucleus had been created 380 MY after the bang.
However, in order to start the pair production, you must have at least nearby nucleus:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
Pair production often refers specifically to a photon creating an electron–positron pair near a nucleus"
So, it is not just about a nearby mass as a quark or some other photon. You need real nucleus.
As there were clearly no real nucleus after the bang while our current Universe is full with nucleus then Would you kindly try to improve your answer for the following question:
How could it be that in the compact space of the early universe many real photons had been created when there was not even one nucleus at that time, while today when the size of the Universe is much bigger than the early universe and it is full with ISM & nucleus, we actually don't get/see even one real photon due to that same activity of spontaneously produced of photons by the vacuum?"
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/02/2021 08:55:44
Our current Universe is full with mass.No, it is not.
If it was, it would be solid (actually, it would collapse, but that's hardly the point.
"In cool, dense regions of the ISM, matter is primarily in molecular form, and reaches number densities of 10^6 molecules per cm3 (1 million molecules per cm3).OK, let's look at what that means,
Most of the matter in the universe is hydrogen.
A hydrogen atom has a volume of about 6E-31 metres cubed
And you say that space contains about 1 million molecules per cm3. (Which is wrong, because most of the particles are atoms, rather than molecules, but never mind)
1 million per cm ^3 means a million million per metre cubed.
With a total volume of 10^-19 m^3
So in a cubic metre of space there is about 0.0000000000000000006 cubic metres of stuff and the other 99.99999999999999994% is empty space.
Do you see that sticking to your antiscientific ideas means that you have to say that a thing is full when you know it is 99.99999999999999994% empty?
How stupid do you think that makes you look?
So, how can you claim that there is not enough real mass in our current Universe?I claim it because, as a moment's thought would have told you, it is true.
However, in order to start the pair production, you must have at least nearby nucleus:That still isn't true.
The fact that the guy who wrote the wiki page didn't consider the fact that, in the primordial universe, you didn't need (or have) nuclei is beside the point.
I already explained this to you. It would be better if you paid attention.
You need to have something that lets you comply with the conservation of momentum, but that can be a photon.
Since the universe was hot, there were lots of photons. In particular there were lots of photons with very high energies.
Since then the universe has cooled, so there are fewer of those.
That's another part of the reason why photon pair production is now rarely observed.
You need real nucleus.No, you just don't.
If you disagree; prove it.
It's not enough to say "Wiki says" when Wiki isn't discussing the early universe.
How could it be that in the compact space of the early universe many real photons had been created when there was not even one nucleus at that time, while today when the size of the Universe is much biggerBecause you don't understand science, you seem to think that making it bigger makes it easier to make particles.
That's completely the wrong way round.
Because it is bigger, it is cooler.
And so there are fewer very high energy photons.
So they can't be converted to real particles, also they are, on average, much further away from any mass.
So you keep saying "but the universe is bigger , so there should be more..."
But in fact, precisely because the universe is bigger, there should be fewer.
Why don't you go and learn the science?
Post by: Elizabeth Bruning on 09/02/2021 09:58:48
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/02/2021 10:56:25
I studied literatureIt's a pity the OP didn't do the same as the spammer.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/02/2021 14:28:35
Is it real?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:16:56That still isn't true.
However, in order to start the pair production, you must have at least nearby nucleus:
The fact that the guy who wrote the wiki page didn't consider the fact that, in the primordial universe, you didn't need (or have) nuclei is beside the point.
I already explained this to you. It would be better if you paid attention.
You need to have something that lets you comply with the conservation of momentum, but that can be a photon.
Since the universe was hot, there were lots of photons. In particular there were lots of photons with very high energies.
Since then the universe has cooled, so there are fewer of those.
That's another part of the reason why photon pair production is now rarely observed.
How can you call a scientist at Wiki as "guy who wrote the wiki"?
We discuss on the pair production process.
What's wrong with the following article?
However, in order to start the pair production, you must have at least nearby nucleus:As you don't agree with the idea of a "near a nucleus", it is your obligation to offer other article that could support this understanding.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
Pair production often refers specifically to a photon creating an electron–positron pair near a nucleus"
So, it is not just about a nearby mass as a quark or some other photon. You need real nucleus.
Do you mean that the "nearby nucleus" is only needed for today while it wasn't needed for the early Universe?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:16:56No, you just don't.
You need real nucleus.
If you disagree; prove it.
It's not enough to say "Wiki says" when Wiki isn't discussing the early universe.
However, pair particle production is a well known process. It should work exactly the same in any phase of the Universe age including the early Universe.
How can we bypass that process for the early universe?
If you wish to present real science, you have to use real science knowledge about that pair creation.
So far you have totally failed to backup your understanding about the pair creation process at the early Universe by real science.
You claim that in the early universe in order to convert the virtual photons into real photons a nearby mass is needed.
Based on wiki, that mass must be nucleus.
However, before the bang there was no mass at all.
So would you kindly offer an article for pair creation that could backup your understanding for converting virtual photons pair to real photons without any nearby nucleus or mass to start with.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2021 15:57:11
Do you mean that the "nearby nucleus" is only needed for today while it wasn't needed for the early Universe?No
I keep explaining this. please pay attention.
You do not need a nucleus.
You need something with mass.
How can you call a scientist at Wiki as "guy who wrote the wiki"?There is no "scientist at Wiki"
Because "wiki" isn't a place or an organisation which writes stuff. Wiki just provides a place for people to write things. That's the really amazing thing about it.
On the other hand, I am a guy who occasionally writes stuff for wiki.
As you don't agree with the idea of a "near a nucleus", it is your obligation to offer other article that could support this understanding.No, it is not.
Because the wiki page says WHY they usually need a nucleus there.
It is to fulfil a specific purpose- you need something with mass so that it can ensure that the conservation of momentum is maintained during the process.
So, while the usual "thing" with mass is the nucleus of an atom, it can actually be anything with mass.
If you understood basic science, you would understand that.
Simple question for you:
Why do you need a nucleus?
(And the answer is not "because Wiki says so".)
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2021 15:59:33
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/02/2021 17:41:45
You do not need a nucleus.Please prove it.
You need something with mass.
Show us the article that can prove your understanding for the pair creation by "something with mass".
If you know science as you claim, you should backup your understanding by real observation & article.
If you can't do it, then we all should agree that this is unproved imagination.
So, while the usual "thing" with mass is the nucleus of an atom, it can actually be anything with mass.Well, I'm quite sure that the pair production won't work with any sort of nearby mass particle as quark, other photon or even nucleus.
If you understood basic science, you would understand that.
Simple question for you:
Why do you need a nucleus?
(And the answer is not "because Wiki says so".)
There is ONLY one possibility to get the pair production process from "Pure energy"
That process takes place around the event horizon of a BH/SMBH with pure EM capability & high gravity force.
The Pure Electromagnetic energy transforms the virtual pair into real new particle pair near the event horizon of that BH/SMBH.
Due to the impact of the Lorenz force one charged particle is directed inwards while the other opposite charged is ejected into the accretion disc.
We clearly see all the ejected new particles/photons at the accretion disc of the SMBH.
So, it is not imagination.
It is real - we clearly see it.
Unfortunately our scientists don't wish to accept the clear observation that they see.
They observe/trace the accretion discs of many nearby SMBH.
In all of them they have found that the matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
In some of them they have also found the ejected ultra molecular jet stream.
They have never observed any falling star of gas into the accretion disc in any of those nearby SMBH.
However, they still hold their theory that the accretion disc is there due to falling stars
So, they want to force the Universe to work according to their theory.
Therefore, they insist that what they see in the accretion disc is due to falling stars/gas, while they have NEVER observed any falling star into the accretion disc (and they will never ever see any falling star).
In any case, our scientists didn't see any sort of pair creation from pure energy.
They even didn't see any sort of pair creation from a photon or gammas.
Please be aware that in the example which you had offered about the Hydrogen chamber, our scientists have used an Atom to collide with that chamber.
So please - when you raise the flag of science, you need to backup your understanding on real verification/observation.
Our scientists didn't observe any sort of pair production by pure energy.
So, why do you keep on with the imagination that:
You do not need a nucleus.Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more.
You need something with mass.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2021 19:38:06
Show us the article that can prove your understanding for the pair creation by "something with mass".I thought I had but, it's easier to repeat myself than to check.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Symmetry_and_conservation
It is real - we clearly see it.We have never seen it.
We have never seen anything happen that close to a black hole.
Now, stop posting tosh, and answer the question.
Why do you need a nucleus?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/02/2021 19:43:02
Our scientists didn't observe any sort of pair production by pure energy.Why do you tell that lie?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/02/2021 03:52:02
WowQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:41:45I thought I had but, it's easier to repeat myself than to check.
Show us the article that can prove your understanding for the pair creation by "something with mass".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Symmetry_and_conservation
Suddenly, Wiki is ok for you.
How could it be that Wiki is perfectly OK for you to justify your message, while it is forbidden for me to use them when it comes to justify my message?
That shows that you don't care about real science.
You only care about the BBT.
In any case, this article is all about momentum.
It doesn't give any support to your message/imagination that new particle pair process works by setting nearby mass - any mass.
Actually you have directed me to the electromagnetic section in that article:
"Electromagnetic
Particle in a field
In Maxwell's equations, the forces between particles are mediated by electric and magnetic fields. The electromagnetic force (Lorentz force) on a particle with charge q due to a combination of electric field E and magnetic field B is"
It is also stated:
"The quantity {\displaystyle V=q\mathbf {A} }{\displaystyle V=q\mathbf {A} } is sometimes called the potential momentum.[38][39][40] It is the momentum due to the interaction of the particle with the electromagnetic fields.]"
So, that by itself shows how important is the electromagnetic for the activity of the particle.
Therefore, it gives higher confidence to my explanation that EM is vital for the creation of a particle pair.
Conclusion:
1. It is pity that in one hand you are using wiki to qualify your message while on the other hand you disqualify wiki just because it contradicts your imagination.
2. We actually focus on the pair production process. So, you reject the real article about that process while you offer an article about a momentum that isn't directly connected to this discussion
3. In any case, this momentum article doesn't support your imagination of creating new particle pair due to nearby mass - any mass.
pair prodn2 .JPG (27.36 kB, 358x467 - viewed 1 times.)This image is irrelevant without the whole article
If you wish to get my respond please offer the whole article.
However, why do you hide the source of that image?
That is one more example that you don't care about real science.
Why do you tell that lie?Who really tells lie?
You wish to justify the BBT. Therefore you are using those tactics as hiding data, twisting information, reject wiki when it contradicts your imagination, position yourself above the science while you clearly contradict real science and disqualify the other person knowledge without any support.
Shame on you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/02/2021 08:45:38
Suddenly, Wiki is ok for you.It always was.
How could it be that Wiki is perfectly OK for you to justify your message, while it is forbidden for me to use them when it comes to justify my message?It's not forbidden. That is just more nonsense which you made up.
The problem is not that you quoted wiki. The problem is that you don't understand what they said.
In any case, this article is all about momentum.That is correct.
Who really tells lie?You said
Our scientists didn't observe any sort of pair production by pure energy.and
Prove it by real observationSo I posted an annotated image of it.
However, why do you hide the source of that image?Because it doesn't matter where it is from.
It's a picture of a high energy gamma ray undergoing pair formation.
That's what you asked for.
You keep saying that you need a nucleus to get pair production.
But you are wrong. You do not understand the process.
If you did, you could explain why...
And you keep failing to answer this
Now, stop posting tosh, and answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:57:11
Why do you need a nucleus?
So, each time you fail to answer it, you announce to the world that you do not know what you are talking about.
Why do you do that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/02/2021 15:07:27
Well, do you understand the meaning of that image?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 10/02/2021 17:41:45So I posted an annotated image of it.
Prove it by real observation
Let's look again
At the left side we see the while line of a scattered atomic electron.
Do you have and idea what is the meaning of scattered atomic electron?
Don't you agree that it is all about Electron scattering from atom?
As an example:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3700/8/10/016
Electron scattering from atomic hydrogen.
Therefore, if a scattered atomic electron is needed for converting the invisible gamma ray photons into the pair particles, then a nearby Aton or Nucleus is needed.
No, you hide that information because you know that a request for a nearby Atom or Nucleus would knock down your imagination for the pair process after the Big Bang.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:52:02Because it doesn't matter where it is from.
However, why do you hide the source of that image?
It's a picture of a high energy gamma ray undergoing pair formation.
That's what you asked for.
You keep saying that you need a nucleus to get pair production.It is not my request for a nearby nucleus to get pair production.
But you are wrong. You do not understand the process.
If you did, you could explain why...
It was clearly stated at the wiki article about the pair process which you have rejected.
This image proves that the "Guy from wiki" was fully correct.
In any case, I'm quite sure that you know that a nearby Atom or nucleus is needed for that pair process.
Therefore, as you know that there was no Atom or nucleus after the Big Bang, it was very clear to you that the pair process can't work at the early Universe.
Hence, you hide the source of that image in order to confuse me with your lies.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/02/2021 21:08:45
Quote from: Bored chemist on 10/02/2021 19:38:06
Now, stop posting tosh, and answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:57:11
Why do you need a nucleus?
Hence, you hide the source of that image in order to confuse me with your lies.If pictures confuse you then you should give up pretending to be clever enough to understand science.
Also, I didn't lie.
What did I say that was not true?
This image proves that the "Guy from wiki" was fully correct.No. it doesn't.
Well, do you understand the meaning of that image?OK, let's look at it.
Let's look again
At the left side we see the while line of a scattered atomic electron.
Do you have and idea what is the meaning of scattered atomic electron?
Don't you agree that it is all about Electron scattering from atom?
As an example:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3700/8/10/016
Electron scattering from atomic hydrogen.
Therefore, if a scattered atomic electron is needed for converting the invisible gamma ray photons into the pair particles, then a nearby Aton or Nucleus is needed.
Then we will see that there's a second pair production event from a different gamma.
In that case there is no scattered electron and the energy that went into the electron in the first case is carried by the produced pair in the second case.
That's why the tracks are less curved.
Now the point you were trying to make was that the scattered electron mean that you were right*.
Well, in the second case there is no scattered electron- which ... does not show that you were right.
And, as usual, if you understood the physics you wouldn't have made the stupid comment.
Why do you do it?
* this was wrong anyway but...
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/02/2021 04:58:20
Then we will see that there's a second pair production event from a different gamma.The second pair is a direct outcome from the first pair.
In that case there is no scattered electron and the energy that went into the electron in the first case is carried by the produced pair in the second case.
That's why the tracks are less curved.
Now the point you were trying to make was that the scattered electron mean that you were right*.
Well, in the second case there is no scattered electron- which ... does not show that you were right.
Therefore, without the scattered atomic electron we won't get the first pair or the second pair.
Hence, all of this activity of the pairs process is based on that scattered atomic electron.
You didn't reject the following explanation about the scattered atomic electron:
Don't you agree that it is all about Electron scattering from atom?
As an example:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0022-3700/8/10/016
Electron scattering from atomic hydrogen.
Therefore, if a scattered atomic electron is needed for converting the invisible gamma ray photons into the pair particles, then a nearby Aton or Nucleus is needed.
Hence, as a scattered atomic electron is needed for converting the invisible gamma ray photons into two pairs particles (or more pairs), then a nearby Aton or Nucleus is needed.
Therefore, your following message was completely incorrect:
No,QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 10/02/2021 14:28:35No
Do you mean that the "nearby nucleus" is only needed for today while it wasn't needed for the early Universe?
I keep explaining this. please pay attention.
You do not need a nucleus.
You need something with mass.
You must have nucleus or Atom in order to get that scattered atomic electron for starting the pairs process.
If you wish to continue the discussion about your misunderstanding/twisted information, I demand to see the source for that image
A question for the Moderator/Manager of this forum:
Is it allowed in this site to hide the source of the data?
If not, would you kindly ask/force BC to discover the source for that image?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 12:42:10
The second pair is a direct outcome from the first pair.That is impossible.
There is no track from one to the other.
If any particle which left the first interaction went on to cause the second, there would be a track.
Also the particles produced in the second interaction are moving faster than those from the first.
So, unless you can magically explain why they speed up, you are (once again) trying to break the law of conservation of energy.
Pleas do not post nonsense like that again.
Hence, as a scattered atomic electron is needed for converting the invisible gamma ray photons into two pairs particles (or more pairs), then a nearby Aton or Nucleus is needed.There are two events. In each case a single gamma is converted into a positron/ electron pair.
In one case (it is impossible to know which one happened first) an electron is scattered. In the second case no electron is scattered. This is why the pair come out with higher energy (as shown by the lower curvature). None is lost to an electron.
If not, would you kindly ask/force BC to discover the source for that image?What difference will it make?
You must have nucleus or Atom in order to get that scattered atomic electron for starting the pairs process.It is clear from the two events depicted that you do not always get a scattered electron.
So, once again.
Why do you think there needs to be a nearby nucleus?
I demand to see the source for that imageYou are not in a position to make demands of me.
You are in a position to make demands of Google's image search function, but it seems you are not clever enough to do so.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/02/2021 16:29:41
Without the first pair, the second one won't move faster.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:58:20That is impossible.
The second pair is a direct outcome from the first pair.
There is no track from one to the other.
If any particle which left the first interaction went on to cause the second, there would be a track.
Also the particles produced in the second interaction are moving faster than those from the first.
So, unless you can magically explain why they speed up, you are (once again) trying to break the law of conservation of energy.
Therefore, as the second one is moving faster, it shows that it is fully connected to the first pair process.
If you still think that the second one isn't connected to the first one, then you have to prove that a pair process could work without that scattered atomic electron.
So it is your obligation to offer an image of the pair process without the scattered atomic electron.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:58:20You are not in a position to make demands of me.
I demand to see the source for that image
You are in a position to make demands of Google's image search function, but it seems you are not clever enough to do so.
Why are you so afraid to discover the source of the image that you have offered?
As you estimate that this image supports your imagination, why do you keep hiding its source?
What do you have to hide?
Could it be that you hide the source as you know that it contradicts your imagination while it fully supports Wiki message about the pair process?
I have no intention to look for that image at Google, while you clearly have its source.
Your personality is more important than your knowledge in science.
As long as you keep hiding the source of that image, you position yourself as unreliable person that is twisting the data
Why do you think there needs to be a nearby nucleus?That was the clear explanation from wiki with regards to the pair process request.
You image is useless without its source and therefore you have failed to contradicts that explanation.
Hence, we all have to agree that a Nucleus or Atom is needed nearby for the pair process.
That by itself knocks out the BBT for good.
If you disagree with that, please discover the source for the image or stay away from my tread.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/02/2021 17:07:18
Why are you so afraid to discover the source of the image that you have offered?If I was afraid, I'd not have told you how to find it.
But I did.
You are in a position to make demands of Google's image search function, but it seems you are not clever enough to do so.So it's clear that I'm not afraid of you finding out.
So why did you say I was?
Without the first pair, the second one won't move faster.Why?
Therefore, as the second one is moving faster, it shows that it is fully connected to the first pair process.OK, what you are saying is that if I kick a ball and it moves at 10 m/s then if I kick a ball and it hits another ball, both balls will move at more than 10 m/s
And that's nonsense.
You also failed to account for the lack of a trail from one event to the other.
So you are still very wrong.
while you clearly have its source.Actually, I don't. I just googled the thing I was looking for and copied the image. I didn't pay much attention to the source.
Please stop saying things that are not true.
If you still think that the second one isn't connected to the first one, then you have to prove that a pair process could work without that scattered atomic electron.You have that the wrong way round.
Because the two events are independent and one of them does not have a scattered electron, I have shown that the scattered electron doesn't always happen.
If you want to say that the two events are related, you need to prove it. The evidence says they are not related.
Your personality is more important than your knowledge in science.That's about as wrong as it is possible to get.
You image is useless without its sourceI asked this before , and you failed to answer because you know that the answer makes you look foolish. So I'm asking again.
What difference will it make?
If you really thought that the source would make any difference, you would have tried to find it.
Why haven't you?
Are you not clever enough?
Hence, we all have to agree that a Nucleus or Atom is needed nearby for the pair process.No.
We don't agree that.
And so I would like you to tell me why a nucleus or atom is needed.
I have asked this several times. You keep failing to answer. Is this because you are not clever enough?
That by itself knocks out the BBT for good.That is absurd.
A well known theory in physics does not stand or fail depending on whether I tell you where I copied a picture from.
How could it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/02/2021 13:57:40
Because the two events are independent and one of them does not have a scattered electron, I have shown that the scattered electron doesn't always happen.Well, the evidence says that it is all related to Electromagnetic filed.
If you want to say that the two events are related, you need to prove it. The evidence says they are not related.
In this image we clearly see that while one particle (electron) is moving to one side (left), the other particle (positron) is moving to the other side (right)
That is a direct outcome of Lorentz force on opposite particle charged (electron/positron) under EM filed.
Therefore, as the invisible gamma ray photon had been transformed into the first particle pair, there is good chance that due to the impact of Lorentz force on the first pair there was some change in the local EM filed. That EM change sets different impact on second invisible gamma ray photon as we see in that image.
Therefore, they behave differently.
So, it is not the nearby mass that converts the gamma ray into the first pair particle or the second one.
It is all about the EM filed.
However, we have already agreed that there was no EM in the early Universe.
Therefore, this image is not relevant to your main idea that gamma ray photon could be transformed into the pair particles due to nearby mass (without EM).
I have already informed you several times in the past the pair process is directly based on EM.
Thanks for that image as it actually fully confirms my understanding. Therefore, without EM there is no way to get any sort of new pair.
Take out the EM and you kill that pair process.
Hence, as there was no EM at the early Universe - not even a single pair could be created.
It is clear to you by now?
A well known theory in physics does not stand or fail depending on whether I tell you where I copied a picture from.With your help I have proved that the well known BBT theory is useless without EM.
How could it?
So, many thanks for your great support!
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 14:16:47
Well, the evidence says that it is all related to Electromagnetic filed.And we know, from observations like the Casimir effect, that electromagnetic fields appear spontaneously in space.
However, we have already agreed that there was no EM in the early Universe.No we have not agreed that.
And we won't agree it because we know that there were always EM fields in the universe (see above).
Therefore, as the invisible gamma ray photon had been transformed into the first particle pairWell, we don't know which one happened first. You are making an unjustified assumption but...
Once it has been converted into an electron/ positron pair, it is no longer there to exert an effect on anything else.
You are effectively saying that it has a ghost.
That EM change sets different impact on second invisible gamma ray photonThat makes no sense. You can not say which one is first.
But even if your guess is right there is no mechanism for what you propose.
A weak EM field produced by the electron and positron is too small to affect the gamma photon.
So, it is not the nearby mass that converts the gamma ray into the first pair particle or the second one.So, you are now saying that the guy who wrote the wiki article was wrong.
At least you have learned something since you said this.
Is it real?
How can you call a scientist at Wiki as "guy who wrote the wiki"?
Now, since it is clear that I teach you things, why don't you accept that you do not know as much as I do?
I have already informed you several times in the past the pair process is directly based on EM.No. You kept screaming at me that it was due to mass.
Thanks for that image as it actually fully confirms my understanding.No it doesn't; you are still wrong.
Therefore, without EM there is no way to get any sort of new pair.Wrong and wrong.
Take out the EM and you kill that pair process.
Hence, as there was no EM at the early Universe -There was.
not even a single pair could be created.You just claimed that the universe does not exist.
Did you realise that?
Do you see how silly it is?
With your help I have proved that the well known BBT theory is useless without EM.You have proved nothing.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/02/2021 20:55:09
Yes it is.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:57:40That makes no sense. You can not say which one is first.
That EM change sets different impact on second invisible gamma ray photon
But even if your guess is right there is no mechanism for what you propose.
A weak EM field produced by the electron and positron is too small to affect the gamma photon.
Actually, I fully agree with you that too weak EM field won't affect the gamma photon.
However, in this image we don't know the real amplitude of the EM.
So, if the two pair had been created over there it means that the EM was strong enough to process both pairs.
Please be aware that I actually estimate that the EM at the second pair was lower than the first pair.
So, it was strong enough to set the pair process, but its impact on Lorentz force was too weak.
Therefore, we see that the positron/electron moves slowly away from each other (while in the first one it was very strong and set the spiral shape).
No, you have just confirmed that too weak EM won't set the pair process.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:57:40And we know, from observations like the Casimir effect, that electromagnetic fields appear spontaneously in space.
Well, the evidence says that it is all related to Electromagnetic filed.
Therefore, it is quite clear to me that the Casmir effect won't create the requested EM for that pair process.
You need real source for EM (as BH/SMBH)
Please also be aware that our BBT scientists claim that 99.999..99% from all the new particle pairs had been eliminated each other.
That proves that based on the BBT the Lorentz force was virtually zero.
Therefore, if lorentz force is zero the EM also must be zero based on the BBT.
So, how can you claim now for any sort of real EM immediately after the bang?
How could it be?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:57:40Wrong and wrong.
Therefore, without EM there is no way to get any sort of new pair.
Take out the EM and you kill that pair process.
You have just confirmed that the EM is vital. Now you claim that it is not needed?
Please take a decision - do we need EM for the pair production or not?
If not - then you clearly don't have any valid prove for the idea that pair process can work without EM.
Remember - without EM there is no Lorentz force.
Without Lorentz force you can't split the electron from the positron
Without that splitting they will cancel each other before you would understand that the pair had been created.
So, without EM you won't get any indication for pair process activity.
The universe exists due to Einstein theory and not due to the BBT!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:57:40You just claimed that the universe does not exist.
not even a single pair could be created.
Did you realise that?
Yes, mass it vital for the pair process.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:57:40No. You kept screaming at me that it was due to mass.
I have already informed you several times in the past the pair process is directly based on EM.
EM by itself is not good enough. We also need strong gravity force.
Therefore, we also need mass (as a BH/SMBH).
So simple and so clear.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/02/2021 21:40:39
Yes, mass it vital for the pair process.Why?
(That's the third of fourth time I have asked)
The universe exists due to Einstein theoryNo.
Because Einstein's theory has only existed since 1905, but the universe existed before that.
You have just confirmed that the EM is vital. Now you claim that it is not needed?No. What I said was that pair production- which is spontaneous- as shown by the Casimir effect- means that there is always an EM field.
It isn't that the EM field produces pairs. The pairs produce an EM field.
No, you have just confirmed that too weak EM won't set the pair process.It doesn't need to. ((Virtual) Pair production can be spontaneous.
Please also be aware that our BBT scientists claim that 99.999..99% from all the new particle pairs had been eliminated each other.As I have pointed out before, that problem is true for any mechanism for creating the universe - including the impossible one which you support.
So it's hardly worth mentioning.
If not - then you clearly don't have any valid prove for the idea that pair process can work without EM.The Casimir effect shows that the virtual pair production just happens. You don't need a cause; you don't need and EM field.
However, in this image we don't know the real amplitude of the EM.We have a good idea of what the EM field is. It is small enough not to affect the paths of the positrons and electrons. We also know there's a strong magnetic field - that's why the paths are spirals.
Please be aware that I actually estimate that the EM at the second pair was lower than the first pair.So, you think that, before we created and separated two charged particles the field was bigger than after we created a field by creating and separating two charged particles.
Do you understand why I think you are wrong?
So, how can you claim now for any sort of real EM immediately after the bang?
Same as always; I don't need to. It forms itself. The Casimir effect is proof of this happening today. If you think it wouldn't have happened in the early universe you need to explain why not.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/02/2021 05:04:32
It isn't that the EM field produces pairs. The pairs produce an EM field.Wow
This is the most important message. Therefore, I will only focus on it.
So, you confirm that the pairs produce EM.
However, how a pair could produce EM while there was no EM to start with?
Let me use two examples:
1. Battery.
Do you know that after the creation of the battery it doesn't carry any electrical charge?
So, you must load the battery with electric charge in order to get that charged battery.
However, based on your imagination/approach you could claim that:
It isn't that the electricity produces the battery charged. The battery produces the electricity charge.
2. Watermelon
Do you know that the watermelon carry mostly water?
So based on your imagination/approach you could also claim that:
It isn't that the water is needed to produce the watermelon. The watermelon produces the water.
Is it real?
Don't you understand that as there is no way to get water in the watermelon without first investing water in that watermelon?
Hence, there is no way for "The pairs to produce an EM field" without first investing EM in this pair.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand basic elements in our real universe?
In other words - There is no way to get particles/pairs that carry EM without investing EM.
Sorry - how can you call yourself scientist with that nonsense?
It clearly shows that based on this approach - you and all the BBT scientists don't have a basic knowledge in our real universe!!!
Actually, you had confirmed that photon is all about EM.
So, please read my lips:
Any particle/pair in the Universe had been started/created by EM
Every atom/molecular in our body had been created by EM.
Without real EM to start with - all the matter in our Universe won't be created.
If you still disagree with that - it is better for you to find better job in your life.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2021 08:37:22
Do you know that after the creation of the battery it doesn't carry any electrical charge?Just plain wrong, as shown by this Children's science experiment.
So, you must load the battery with electric charge in order to get that charged battery.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemon_battery
how a pair could produce EM while there was no EM to start with?We do not know how.
But we know that it happens.
That's how the Casimir effect is produced.
Do you understand that the experiment shows that it happens?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/02/2021 08:40:01
you and all the BBT scientists don't have a basic knowledge in our real universe!!!That is very silly coming from the man who did not understand how a battery works, but tried to use it to proves something- based on his misunderstanding.
In other words - There is no way to get particles/pairs that carry EM without investing EM.Yes there is, the experiments prove it, and I call myself a scientist because I pay attention to what the experiments tell us.
Sorry - how can you call yourself scientist with that nonsense?
You should try it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/02/2021 05:24:35
Sorry - if you do not know than please stop all your nonsense.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:04:32We do not know how.
how a pair could produce EM while there was no EM to start with?
But we know that it happensAs you know that it happens - then please prove it.
That's how the Casimir effect is produced.
Do you understand that the experiment shows that it happens?
Based on the BBT, the space size the early Universe was at the size of Proton.
So, what is the EM which is expected from the Casimir effect in that proton size (Let's call it EM-PZ)?
As you know that it happens and as you claim for excellent understanding and experiments knowledge, are you sure that this EM-PZ magnitude( at the proton size) could generate the entire photons and the invisible gamma ray photons that were needed for the creation of all the galaxies and stars in our whole Universe?
the experiments prove it, and I call myself a scientist because I pay attention to what the experiments tell us.If so, would you kindly estimate the EM in our Milky Way galaxy (let's call it EM-MW)?
Then, multiply the EM-MW by 400 Billions (the estimated galaxies only in the visible Universe EM-VU)
Once you have that EM-VU, please use your great Knowledge and experiments to show how the Casimir effect in a proton size EM-PZ should be equal or even higher than this EM-VU.
Good Luck for you and for all the great BBT scientists.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/02/2021 11:45:26
So, the spontaneous EM field only maters at the very start.
So most of the stuff you posted was a waste of time.
It would be better for you to invest time learning science than to squander it writing nonsense.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/02/2021 10:37:04
Do you realise that, once the intrinsic variations in the EM flied produce a single particle, that particle can, in turn promote the conversion of gamma rays to particles as a cascade until essentially all the high energy gammas are gone?Wow
So, the spontaneous EM field only maters at the very start.
You are very creative person.
For any obstacle that I offer, you highlight new idea.
So, now you confirm that the process of creation must be a cascade-able process.
You also add that the Casimir EM field is spontaneous.
That is a clear indication that you fully understand that your "brilliant" idea for the Casimir affect EM is spontaneous and at the maximum it might generate the very limited EM energy.
Therefore, you try to convince yourself that this Limited EM energy is just needed to transform the first gamma ray photon to real pair.
So, the spontaneous EM field only maters at the very start.However, somehow you "forgot" that you also need to advice how all of those Photons/gamma rays had been created at the first stage?
I would like to remind you that you are the one that have told us about the key process of converting the first Virtual photons to real photons in our early universe.
So how can you suddenly start your BBT when all the gamma rays for the entire Universe is already there waiting for that first pair process to start the cascade imaginary process?
If you still wish to hold the BBT then please:
1. Tell us how all the Virtual Photons for our entire Universe had been converted to real photons at the first stage after the bang while there only be some very limited EM spontaneous Energy due to Casimir affect - Please don't forget that photon is all about EM.
2. Tell us how those photons have got the ultra energy to be converted into Gamma ray photons that are needed for the entire Universe.
3. Please explain how a single pair of particle could generate the whole matter in our Universe in less than 10^-12 of a second.
Sorry, you don't represent science as there is no science in the BBT.
You just wish to hold the BBT and I have no clue why that unrealistic theory is it so important for you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2021 13:09:57
For any obstacle that I offer, you highlight new idea.None of the ideas I have put forward have been new.
The Casimir effect was deduced in 1948 and experimentally measured in 1997
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5
The problem is not that I am coming up with new stuff.
The problem is that you do not understand the old stuff.
Therefore, you try to convince yourself that this Limited EM energy is just needed to transform the first gamma ray photon to real pair.The energy is supplied by the gamma particle, not the EM field.
So that's another misunderstanding on your part.
However, somehow you "forgot" that you also need to advice how all of those Photons/gamma rays had been created at the first stage?No
We are all still waiting for you to answer the other side of that.
There was a lot of energy in the newly created universe.
If it wasn't in the form of photons, what form was it in?
It can't, for example, have been chemical energy like a battery- because there were no chemicals.
It couldn't have been gravitational because everything was in almost the same place so nothing could fall.
So- as I asked before (and, as usual with difficult questions-, you didn't answer).
What form was the energy in, if not photons?
I have no clue why that unrealistic theory is it so important for you.That's an ironic comment from someone who spent ages trying to argue in favour of a model which misinterpreted the Hawking radiation and used a breach of the conservation laws to show something which was known to be false since Olber pointed it out.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/02/2021 16:06:21
We are all still waiting for you to answer the other side of that.Well, I do not recall that question:.
There was a lot of energy in the newly created universe.
If it wasn't in the form of photons, what form was it in?
It can't, for example, have been chemical energy like a battery- because there were no chemicals.
It couldn't have been gravitational because everything was in almost the same place so nothing could fall.
So- as I asked before (and, as usual with difficult questions-, you didn't answer).
What form was the energy in, if not photons?
So, let's try to understand the real meaning of the BBT "pure energy"
At least you confirm that:
"It can't, for example, have been chemical energy like a battery- because there were no chemicals.
It couldn't have been gravitational because everything was in almost the same place so nothing could fall."
However, you claim that it can generate Photons.
So let's try to understand what is photon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
"The photon (Greek: φῶς, phōs, light) is a type of elementary particle. It is the quantum of the electromagnetic field including electromagnetic radiation such as light and radio waves, and the force carrier for the electromagnetic force."
"according to VMD, the photon is a superposition of the pure electromagnetic photon which interacts only with electric charges and vector mesons"
Therefore, Photon is all about EM and ONLY about EM.
As you don't like it - it is your personal problem.
Therefore, as the BBT pure energy has no EM - it can't generate any sort of particle that carries EM.
Therefore, It can't generate even a single Photon or energetic photon as Gamma ray.
Is it clear to you by now?
So, the whole story of the Big Bang is just a big nonsense.
It's better for you to focus on the real science proves that you have offered as Casimir affect.
The Casimir effect was deduced in 1948 and experimentally measured in 1997That Casmir affect can generate spontaneous EM field.
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5
the spontaneous EM field only maters at the very start.As the space of our Universe is (and always was) INFINITE, then it is quite clear that somehow that spontaneous EM fields could create some spontaneous new particles/photons.
Once you agree with that - you confirm Einstein theory.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
"And so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant):"
Hence, based on that YOUR Casimir affect and Einstein cosmological constant, new particles are created constantly in order for the overall density of matter to stay constant.
No need Big Bang or Small bang.
Just a steady Universe that generates new particles forever and ever.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2021 17:52:37
Well, I do not recall that question:.Then you need to wrok on your memory.
I don't need an article to show that EM radiation is pure energy- because I can use logic to do it.
I just have to ask "Well, what else is it?"
What do you think EM radiation is?
Do you think it is radiation with tomato sauce or something?
It is pure energy.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 28/01/2021 05:21:30
No, pure energy can't be considered as EM energy.
Well, since you make that claim without evidence, I can refute it without evidence.
It is.
You didn't even answer my point which proves that you are wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 27/01/2021 08:48:07
What do you think EM radiation is?
Do you think it is radiation with tomato sauce or something?
It is pure energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/02/2021 17:57:49
That Casmir affect can generate spontaneous EM field.No.
It does not create the field.
I already explained this.
Again, you are saying that you need a microscope for bacteria to exist.
The Casimir effect is just a way to observe the particles.
They are produced anyway (otherwise you need to explain how the vacuum "knows" that it is between two plates in order to "switch on" the particle production.
Please try to pay attention.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/02/2021 14:42:45
WowQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 17/02/2021 16:06:21No.
That Casmir affect can generate spontaneous EM field.
It does not create the field.
You act as a liquid - drifting from one side to the other and back forward.
So, this time I would like to get a single word from you:
1. Do you claim that the "Pure BBT energy" is EM energy?
Yes Or No
Just single word please
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 14:48:53
You act as a liquid - drifting from one side to the other and back forward.If I do, it's because I'm reacting to you going off in every direction but the truth.
So, this time I would like to get a single word from you:If you want a single word answer, you need to ask a better question.
1. Do you claim that the "Pure BBT energy" is EM energy?
Yes Or No
Just single word please
That one is like asking me "is a meal salad?".
The best answer I can give in one word is "maybe".
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/02/2021 15:05:21
The question was very clear.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:42:45If you want a single word answer, you need to ask a better question.
So, this time I would like to get a single word from you:
1. Do you claim that the "Pure BBT energy" is EM energy?
Yes Or No
Just single word please
That one is like asking me "is a meal salad?".
The best answer I can give in one word is "maybe".
You could answer by:
No - There is no EM in that "Pure BBT energy"
Or
Yes - The "Pure BBT energy" is actually "Pure EM energy"
However, you don't want to offer a direct answer as you probably know that any answer might work against the BBT.
Therefore, you prefer the "Maybe"
That answer shows that you wish to keep yourself at liquid state - as I have already explained..
This "maybe" proves that you can't protect the BBT any more as it is a useless theory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 18:23:28
The energy present in the early universe would have been in a number of forms.
Some will have been EM and some will not.
And your question was
"Do you claim that the "Pure BBT energy" is EM energy?"
And the answer is that part of it was, but not all of it.
So, it's like asking "Do you claim that the "Pure BBT meal" is EM Salad?"
Part of the meal is salad, but not all of it.
So you really can't give a yes or no answer.
So this bit of your ramblings
However, you don't want to offer a direct answer as you probably know that any answer might work against the BBT.Is nonsense built on your lack of understanding.
Therefore, you prefer the "Maybe"
That answer shows that you wish to keep yourself at liquid state - as I have already explained..
This "maybe" proves that you can't protect the BBT any more as it is a useless theory.
It gets worse
OK, in reality, in the early stages of the universe it is believed that the 4 fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces were all combined into one.
So, do you see why your question makes no sense?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 18:26:30
You could answer by:You missed the obvious
No - There is no EM in that "Pure BBT energy"
Or
Yes - The "Pure BBT energy" is actually "Pure EM energy"
Some of the BB energy is EM, but not all of it.
So I can't say
"No - There is no EM in that "Pure BBT energy""
(because there is some)
And I can't say "
Yes - The "Pure BBT energy" is actually "Pure EM energy""
(because not all of it is)
This isn't even a problem of physics.
You lack a basic understanding of logic.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/02/2021 20:15:26
OK, in reality, in the early stages of the universe it is believed that the 4 fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces were all combined into one.Is it science or believe?
Do you mean that the pure BBT energy includes all the 4 fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces were all combined into one?
If so, why they didn't call it "pure 4 fundamental forces of nature"
Why do they call it Pure energy while the meaning is the 4 fundamental forces of nature "?
This isn't even a problem of physics
You lack a basic understanding of logic.
Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?
So, only the BBT believers are clever enough to understand how the BBT really works while all the others (especially me) have a severe lack of basic understanding?
Some of the BB energy is EM, but not all of itAs a "believer" that do not suffer from lack of basic understanding, please be more specific and advice the percentage of the EM energy in that total pure energy "salad"?
Is it in the range of 50% 10% 1% or 0.000...1%?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 20:28:09
Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.
Do you understand that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/02/2021 05:23:42
Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.
Do you understand that?
I clearly understand that you and all the BBT scientists don't have a basic clue what is the real meaning of "Pure BBT energy".
Therefore, it is much more convenient for you to claim that it is my understanding problem while you have totally got lost with a simple question.
If you can't even know if the answer is yes or no then how do you know that your "believe" is correct or incorrect?
There is no "maybe" or "the answer is neither yes nor no" in real science.
How do you know for sure that the BBT is correct with that kind of "knowledge"?
If it is "maybe" then maybe your BBT understanding is incorrect while Einstein understanding is correct.
You hold the "Maybe" and the twisted idea that "the answer is neither yes nor no" just to keep yourself at liquid state and claim for the other misunderstanding.
What a great tactics!!!
As a person that raises the flag of "understanding" and "logic" - you must answer the following question:
As a "believer" that do not suffer from lack of basic understanding, please be more specific and advice the percentage of the EM energy in that total pure energy "salad"?
Is it in the range of 50% 10% 1% or 0.000...1%?
If you can't answer that simple question then I have no interest in your nonsense. Please stay away from my tread.
It is very logic that you (and all the BBT scientists together) have no clue about the real meaning of that "pure BBT energy" and therefore the BBT should be set in the garbage forever and ever.
It's the time to take the astronomy from you and from all the BBT science community.
You don't carry a flag of science. You only carry a flag of BBT.
As there is no science in the BBT then you and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists should take this flag and stay home.
Let's open Einstein theory about our real Universe!
Let's understand why Einstein had rejected the BBT and what is the real universe according to his vision.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2021 12:37:49
Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.
Do you understand that?
Post by: puppypower on 20/02/2021 14:49:38
The second law states that the entropy of the universe has to increase. While an increase in entropy absorbs energy and heat. We can all accept this. What this implies is that reusable energy is being constantly lost by the universe, into increasing entropy. Any retrieval of this lost energy, within entropy, will take more energy than you get back.
The implication is there is an accumulating pool of energy, associated with entropy, that is being lost by the universe in terms of reuse. We can retrieve this energy, in part, but not in whole, due to the second law. Another implication is the universe cannot be cyclic, since that would violate the second law. A cyclic universe would need more energy than we started with. We do not have enough left over useable energy to both reverse both matter/energy and all the entropy, to make the universe a cyclic event.
I also believe in energy conservation, so I would expect that the energy within the increasing entropy is conserved, but not in a form that is fully reusable by the universe. I call this energy that is lost to entropy, dead poll energy, since it sort of dead to the universe. However, it nevertheless is part of the universal energy balance. It appears to be connected to information of things from the past, associate with the action of the second law. That is my best guess.
Entropy is a measurable variable, even if the concept of entropy is nebulous and hard to define. It ca be measured in a black box. There are tables for entropy values in the CRC. Entropy experiments and the data, proved that entropy was a state variable, meaning for any given state of matter, such as water at OC and 1 atmosphere, there is a consistently measured entropy. All labs, doing experiments, from any direction, back to 0C and 1 atmosphere water, will have the same exact measured value. These very specific states; entropy based memories, are connected to the dead pool memories; ghosts of the past.
Ice first formed long ago in the universe after the first stars began to fusion. This ice state can more easily happen again, in the present, since the memory of this state persists in time; conserved dead pool energy. Say we wanted to fully reverse the second law, and get rid of the specific dead pool memory associated with ice, by universally reversing that entropy state. This is not possible. It is a lingering foundation, from times gone, that can be transformed and recycled, but not destroyed, due to dead pool energy conservation.
If you look at life on earth and DNA, life no longer spontaneously appears on the earth, from scratch, as it appears to have had, in the beginning of life. This is expected since the useable energy and dead pool memories are different now than a billion years ago. However, within the DNA are universal entropic states, that were part of times gone by. This does not mean we will never make life in the lab, but it does mean, we will need to use more energy than expected, to make up for the higher present day entropy and lower universal useable energy. This is why we need to look into water and the binary entropic state nature of hydrogen bonding. We can flit the binary switches to an earlier time.
Particle formation in the early universe, also started with lower entropy and much higher energy than the present. Modern lab data is may not be appropriate. We do add energy in particle accelerators, but we cannot lower the entropy back toward zero to be realistic. We generate a modern phase, based on modern day dead pool energy values.
The current theoretical foundation fails on the second law and should be avoided unless one is writing fiction. This has been pointed out by me on several occasions, but physics has not changed course. Common sense is not important, if you are not in the physics club. This is why I often appear anti-science, It is really due to being anti-swamp science. Physics is the most arrogant science and pride comes before the fall.
Post by: puppypower on 20/02/2021 15:01:52
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/02/2021 18:16:16
I also believe in energy conservation,Please explain it to Dave.
The biggest problem with BB science of today, is it does not fully take into account the implications of the second law.Yes it does.
The relevant ideas are summarised here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_death_of_the_universe
My last post was getting long, but I wanted to add another piece of food for thought. Say we were in the beginning of the BB, when entropy was quite low. There are very few dead pool memories and things are more open, in terms of possible states, unhindered by the lingering dead pool memories of the past. Particles formation will not just snap into quarks, since there is little in the way of lingering deal pool memory capacitance, yet. This will only occur, later, as the ghosts of the past accumulate; second law and dead pool energy, and start to differentiate in terms of steady state; top of the dead pool memory bell curve for particles.I think you forgot to make a point.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/02/2021 04:03:34
One thing at a time.You have already got the following answer:Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.
Do you understand that?
The BBT is not relevant any more due to the following:Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.
Do you understand that?
I clearly understand that you and all the BBT scientists don't have a basic clue what is the real meaning of "Pure BBT energy".
Therefore, it is much more convenient for you to claim that it is my understanding problem while you have totally got lost with a simple question.
If you can't even know if the answer is yes or no then how do you know that your "believe" is correct or incorrect?
There is no "maybe" or "the answer is neither yes nor no" in real science.
How do you know for sure that the BBT is correct with that kind of "knowledge"?
If it is "maybe" then maybe your BBT understanding is incorrect while Einstein understanding is correct.
You hold the "Maybe" and the twisted idea that "the answer is neither yes nor no" just to keep yourself at liquid state and claim for the other misunderstanding.
What a great tactics!!!
As a person that raises the flag of "understanding" and "logic" - you must answer the following question:As a "believer" that do not suffer from lack of basic understanding, please be more specific and advice the percentage of the EM energy in that total pure energy "salad"?
Is it in the range of 50% 10% 1% or 0.000...1%?
If you can't answer that simple question then I have no interest in your nonsense. Please stay away from my tread.
It is very logic that you (and all the BBT scientists together) have no clue about the real meaning of that "pure BBT energy" and therefore the BBT should be set in the garbage forever and ever.
It's the time to take the astronomy from you and from all the BBT science community.
You don't carry a flag of science. You only carry a flag of BBT.
As there is no science in the BBT then you and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists should take this flag and stay home.
Let's open Einstein theory about our real Universe!
Let's understand why Einstein had rejected the BBT and what is the real universe according to his vision.
Each photon and each gamma is all about EM.
Each Quark, each Particle, Each Atom and each molecular is all about EM.
The pair production process can't work without EM.
There is no way to split the pair without EM.
Therefore, all the matter that we see in our universe is all about EM.
Every cell in our body won't be there without EM.
So, there is no room for "neither yes nor no" or "maybe" when it comes to EM.
EM MUST be there for any sort of pair creation.
The Pure BBT energy by itself won't create even one photon or one quark without EM.
Do you understand that?
If you still don't understand (or actually, do not wish to understand) - then it is your personal problem!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/02/2021 08:36:19
One thing at a time.Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.
Do you understand that?
Yes Or No
Just single word please
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/02/2021 07:11:55
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.The answer must be YES, YES ....YES.
There is no way to get even a single photon without EM.
The BBT is not relevant any more due to the following:
Each photon and each gamma is all about EM.
Each Quark, each Particle, Each Atom and each molecular is all about EM.
The pair production process can't work without EM.
There is no way to split the pair without EM.
Therefore, all the matter that we see in our universe is all about EM.
Every cell in our body won't be there without EM.
So, there is no room for "neither yes nor no" or "maybe" when it comes to EM.
EM MUST be there for any sort of pair creation.
The Pure BBT energy by itself won't create even one photon or one quark without EM.
Do you understand that?
If you still don't understand (or actually, do not wish to understand) - then it is your personal problem!!!
The pure BBT energy is just a useless energy without EM
1. Photon - It is all about EM
Hence, without EM that pure energy won't be able to generate even one photon
2. Gamma Photon - Even if there was a photon at the early Universe, that photon is useless as only Gamma photon could be used for the pair process. In order to convert Photon to Gamma photon EM is needed
Hence, without EM there is no Gamma photon.
3. Pair process from gamma - Even if there was Gamma photon it is still useless as without EM there is no way to set the pair process.
4. Annihilation - Even if there was a pair process, it is useless without Lorentz force that is needed to split between the opposite charged particles pair in order to prevent the annihilation process.
However, Lorentz force can only work under EM. Therefore, without EM there is no Lorentz force and there is no way to eliminate the annihilation process.
Therefore if the pure BBT energy is not EM energy, then this pure imagination energy won't generate even one single photon, quark or particle.
So, with regards the answer for the EM request, the answer MUST be: Yes, Yes..Yes, as there is no room for "neither yes nor no"
Do you finely understand that?
I'm quite sure that you would continue with your nonsense. As a good BBT scientist you are not fully connected to physics and/or logic. For you and for all the science community - BBT is all about science and logic?
Actually, the science community should offer a Nobel prize for this discovery.
However, as this community is all about BBT, I really do not see any option for that even if you all know by 100% that this BBT contradicts the real science.
Einstein had already stated:
https://www.quotesuniverse.com/quote/35
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts"
That is the key element that you are using in order to hold the BBT.
One day - you all would understand that after all Einstein was fully correct as he had rejected the BBT.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
And so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant)
So, the noble prize is not for me - it is for Einstein.
I only carry his voice.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/02/2021 08:33:48
One thing at a time.Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.
Do you understand that?Yes Or No
Just single word please
Post by: charles1948 on 24/02/2021 20:55:59
They're so long, that no-one wants, or can bear, to read them. They may contain valuable, and worthwhile material. But this gets lost amidst the prolixity of the post.
To prevent this loss, I recommend that posters adopt a more succinct style. Just put your points over punchily..
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/02/2021 21:00:33
If I might offer a gentle observation, some of the posts on here, go on for far too long.An even more effective way to shorten it would be if Dave actually remembered what had been said before, and didn't need to be reminded.
They're so long, that no-one wants, or can bear, to read them. They may contain valuable, and worthwhile material. But this gets lost amidst the prolixity of the post.
To prevent this loss, I recommend that posters adopt a more succinct style. Just put your points over punchily..
It would also help if he learned to answer points without repeated reminders but...
thus far, he's too rude to actually follow the rules and do that so.
One thing at a time.Do you mean that it is a problem of "believe"?No.
It is a problem of logic.
It has nothing to do with physics.
You said that you wanted a yes or no answer to a question where the answer is neither yes nor no.
Do you understand that?Yes Or No
Just single word please
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/02/2021 05:18:29
If I might offer a gentle observation, some of the posts on here, go on for far too long.The point is very clear:
They're so long, that no-one wants, or can bear, to read them. They may contain valuable, and worthwhile material. But this gets lost amidst the prolixity of the post.
To prevent this loss, I recommend that posters adopt a more succinct style. Just put your points over punchily..
There is no way to create any sort of particle without EM.
As there were no Electro Magnets or Dynamos at the early Universe - there was clearly no EM in that Universe to create even one real particle.
Do you need some more punchily points?
Conclusion:
The BBT is useless as Einstein had also clearly stated that the BBT is not realistic.
Unfortunately, BC can't understand/accept that simple message.
What about you?
I hope that you agree that this message "contains valuable and worthwhile material".
What about all the other people that read this thread?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 08:37:49
The point is very clear:The "point" is also very wrong.
There is no way to create any sort of particle without EM.
As there were no Electro Magnets or Dynamos at the early Universe - there was clearly no EM in that Universe to create even one real particle.
The Casimir effect shows that virtual particles (including photons) pop into existence randomly and briefly in the universe.
So there were EM fields in the early universe.
Unfortunately, Dave doesn't understand this or, can't accept it because it shows that he is wrong
It is, however, well established physics- having been checked by lab experiments in 1997
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.5
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 08:44:52
Conclusion:That's not a conclusion it's an assertion of a logical fallacy.
The BBT is useless as Einstein had also clearly stated that the BBT is not realistic.
Dave does not have a strong enogh grasp of logic to see that it's a problem.
Also Dave's lack of the basics of logic means that he doesn't understand that some questions can not be answered with a "yes" or a "no".
For example, "Is a ( a typical, so- called Victoria sponge) cake made from eggs?"
If you say yes then I will say "But what about the flour sugar and butter"
If you say "no" I will say " Well good luck making a cake without them".
So both answers- yes or no- are plainly wrong.
But Dave doesn't realise this.
He doesn't recognise that the right answer might be "partly".
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/02/2021 10:33:28
Also Dave's lack of the basics of logic means that he doesn't understand that some questions can not be answered with a "yes" or a "no".
For example, "Is a ( a typical, so- called Victoria sponge) cake made from eggs?"
If you say yes then I will say "But what about the flour sugar and butter"
If you say "no" I will say " Well good luck making a cake without them".
So both answers- yes or no- are plainly wro
Let me start with this example.
There are many kinds of cakes. Some with eggs and some without.
Therefore, in this case your "maybe" is perfectly ok.
So, as the eggs are not vital for the cake, the answer might be yes or no.
However we discuss about photon.
Based on the data - Photon is all about EM.
So, can we set a photon while there is no matter and no EM?
You have already confirmed that some of the BBT energy must be EM:
Some of the BB energy is EM, but not all of it.
In your following message you reconfirm the message that there were EM fields in the early universe.
The "point" is also very wrong.
The Casimir effect shows that virtual particles (including photons) pop into existence randomly and briefly in the universe.
So there were EM fields in the early universe.
However, somehow you don't want to answer my following question:
QuoteQuote from: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 18:26:30please be more specific and advice the percentage of the EM energy in that total pure energy "salad"?
Some of the BB energy is EM, but not all of it
Is it in the range of 50% 10% 1% or 0.000...1%?
Why is it so difficult for you to answer what is the minimal percentage of the EM in the BBT energy?
Let's reuse your cake example:
However, instead of asking for the eggs in the cake, let's ask about the ratio between the dry ingredients to the wet ingredients in the cake.
Do you agree that there must be some minimal ratio between the wet ingredients to the dry in a cake?
So, why is it so difficult to inform the minimal percentage of the EM energy in the BBT energy?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/02/2021 12:48:48
There are many kinds of cakes.And the bright readers will recognise that's why I specified
a typical, so- called Victoria sponge
However we discuss about photon.That's just not true, is it?
We were talking about the energy present shortly after the BB.
"
1. Do you claim that the "Pure BBT energy" is EM energy?"
Yes Or No
Why did you try to pretend that you had asked a different question?
Is it because you realise that your original question was stupid and you wish you had asked a better one?
Why is it so difficult for you to answer what is the minimal percentage of the EM in the BBT energy?because I wasn't there at the time.
However, I did actually answer your question; it's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to understand it.
OK, in reality, in the early stages of the universe it is believed that the 4 fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces were all combined into one.
So, do you see why your question makes no sense?
Shortly after the BB that energy split into the different forces we see today.
I'm guessing that the recipe might, like the cake, be roughly equal proportions of all 4 ingredients.
That would be consistent with symmetry and the equipartition principle.
What I don't see is how you think it matters.
I understand the physics, and I don't see how it matters.
So I'm going to suggest 25% as the best available answer.
You don't understand the physics and think it does matter.
So, I predict that you are about to say something wrong about it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/02/2021 05:46:20
Sorry, as a BBT scientist it is your obligation to offer the minimal percentage of the EM in the BBT energy.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:33:28because I wasn't there at the time.
Why is it so difficult for you to answer what is the minimal percentage of the EM in the BBT energy?
So I'm going to suggest 25% as the best available answer.How do you get to this percentage?
Do you mean that the BBT Energy comes with 75% as pure energy and 25% as EM Energy or the BBT energy comes as 100% pure energy while the Casimir effect of the early universe adds the other 25%?
If you (and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists) don't know - then your BBT theory is useless.
However, I did actually answer your question; it's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to understand it.Sorry, that is nonsense.QuoteQuote from: Bored chemist on 19/02/2021 18:23:28Shortly after the BB that energy split into the different forces we see today.
OK, in reality, in the early stages of the universe it is believed that the 4 fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces were all combined into one.
So, do you see why your question makes no sense?
I'm guessing that the recipe might, like the cake, be roughly equal proportions of all 4 ingredients.
That would be consistent with symmetry and the equipartition principle.
Gravity can work only on real mass & particles.
So, that pure BBT energy can't be converted to 4 fundamental forces while there was no matter in the Universe.
Any BBT scientist must understand that without any sort of matter (including photons) that pure energy can't represent any of the following 4 fundamental forces of nature:
Not gravity,
Not 25% of electromagnetism (please remember that there were no magnets and no dynamos before the Big Bang moment).
Not strong force
Not weak force.
At the maximum that pure energy could set ultra high heat. However we know that without matter there is no heat. So actually that pure BBT energy is just useless energy while there is no matter in the early Universe.
Actually, you confirm that the EM energy that was needed for the photon creation was due to the Casimir effect:
The Casimir effect shows that virtual particles (including photons) pop into existence randomly and briefly in the universe.So, you actually confirm that due to that Casimir effect virtual photons could pop into existence.
We already know that the Casimir effect is all about EM.
So, only the EM energy due to that Casimir effect in the early universe can be transformed into real photon particles.
Therefore, the whole pure BBT energy is just useless energy as it can't contribute any real energy for the photons/particles creation process.
Conclusions:
You claim that there was EM energy in that early BBT energy.
However, as there were no magnets, no Dynamo & no any sort of matter, then immediately after the bang, this BBT energy represents 0% of EM energy and 100% of pure energy (as stated at wiki).
However I can agree with you that the EM energy component of the early Universe could come from the Casimir effect (and ONLY from that effect).
So, as you specifically use the Casimir effect for the creation process of the photons/particles, then the Pure BBT energy is just useless energy as it can't set even one photon.
Never the less, the Casimir effect is there with or without the Bang.
Based on the BBT, the space of the early universe was at the size of proton.
So, how much EM energy that proton space could have due to the Casimir effect? Could it contribute 25% of the total BBT energy?
Don't you agree that in our current Universe there is much more EM energy in the empty space due to the Casimir effect than in that early proton size universe?
If the Casimir effect could work for the BBT in order for the creation of the particles 13.8 BY ago while the universe is in the size of a proton, why it can't work today based on Einstein theory in order to keep the universe steady forever and ever?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2021 11:19:47
So, I predict that you are about to say something wrong about it.I was right.
Sorry, as a BBT scientist it is your obligation to offer the minimal percentage of the EM in the BBT energy.I am not under any obligation at all.
You, on the other hand should be explaining why you think that the whole of science is wrong.
Unfortunately, the actual problem lies not with science, but with your poor understanding.
How do you get to this percentage?I already answered that.
Please pay attention.
I realise you don't understand this
the 4 fundamental forces of nature: gravity, electromagnetism and the strong and weak forces were all combined into one.But that doesn't stop it being true.
And, since there are 4 forces I'm guessing that each one got 1/4 of the energy.
I look forward to you trying to prove that I am wrong.
Sorry, that is nonsense.It may not make sense to you, but, again, that's a problem with your understanding.
Combinations of forces are already known.
I presume you realise that electrostatic attraction, and magnetic attraction are two different forces.
However, they combine to form the electromagnetic force.
The EM force can also be combined with the weak nuclear force
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
You presumably did not know about that because, in spite of your claims, you know very little about science.
So the whole of the rest of your post makes no sense.
Did you know about the electroweak interaction?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2021 11:30:19
If I might offer a gentle observation, some of the posts on here, go on for far too long.First, thanks for trying to tidy things up here.
They're so long, that no-one wants, or can bear, to read them. They may contain valuable, and worthwhile material. But this gets lost amidst the prolixity of the post.
To prevent this loss, I recommend that posters adopt a more succinct style. Just put your points over punchily..
Second, I wonder if I can ask a favour?
You will see that Dave's last post says this.
If the Casimir effect could work for the BBT in order for the creation of the particles 13.8 BY ago while the universe is in the size of a proton, why it can't work today(among a lot of other things)
I'm quite certain that I already answered that question in this post.
But it seems that my pointing out to Dave that "I already answered that" doesn't convince him of the need to actually read and remember stuff.
I wonder if, perhaps, someone else being able to point out what he has failed to notice might help.
So, would you be kind enough to look through this posting.
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.msg628529#msg628529
and point out to Dave which part of it answers his question.
I recognise that your background isn't in science, but I don't think that will stop you being able to find the relevant paragraph.
Thanks
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/02/2021 18:00:03
The EM force can also be combined with the weak nuclear forceDo you have any basic idea what is needed in order to get the weak nuclear force?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
You presumably did not know about that because, in spite of your claims, you know very little about science.
So the whole of the rest of your post makes no sense.Did you know about the electroweak interaction?
In the article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
"Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam,[1][2] and Steven Weinberg[3] were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles,"
So, "the EM force can also be combined with the weak nuclear force" ONLY when you already have elementary particles.
That is very clear as any particle in the Universe is all about EM energy.
So, once you have particle which is originally based on EM you can discuss about the weak nuclear force.
Hence, in order to have the weak nuclear force you first must have some sort of particle as quark, Photon, Proton... or Aton.
However, the BBT story starts without any sort of elementary particles.
So, how can you claim that the pure BBT energy has 4 forces while you start the BBT story without any particle?
That proves that you are not connected to the reality and the pure BBT energy is just a useless energy as I have stated:
as there were no magnets, no Dynamo & no any sort of matter, then immediately after the bang, this BBT energy represents 0% of EM energy and 100% of pure energy (as stated at wiki).
However I can agree with you that the EM energy component of the early Universe could come from the Casimir effect (and ONLY from that effect).
So, as you specifically use the Casimir effect for the creation process of the photons/particles, then the Pure BBT energy is just useless energy as it can't set even one photon.
Yes it is your obligation as you are the one that wish to believe that the BBT imagination is real.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:46:20I am not under any obligation at all.
Sorry, as a BBT scientist it is your obligation to offer the minimal percentage of the EM in the BBT energy.
You are the one that highlights the Casimir effect as a source for EM energy which is needed for the pair creation.
If the Pure BBT energy was good enough for the pair creation, why did you offer that Casimir effect?
Do you claim now that the Casimir effect is not relevant any more for the pair creation as you do not wish that Einstein will use it in his theory?
So, as long as you can use the Casimir effect for the BBT, that was a perfect solution. However, now that I told you that we can use that effect for Einstein theory - suddenly it is not relevant any more.
Sorry, you do not represent science as there is no science in the BBT
You offer ideas and reject them as soon as you understand that they might work against the BBT.
I'm quite certain that I already answered that question in this post.You keep on with this kind of nonsense while you clearly don't have a basic knowledge to my questions.
Hence, it is you obligation to offer real answers to my questions.
1. How can you claim that the BBT energy includes 25% of EM energy while there were no magnets, no Dynamo and no elementary particles at the Big Bang moment?
2. What is the added value of the "pure" energy in the total BBT energy if it can't generate even one photon without EM energy?
3. Why did you offer the Casimir effect as a source for EM energy that can generate new particles, while now you suddenly back off from this idea?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/02/2021 19:23:10
In the article it is stated:You really don't understand English, do you?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
"Sheldon Glashow, Abdus Salam,[1][2] and Steven Weinberg[3] were awarded the 1979 Nobel Prize in Physics for their contributions to the unification of the weak and electromagnetic interaction between elementary particles,"
So, "the EM force can also be combined with the weak nuclear force" ONLY when you already have elementary particles.
If Mrs Smith won a prize for the pies she makes with apples, that does not mean that you can't make pies without apples, does it?
Again, we are not talking about your failure to grasp the science here.
You just can't follow simple logic.
You are the one that highlights the Casimir effect as a source for EM energyI think this is at least the third time I have pointed out that the Casimir effect does not cause the EM felids.
The fields are already there, and the fields cause the Casimir effect.
Please try to pay attention.
Anyway, in general, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
Your claim is that all the scientists in the world are wrong and you are right- even though you don't know much science.
So it is you who has to offer the extraordinary evidence.
How can you claim that the BBT energy includes 25% of EM energy while there were no magnets, no Dynamo and no elementary particles at the Big Bang moment?I already answered that several times
Quote from: Dave Lev on 05/02/2021 06:34:28
hanks
So let's agree on something:
1. There was no magnet and no dynamo in the early Universe.
2. Therefore, there was no electricity and no EM in that early Universe.
No; because you forgot the important bit.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 03/02/2021 19:01:59
There can be other sources of EM fields.
I already pointed this out but, because you do not understand science, you did not realise what I had said.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 02/02/2021 09:09:04
Well, as I said. the science shows that it will, because the energy- whatever form it is initially present as- will be coupled into the photons produced spontaneously.
That's essentially where photons come from in "ordinary" transitions like light from a light bulb.
If you knew the science, you would be aware of that.
Do you understand what that means.
EM fields form spontaneously in the universe.
You do not need a dynamo.
Why do you not remember things?
Is it only something that affects you when you post nonsense on the web, or do you forget everything in the rest of your life?
Do you remember your own birthday?
Why did you offer the Casimir effect as a source for EM energyI never did.
You are making stuff up, and it makes you look silly.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/03/2021 14:46:58
I think this is at least the third time I have pointed out that the Casimir effect does not cause the EM felids.That was very clear to me.
The fields are already there, and the fields cause the Casimir effect.
Please try to pay attention.
You actually confirm that the EM fields are already there in the space.
So, in any given empty cube in space there is some EM field.
As the cube is bigger, the total EM field there is higher and as the cube is smaller the total EM field is lower.
We know the Energy in a Photon. Let's call it Ep.
However, we know that the energy in a photon is all about EM.
So theoretically, if we could estimate the total energy in a given size of a cube, we could also extract the requested size of a cube that is needed to carry enough EM field/energy which is equivalent to the energy of a single photon.
Let's call this cube as Qp (A size of a cube in the empty space that its total EM = Ep).
Now, let' read again your following message:
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/02/2021 08:37:49
"The Casimir effect shows that virtual particles (including photons) pop into existence randomly and briefly in the universe.
So there were EM fields in the early universe."
Is it real or unrealistic?
If it is real then you clearly confirm that the EM field in the early universe was due to the EM in space.
However, in order for just a single virtual photon to pop into existence, the minimal size of the space must be bigger than Qp.
If that Qp is bigger than a proton size, then while the early universe was at the size of proton its total EM energy might be smaller than the energy in a single photon.
Hence, there is no way to get enough EM energy (even for a sinle photon) - not from the infinite small space (of the early universe proton size) and not from the BBT energy (as there were no magnets and no dynamo before the bang).
Therefore, do you confirm that your following message is unrealistic?
"The Casimir effect shows that virtual particles (including photons) pop into existence randomly and briefly in the universe.
So there were EM fields in the early universe."
Sorry, There was NO enough EM field in the early Universe (not even for a single photon).
Please try to pay attention
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/03/2021 18:07:33
If you knew some physics, you wouldn't have wasted everyone's time with that post.
Why don't you learn?
Incidentally, the Casimir force decreases with the 4th power of the separation between the plates.
It was measurable (piconewtons) with separations about 1 micron (10^-6 m).
So , on a scale of "the size of a proton" - of the order of a femtometre (10^-15 M)- the effect would be something like 10^36 times bigger.
All other things being equal, the pressure would be 10^36 times bigger, acting on an area 10^ 18 times smaller.
Overall that suggest a value something like 10^6 newtons concentrated on an area the size of a proton.
That might be plenty.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/03/2021 12:17:36
Incidentally, the Casimir force decreases with the 4th power of the separation between the plates.
It was measurable (piconewtons) with separations about 1 micron (10^-6 m).
So , on a scale of "the size of a proton" - of the order of a femtometre (10^-15 M)- the effect would be something like 10^36 times bigger.
All other things being equal, the pressure would be 10^36 times bigger, acting on an area 10^ 18 times smaller.
Overall that suggest a value something like 10^6 newtons concentrated on an area the size of a proton.
Is it real?
Let's see:
Proton mass = 938.27208816(29) MeV/c2.
Electron Mass = 0.51099895000(15) MeV/c2[6]
So, the mass in a single proton is equal to about 938/0.51 = 1840 electron.
We already know that by annihilate of electron and positron we get photon.
So, the "mass" of Photon is equal to Electron + Positron = 1.02 MeV/c2
Therefore, the mass in a single proton is equal to 938/1.02 = 920 (Electron + Positron) = 920 photons
You claim that in an empy space of proton size in space there are 10^36 photons.
on a scale of "the size of a proton" - of the order of a femtometre (10^-15 M)- the effect would be something like 10^36 times bigger.so the total "mass" is:
10^36 x 1.02 MeV/c2 = about 10^36 MeV/c2
Now let's find how many Proton is needed for that mass:
10^36MeV/c2 / 938 MeV/c2 = about 10^33 protons.
So, based on your answer, in an empty space of a proton size, there could be a total 10^36 photons which represent a mass of 10^33 protons.
Is it real?
If so, please backup that understanding by real article.
If it is just an imagination, then why do you continue with those lies?
What do you gain with that? What is your real mission?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2021 13:09:43
You claim that in an empy space of proton size in space there are 10^36 photons.I never claimed that.
You just made it up.
Why tell obvious lies like that?
Do you want to look foolish?
If so, please backup that understanding by real article.Sure, the bit that starts .
"The Casimir force for two perfectly conducting parallel plates of area ‘A’ separated
by a distance ‘d’ is:."
on page 3 here
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/9805038.pdf
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/03/2021 13:12:02
What do you gain with that?What I gain is posting the truth here.
What do you gain by pretending that you know what you are talking about?
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/03/2021 16:53:44
You have stated:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 05/03/2021 12:17:36I never claimed that.
You claim that in an empy space of proton size in space there are 10^36 photons.
Incidentally, the Casimir force decreases with the 4th power of the separation between the plates.So, what was your intention when you have stated that:
It was measurable (piconewtons) with separations about 1 micron (10^-6 m).
So , on a scale of "the size of a proton" - of the order of a femtometre (10^-15 M)- the effect would be something like 10^36 times bigger.
All other things being equal, the pressure would be 10^36 times bigger, acting on an area 10^ 18 times smaller.
Overall that suggest a value something like 10^6 newtons concentrated on an area the size of a proton.
"on a scale of "the size of a proton" - of the order of a femtometre (10^-15 M)- the effect would be something like 10^36 times bigger. "
You have also stated that: " that suggest a value something like 10^6 newtons concentrated on an area the size of a proton."
So, how that "10^36 times bigger" and that 10^6 Newton could explain the creation of entire particles/matter in less than a second while the early universe was in the size of a proton?
What I gain is posting the truth here.Sorry, there is no truth in your messages.
You do whatever it takes to confuse me and wrong /not relevant data and then change the meaning of your answers.
So far you have totally failed to explain how even a single particles pair (as electron / positron) could be created and separated (in order to prevent the annihilation process) by that first Pure BBT energy.
Please also answer the following question:
Why all the particales/matter in the Universe had been created in less than a second after the Big bang by that pure BBT energy (while there was no real source of EM and no gravity), while today with all the space and the availability of EM, Gravity and the other forces, our BBT scientists don't accept Einstein idea that the Universe must create new particles in order to keep it steady?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2021 17:42:48
You do whatever it takes to confuse meI just post mainstream science.
If reality confuses you that's your problem.
wrong /not relevant dataThe datya I posted is not wrong. The fact that you do not understand why it is relevant is also not my fault.
hange the meaning of your answers.I have not changed the meaning of any answer I have given.
I have had to explain the meaning to you sometimes..
The fact that you are the only one who did not understand it is not my fault.
You have stated:I know what I said.
And I never said what you claimed, did I?
You pretended that I had said
So, based on your answer, in an empty space of a proton size, there could be a total 10^36 photons which represent a mass of 10^33 protons.You made that up and then lied about me saying it.
Then, when I pointed out that you are a liar you lied again by implying that I had said it in the bit you quoted.
So, how that "10^36 times bigger" and that 10^6 Newton could explain the creation of entire particles/matter in less than a second while the early universe was in the size of a proton?What I was doing there, in a way that is obvious to anyone who can read, is pointing out that your claim
Hence, there is no way to get enough EM energy (even for a sinle photon) - not from the infinite small space (of the early universe proton size)is also wrong.
Please also answer the following question:Because it goes dark at night.
Why all the particales/matter in the Universe had been created in less than a second after the Big bang by that pure BBT energy (while there was no real source of EM and no gravity), while today with all the space and the availability of EM, Gravity and the other forces, our BBT scientists don't accept Einstein idea that the Universe must create new particles in order to keep it steady?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/03/2021 17:30:54
OKQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:53:44Because it goes dark at night.
Please also answer the following question:
Why all the particles/matter in the Universe had been created in less than a second after the Big bang by that pure BBT energy (while there was no real source of EM and no gravity), while today with all the space and the availability of EM, Gravity and the other forces, our BBT scientists don't accept Einstein idea that the Universe must create new particles in order to keep it steady?
Let's see if I understand you correctly:
You claim that as the universe is dark at night there is no way for any sort of new particles pair creation in our universe.
So, you totally reject the message from Einstein that new particles are constantly created in our current Universe although you are fully aware that all the 4 forces are available in our universe.
So, with all the availability of EM energies and all the other forces in our universe - not even a single pair could be created.
However, at the big bang, while there were no gravity, No Dynamo, no metal, no real EM and actually no matter at all - somehow all the particles in the universe had been created in less than a second and for you this is real science.
How can you call that assumption as Science?
Sorry - if today new particles couldn't be created in our universe while it is full with all the 4 forces, then how do you know how the particles had been created at the first second of the Universe?
Have you been there?
You also have totally ignored my following message:
So far you have totally failed to explain how even a single particles pair (as electron / positron) could be created and separated (in order to prevent the annihilation process) by that first Pure BBT energy.So, please tell us how the Big Bang could overcome the annihilation process of the new pair while there was no EM at that first second?
Actually, our scientists are fully aware that the annihilation process is a key obligation for the new pair creation.
Therefore, they have estimated that about one of a million or a trillion might overcome that problem.
I claim that this is imagination.
Not even a single pair out of trillions over trillions over… could overcome the annihilation process without EM
You base the creation process on pure imagination that can't work.
I just post mainstream science.Sorry, there is no science in this mainstream.
It isn't even a science fiction.
It is just imagination and unproved ideas.
So as long as you claim that nothing could be created today – you actually kill the creation process at the big bang moment.
Therefore, this mainstream and the BBT are useless.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 18:15:09
You claim that as the universe is dark at night there is no way for any sort of new particles pair creation in our universe.No, I didn't make that claim
You just lied again.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 18:16:52
So, you totally reject the message from Einstein that new particles are constantly created in our current UniverseYes, I do.
And I am in good company.
Einstein also rejected it.
So, why do you stick to it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 18:17:46
How can you call that assumption as Science?The fact that all the universe is here is not an assumption, it is an observation.
Post by: charles1948 on 11/03/2021 19:41:20
How can you call that assumption as Science?The fact that all the universe is here is not an assumption, it is an observation.
But can it be true observation, unless from a human viewpoint. Suppose we weren't humans, but intelligent bats,
We bats would rely on echo-location to "observe" our surroundings. And our echo-location wouldn't permit "observation" of any objects outside the Earth's atmosphere. So as far we knew, the Moon and Planets, and the Stars, would not exist.
We bats might "assume" the existence of extra-atmospheric objects. But how could we observe them?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 19:46:14
But can it be true observation, unless from a human viewpoint. Suppose we weren't humans, but intelligent bats,Do you understand that Dave is effectively saying I am assuming that the universe is here.
We bats would rely on echo-location to "observe" our surroundings. And our echo-location wouldn't permit "observation" of any objects outside the Earth's atmosphere. So as far we knew, the Moon and Planets, and the Stars, would not exist.
We bats might "assume" the existence of extra-atmospheric objects. But how could we observe them?
Not anything about it, just that it exists.
And I say that's not an assumption, but an observation.
Post by: charles1948 on 11/03/2021 19:55:58
But can it be true observation, unless from a human viewpoint. Suppose we weren't humans, but intelligent bats,Do you understand that Dave is effectively saying I am assuming that the universe is here.
We bats would rely on echo-location to "observe" our surroundings. And our echo-location wouldn't permit "observation" of any objects outside the Earth's atmosphere. So as far we knew, the Moon and Planets, and the Stars, would not exist.
We bats might "assume" the existence of extra-atmospheric objects. But how could we observe them?
Not anything about it, just that it exists.
And I say that's not an assumption, but an observation.
But by your argument, if you personally stop observing the Universe, by temporarily going to sleep, does that mean the Universe isn't there anymore while you're "out" asleep?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2021 20:01:06
But by your argument, if you personally stop observing the Universe, by temporarily going to sleep, does that mean the Universe isn't there anymore while you're "out" asleep?No.
Because there are records of it having existed while I slept.
You seem to be missing the point here.
Post by: charles1948 on 11/03/2021 20:26:06
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/03/2021 10:56:11
Can we just start again, and resume normal discussions.We can't resume "normal discussions" because "normal" means paying attention to what the other person says.
And we have Dave saying this
So as long as you claim that nothing could be created today – you actually kill the creation process at the big bang moment.
But we have already explained to him that he's wrong about this (e.g. 11/12/19 "However, Noether's theorem shows that the start of the universe is the only time when getting that energy might be possible."
and 10/12/19
"Finally, you nearly understand it.
Because the big bang is a unique event with space (and time) after it, but not before, it is not symmetrical and the conservation law does not apply.
That's why the sudden existence of mass at the start of the universe is mathematically permitted.
You kept on asking how all that mass and energy didn't break the conservation laws.
It now seems that you understand it."
And 5/12
"Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
"
So we can't really have a sensible discussion with Dave.
He won't accept reality.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/03/2021 06:18:56
And we have Dave saying thisNo, this is incorrect.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 11/03/2021 17:30:54But we have already explained to him that he's wrong about this (e.g. 11/12/19 "However, Noether's theorem shows that the start of the universe is the only time when getting that energy might be possible."
So as long as you claim that nothing could be created today – you actually kill the creation process at the big bang moment.
Noether's theorem is all about energy.
However, we currently discuss on the creation of particles from pure energy.
So, even if I accept the idea of the new created energy due to Noether's theorem, it is still your obligation to prove/show how that pure energy had been transformed into real particles pair (as Electron/positron).
That transformation/creation process must represent a real physical process/law.
Therefore - our scientists must show how the physical creation process of electron/positron from that pure BBT energy really works.
As it is a physical process, then if it worked at the early universe - it must work also today.
So, you can't claim that the creation of new particles could only work at the early Universe due to real physical law, but it can't work anymore today.
Therefore I have stated:
So as long as you claim that nothing could be created today – you actually kill the creation process at the big bang moment.Theoretically, you could start the BBT story with all the particles in the Universe or with all the galaxies at a proton size.
But as you start the BBT story with "pure energy" at a proton size, then it is you obligation to show the real repeatable physical process that is needed to transform that energy into particles pair as electron/positron.
Therefore, you also must answer my following question about annihilation process:
Even if due to the BBT scientists' imagination, new particles pair had been created from that pure energy, how can you prevent the annihilation process without Real Magnetic/electromagnetic field?
You also have totally ignored my following message:So, please answer how the BBT can overcome the annihilation process without real magnets or electromagnets field
So far you have totally failed to explain how even a single particles pair (as electron / positron) could be created and separated (in order to prevent the annihilation process) by that first Pure BBT energy.
So, please tell us how the Big Bang could overcome the annihilation process of the new pair while there was no EM at that first second?
Actually, our scientists are fully aware that the annihilation process is a key obligation for the new pair creation.
Therefore, they have estimated that about one of a million or a trillion might overcome that problem.
I claim that this is imagination.
Not even a single pair out of trillions over trillions over… could overcome the annihilation process without EM
You base the creation process on pure imagination that can't work.
So we can't really have a sensible discussion with Dave.Sorry, you are the one that doesn't accept reality.
He won't accept reality.
If you do, then you and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists must show how new electron/positron are created TODAY from pure energy (and ONLY from pure energy) while they bypass the annihilation process.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2021 12:51:17
Noether's theorem is all about energy.No, it isn't.
So we can't really have a sensible discussion with Dave.
He won't accept reality.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2021 12:53:15
Therefore, you also must answer my following question about annihilation process:I answered that earlier.
But you do not pay attention.
It's like trying to hold a discussion with a two-year-old.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/03/2021 15:58:57
Therefore, you also must answer my following question about annihilation process:I answered that earlier.
But you do not pay attention.
It's like trying to hold a discussion with a two-year-old.
This is a lie
You have never ever offered real physical process how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process.
Actually, our scientists are fully aware about this key obstacle and therefore, they have stated that almost all the new created particles pair in the early universe had been annihilated.
However, they assume/hope that somehow one pair out of trillion might survive that annihilation process.
This is imagination. Without real magnetic field there is no way to get the requested Lorentz force that is vital to bypass the annihilation process.
Hence, even one pair out of trillions over trillion over…. Trillions wouldn't survive.
All of them would be the annihilated (at the same moment of creation) without even one exception.
This is the meaning of real science!
Conclusions:
So far you couldn't offer real science' explanation for the following:
1. .How the BBT could bypass the annihilation process without real magnetic fields?
2. Even if somehow one particle pair out of trillions had been survived the annihilation process (without magnetic field), why the same particles pair process can't work today in our current Universe.
You surly know that the Noether's theorem doesn't offer any answer for the above two questions.
Hence, as long as you (or any other BBT scientist) can't offer real answers for those questions - it's the time to close the discussion by the following final statement:
The BBT is a useless theory!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2021 18:29:49
You have never ever offered real physical process how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process.I never said that I had.
I said that I had answered your question.
And the answer is that we don't know (yet).
Just because you don't like the answer is no reason for you to say I didn't answer the question.
Without real magnetic field there is no way to get the requested Lorentz force that is vital to bypass the annihilation process.What are you talking about?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2021 18:32:40
This is a lieThen stop saying it.
Post by: Mitko Gorgiev on 13/03/2021 20:05:34
The BBT is a useless theory!!!That's too mild said.
I would say it much, much harsher.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/03/2021 20:07:10
So, we can add that to the list of things you don't understand properly.The BBT is a useless theory!!!That's too mild said.
I would say it much, much harsher.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/03/2021 02:25:14
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:58:57I never said that I had.
You have never ever offered real physical process how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process.
I said that I had answered your question.
And the answer is that we don't know (yet).
Just because you don't like the answer is no reason for you to say I didn't answer the question.
As long as you (and all the 10,000 BBT scientists) don't know (yet) how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process, that theory should be set at the garbage.
There is no need to kill a theory with 10 bullets. The annihilation bullet is good enough to kill the BBT.
Good Day
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/03/2021 02:35:24
Thanks for the support!The BBT is a useless theory!!!That's too mild said.
I would say it much, much harsher.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2021 10:09:40
As long as you (and all the 10,000 BBT scientists) don't know (yet) how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process, that theory should be set at the garbage.No.
Just because we don't understand how one bit of the process works is no reason to say that the whole theory is wrong.
That's just plain silly.
Also, the same question arises with any other theory about why the universe is here.
Your failed "theory D" for example, ran into the same problem (as well as lots of others).
So does your current idea- the one that Einstein considered: and then rejected because he was intelligent.
We know that there is a lot of matter in the universe and very little antimatter.
So we know that there must be some process which caused that imbalance even though we don't know how it happened.
We can leave that problem for later and carry on looking at the things which we do understand.
And, when we do that (with a full understanding of that science- rather than your views) we find the the BBT works.
Post by: puppypower on 14/03/2021 13:07:29
We know that there is a lot of matter in the universe and very little antimatter.
So we know that there must be some process which caused that imbalance even though we don't know how it happened.
The most logical assumption needed to create this imbalance, and have it result in a matter universe, is matter is more stable than anti-matter, due to free energy considerations. As an analogy, all the natural elements exist because of stability in the furnace of stars, even though we can manufacture extra unstable elements in the lab. The line between natural and manmade has been blurred, in theory, leading to confusion. We make it in the lab, and then theorize this is also natural, leading each other down the rabbit hole.
As an example, I can manufacture diamonds in the lab, and then postulate that natural diamonds form in weeks. I can then do lab experiments to prove this. Others can duplicate my experiments and get my results. While nobody can form a diamond in the lab the old fashion way. This will require an experiment that spans 100 generations, so I am safe. Does this sound familiar? We can pervert natural this way using the philosophy of science.
Getting back to the problem at hand, in beta decay, matter creates anti-matter at room temperature. This does not use a photon to make anti-matter, nor is this reaction symmetrical. The anti-matter that is seen in space, is more than likely made by matter, as matter lowers potential. This shows there is at least one path that is asymmetrical and does not easily go the other way. One direction is preferred based on free energy. The bias of traditions tells us matter and anti-matter had to appear as equal and opposite pairs from energy, so how does beta decay avoid photons and symmetry? Wake up!
I have proposed elsewhere that negative and positive charge are not 100% equal and opposite. The preponderance of natural universe data has negative charge attached to a small amount of mass; electron, with this mass and charge considered one particle. In our universe, the preponderance of natural data also shows that positive charge associates with the larger mass; proton, with positive charge and mass separate particles. These are not mirror images in terms of final steady universe behavior. There is a difference. This final steady state of the universe, based on the most natural data, makes positive charge more connected to GR and electrons to SR, with both paths able to alter references in space and time; uncertainty principle.
A moving charge creates a magnetic field. Since the electron is naturally designed to move faster than the proton, the magnetic component of negative charge is naturally higher in our universe. Protons at the same kinetic energy, due to the higher mass association, have less velocity and lower magnetic components in atoms. Particle accelerator data is not natural nor does it represent the preponderance of the natural data.
The problem, as I see it, is I try to use the preponderance of the natural data, while many theories try to use the exception as this rule, based on manmade data, since this is how you getting funding and because the results sound more exotic and fashionable for continued funding. The random assumptions that is also used has built in subjectivity, that the rational approach does not have. One minus any finite probability is the degree of subjectivity' 1- 0.9 = 0.1 or 10% subjectivity. The sure thing; cause and effect, has the odds=1.0 creating no subjectivity; 1 -1.0 =0.
When did we leave the age of reason and start to the age of subjective fabrication? My guess is around World War 2. Physics received the largest amount of funding and resources in the history of science. While the pressure from military brass was over bearing, since they needed results, yesterday, due to the war. To help take off some pressure, they turned to the oracles of statistics. This worked in this case, along with reason based on mostly natural data, and the recipe was created for the future of science; big bucks required finite subjectivity, with the subjectivity used for the sale pitch and as an excuse for limitations of theory.
In nature, all materials show both pressure and temperature dependency. Concentrations of different materials, in solutions, can also alter phases and properties, such as iron and carbon and phase of steel. The accelerators do generate a phases of matter, but not the entire phase diagram, especially at conditions in the early universe. None on this data, takes into account the extreme gravitational pressures in the early universe to get the correct phrases. We do not have that capably at this time.
How does extreme gravity and pressure impact charge? The electron, which formed early, appears to show us that negative charge and mass; gravity, will form a unique single phase. The line between mass and negative charge is blurred. While positive charge retains more autonomy from mass even with huge mass by comparison to the electron.
In modern atoms, the electron is more about SR and the proton more about GR. My guess is the extreme gravity caused the early forming electron particles to beat feet; the negative change and mass balance shifts to negative charge and SR reference counteracts GR reference. This adds magnetic addition to the elections and segregates the charges, until positive charge potential increased; left behind for GR, to where positive charge repulsion overcomes gravity; boom! In modern times, atoms maintain charge balance so GR can overcome electron SR, so gravity can win the day all the time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2021 13:15:09
The most logical assumption needed to create this imbalance, and have it result in a matter universe, is matter is more stable than anti-matter,That's a reasonable enough idea, and it has been put forward before.
It was then tested and found not to be true.
A few minutes with Google could have told you that, and saved you the time of writing the rest of your post.
That would have been good because it's largely hogwash.
Post by: puppypower on 14/03/2021 13:48:05
The most logical assumption needed to create this imbalance, and have it result in a matter universe, is matter is more stable than anti-matter,That's a reasonable enough idea, and it has been put forward before.
It was then tested and found not to be true.
A few minutes with Google could have told you that, and saved you the time of writing the rest of your post.
That would have been good because it's largely hogwash.
You are saying my post was disproved by theory that has problems? This entire topic is due to these problems. You need to think outside the box that is too tight.
The biggest problem in physics is the inclusion of statistical modeling. Odds less than 1.0 add subjectivity to theory. How do you think we can end up with more than one theory for anything? A rational theory does not have this subjective freedom. Rational theory is harder to create, which is why things got watered down.
A rational theory can land a rover safely on Mars, without having to fine tune the descent at the last minute. This was not possible due to transmission time delay. The theory had to be perfect. A statistical theory would be happy if it hit Mars, since this can be spun as finite odds they were right. Murphy law messed the rest up. In a rational theory, just hitting Mars, world be called failure, and the theory would need revision or be thrown out. It is hard to compete with watered down standard of statistics, where even failure is spun as success; statistically significant results. I don't accept the dual standard.
Don't get me wrong, statistics is useful for manmade things like cards, dice and factory items. But it is not useful for natural data and final natural outcomes. since it has a built in golf handicap, which gets larger as the odds decline. Failure for a rational theory can still be called statistically significant. One has to hit the bull's eye; Mars Rover, while, the other only has to his the target stand. How about we play by the harder set of rules?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2021 14:06:48
You are saying my post was disproved by theory that has problems?No, I am saying it was disproved by experiment.
This entire topic is due to these problems. You need to think outside the box that is too tight.If the constraints of the box don't include "the idea has to agree with observation" then you aren't doing science.
The biggest problem in physics is the inclusion of statistical modeling.This thread hasn't included any except to the extent that you have introduced it.
The rest of your post is, as usual, largely nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2021 14:11:07
This was not possible due to transmission time delay. The theory had to be perfect.No. The rover had significant autonomy and could fine tune its own descent.
"It’s important to note that the rover can land safely on Mars without communications with Earth: Perseverance has pre-programmed landing instructions and significant autonomy. "
from
https://mars.nasa.gov/news/8860/nasas-next-mars-rover-is-ready-for-the-most-precise-landing-yet/
Did you consider finding out about reality before you posted?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/03/2021 16:28:09
No,QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 02:25:14No.
As long as you (and all the 10,000 BBT scientists) don't know (yet) how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process, that theory should be set at the garbage.
Just because we don't understand how one bit of the process works is no reason to say that the whole theory is wrong.
The annihilation process is a key element in any new particles pair creation.
How can you claim that it is: "one bit of the process".
Hence, as long as you don't understand how to bypass that Key element (or that one bit of the process) then don't tell us that you understand how the Universe had been created!
You claim that you understand science, so let's try to understand what you really understand and what you don't wish to understand;
1. What do you Understand?
You clearly understand the conditions that are needed to overcome/bypass the annihilation process after the creation of the particles pair.
You also clearly understand that in the early universe those conditions didn't exist.
Therefore, you and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists clearly understand that in the early universe every new created particles pair should be annihilated.
2. What you do not understand?
You all do not understand how the BBT could bypass/overcome the annihilation process while the requested conditions for that didn't exist in that early Universe.
3. What you do not wish to understand
As long as you don't understand how to overcome/bypass the annihilation process at the early universe - the BBT theory should be hold at the garbage.
Also, the same question arises with any other theory about why the universe is here.Well, any theory that doesn't give full solution (which is based on real science) for the evolvement of the Universe should be set in the garbage.
Your failed "theory D" for example, ran into the same problem (as well as lots of others).
So does your current idea- the one that Einstein considered: and then rejected because he was intelligent.
Therefore, please keep the BBT at the garbage and let's start to find real solution for our Universe.
It is much better for you and for all of us to admit that you do not have a real solution for the creation of our universe then holding a wrong theory as a BBT.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/03/2021 17:23:18
You claim that you understand science, so let's try to understand what you really understand and what you don't wish to understand;That's easy. There's nothing that I don't wish to understand.
You also clearly understand that in the early universe those conditions didn't exist.Nonsense.
Those conditions clearly did exist- or we wouldn't be here.
Why do you make such obvious mistakes?
Is it because "
you don't wish to understand;
You all do not understand how the BBT could bypass/overcome the annihilation process while the requested conditions for that didn't exist in that early Universe.As far as I'm aware, there are no conditions under which the issue can be bypassed.
That's the problem.
Nobody knows how it happened. We just know that it must have, because otherwise, we wouldn't be here.
As long as you don't understand how to overcome/bypass the annihilation process at the early universe - the BBT theory should be hold at the garbage.No that's silly.
The Romans made cement without knowing how it set. They just knew that it set. And so they were able formulate hypotheses like " we could build an aqueduct to carry water to the city".
You do not need to know all the details for something to still be useful.
Again, this is a failure of you to understand logic.
It's not a physics problem.
It is much better for you and for all of us to admit that you do not have a real solution for the creation of our universe then holding a wrong theory as a BBT.No.
Abandoning what we do know, because there is something else which we do not know is stupid.
It's like saying that you can't have a discussion with me because you don't know my middle name.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/03/2021 03:44:25
Please let me know if I understand you correctly:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 14/03/2021 16:28:09As far as I'm aware, there are no conditions under which the issue can be bypassed.
You all do not understand how the BBT could bypass/overcome the annihilation process while the requested conditions for that didn't exist in that early Universe.
That's the problem.
Nobody knows how it happened. We just know that it must have, because otherwise, we wouldn't be here.
Do you claim that Nobody in the BBT science community knows how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process during the pair particle process at the first second (or actually 10^-6 of sec) of the early universe?
So do you admit that there is a fatal problem in the BBT during the particle pair creation time/era due to that annihilation process?
It's not a physics problem.if it's not a physics problem, please explain why our BBT scientists claim that most of the new particle pairs had been annihilated (If I remember correctly they claim that less than one of trillion had been survived due to that annihilation process)?
What do you mean by: "there are no conditions under which the issue can be bypassed?
What are the missing conditions for the BBT in order to bypass the annihilation process
Please offer full explanation why it is so difficult / impossible for the BBT to overcome that annihilation process?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/03/2021 09:11:59
Please let me know if I understand you correctly:Nobody, as far as I know, can explain how there is an excess of matter over antimatter in the Universe.
Do you claim that Nobody in the BBT science community knows how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process during the pair particle process at the first second (or actually 10^-6 of sec) of the early universe?
But, even a child could tell you that it must have happened somehow.
So do you admit that there is a fatal problem in the BBT during the particle pair creation time/era due to that annihilation process?No, there's not an error, there's is a lack of a detail.
if it's not a physics problemThe problem that isn't physics is the problem of your lack of understanding.
You do not understand that a theory can be useful, even if some aspect of it is unexplained (at the moment).
You keep saying that, because a detail is missing, we should throw out the whole idea.
That is plainly nonsense.
Your lack of understanding the difference between" there is something missing" and "there is something wrong" is a problem of intellect logic or understanding, not a physics problem.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/03/2021 09:17:40
What do you mean by: "there are no conditions under which the issue can be bypassed?Please don't misquote me; it makes you look like a liar. You missed out the important clause.
I said
As far as I'm aware, there are no conditions under which the issue can be bypassed.
Just because I don't know what the conditions are doesn't detract from the fact that they must have existed.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/03/2021 16:47:30
Nobody, as far as I know, can explain how there is an excess of matter over antimatter in the Universe.What do you mean by Matter/Antimatter?
Is it a positive/Negative mass or is it a positive mass with positive/negative charge (as electron/positron).
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/03/2021 20:31:41
What do you mean by Matter/Antimatter?I mean what grown-up science means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
You remember- one of the the things that stopped any hope of your "theory D" working
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/03/2021 15:09:32
ThanksWhat do you mean by Matter/Antimatter?I mean what grown-up science means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
It's really funny that you are using Wiki as a source of data, while when I have used it - you usually have rejected their data.
In that article it is stated:
"In modern physics, antimatter is defined as matter that is composed of the antiparticles (or "partners") of the corresponding particles of "ordinary" matter."
Theoretically, a particle and its anti-particle (for example, a proton and an antiproton) have the same mass, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge."
Now that we understand the meaning of matter and Antimatter the question is:
How the BBT could overcome the annihilation process?
In this article it is also stated:
A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner leads to their mutual annihilation, giving rise to various proportions of intense photons (gamma rays), neutrinos, and sometimes less-massive particle–antiparticle pairs. The majority of the total energy of annihilation emerges in the form of ionizing radiation.
So, even if we wish to believe that somehow the BBT could create Electron/Positron or any sort of particle–antiparticle pairs - without solid system that can split immediately between the particle–antiparticle after the creation in order to prevent the annihilation - any new created particle pair MUST end by annihilation with the following outcome: "the total energy of annihilation emerges in the form of ionizing radiation."
Therefore, the big bang would never ever set any sort of mass without solid system to bypass the annihilation process.
So, please don't tell me again that the BBT must have found a way to bypass that annihilation problem.
You and all the 10,000 BBT scientists claim that you have the wisdom of science.
Hence, you all know that there is no wishful thinking in science. You can't just pray to god to help the BBT.
As you claim that BBT is all about real science and real physics law - then please - You must offer a solid physics way how the BBT can overcome that annihilation problem.
If you can't do so, if you really don't know how to prevent from any new particle pair to end as some sort of radiation, then it's better for you to stop protecting the BBT.
Why do you insist so badly to keep that irrelevant theory?
Why you don't open the door for real theory for our Universe.
Sorry - the BBT keeps all of you at the dark age of the science - and somehow you really enjoy being there.
Therefore - for the last time
Do you know how the BBT can overcome the annihilation process?
If no, we will stop our discussion about the BBT and abandon this useless theory forever and ever.
You remember- one of the things that stopped any hope of your "theory D" workingEinstein theory and Theory D offer perfect explanation for the particle pair creation & how to bypass the annihilation process.
We will discuss about it as soon as we all agree to kill the BBT.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/03/2021 15:55:14
Therefore - for the last timeI'm so glad that it's the last time.
Do you know how the BBT can overcome the annihilation process?No
Now, do you see that it doesn't matter?
Do you understand that the annihilation happens AFTER the BB?
So the explanation (or lack of it) does not actually affect the BBT?
And do you now see that that all this time you have been chasing a mirage?
You have been going on and on about something irrelevant to the BBT because you simply do not understand the science.
It's really funny that you are using Wiki as a source of data, while when I have used it - you usually have rejected their data.No, I did not.
Please stop telling obvious lies.
(If you disagree then quote the bit where you think I rejected their ideas.)
Einstein theory and Theory D offer perfect explanation for the particle pair creation & how to bypass the annihilation process.No
They can't
Noether's theorem proves it.
Don't keep telling that lie.
It makes you look stupid.
So, please don't tell me again that the BBT must have found a way to bypass that annihilation problem.I'm not saying that the theory has found a way to bypass it.
You and all the 10,000 BBT scientists claim that you have the wisdom of science.
I'm saying the universe found a way to bypass it.
And the proof of that is obvious; we are here.
If there wasn't a way round the matter/ antimatter problem, we would not be here.
Do you understand that I can know that there is an answer to a problem, without knowing what that answer is?
Again, this is a matter of logic, not physics.
We will discuss about it as soon as we all agree to kill the BBT.Why are you saying we will never discuss it?
Are you concerned that if we did discuss it we would see that it is wrong and so you would look foolish?
I thought that you enjoyed looking silly.
I though that was why you kept saying silly things.
Silly things like this:
It's really funny that you are using Wiki as a source of data, while when I have used it - you usually have rejected their data.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/03/2021 05:16:43
No, I don't see why it doesn't matter.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 17/03/2021 15:09:32No
Do you know how the BBT can overcome the annihilation process?
Now, do you see that it doesn't matter?
I assume that no one can accept this kind of an answer (Unless he is part of the BBT believers)
As long as you "don't know" how the BBT can overcome the annihilation process, then this unrealistic theory/idea should be locked in the garbage.
You offer the BBT as an ultimate theory for our Universe.
How can you ignore that key element of the particle pair creation process?
Do you understand that the annihilation happens AFTER the BB?If you had a basic knowledge in science and especially in pair creation you would understand that this is incorrect/imagination
So the explanation (or lack of it) does not actually affect the BBT?
However, I know that you do understand the real meaning of pair creation and annihilation process, therefore this message is clearly Lie.
As usual, you try to confuse me with those lies while you first lie to yourself and to any person that read this thread.
The annihilation process must work immediately at the infinite moment of the particle pair creation (particle & Antiparticle).
If you wish to believe that the BBT is realistic, then it is your obligation to offer real physics process that could push away the new created particle from its twin antiparticle in order to prevent that annihilation process.
Therefore, any new created pair at the early Universe MUST ends its life due to that annihilation process.
Your "We don't Know" is not an acceptable real science' answer!!!
However, it seems to me that the other 10,000 BBT scientists clearly know that there is no way to bypass the annihilation process. .
Therefore, They actually offer a different tactics in order to get all the matter in the Universe..
They claim that the total number of the created matter in the early Universe is higher than the total number of the total antimatter.
Therefore, due to the annihilation process any new created antimatter/antiparticale would be annihilated with its twin matter/particale. However, as there are more matter than antimatter some matter would be survived in that annihilation process.
In other words, our scientists do not try to bypass the annihilation process as you claim.
They do not lie as you do.
They clearly know that there is no way to bypass that annihilation process.
They just hope that somehow at the early Universe the total no. of the new created particles are higher than the total no. of antiparticles.
Therefore, the main question in this case is as follow:
Is it realistic to assume that during the creation participle pairs there would be more particles than Antiparticles?
My answer is very simple:
NO!!!
The meaning of pair creation process is one participle and one antiparticle as pair = 1+1
So there is no way to get a pair with 2+1 as two particles + one antiparticle and still call it as "new creation pair process".
Therefore, this unrealistic hope of our BBT scientists should also be set in the garbage.
You have been going on and on about something irrelevant to the BBT because you simply do not understand the science.If you and all our BBT scientists/believers would accept the real meaning of science, you would understand that the BBT must be killed before it can generate even one real participle.
You try to confuse me/us with that "we don't know" while you all clearly know the main problem of the BBT.
If I would use the same argument in my theory, you would kill it at the same moment.
Therefore, it is your obligation to take a decision:
What is the real meaning of that BBT?
Is it a religious?
If so, please keep on praying to this BBT religious and I have no intention to interrupt you in this important process.
However, if you claim that the BBT is real science, then there is no room for - we don't know" or "Hope" in real science.
As long as you and all the other 10,000 believers don't know how to overcome the annihilation process or why there are more matter than Antimatter in a new created pair - then this BBT imagination is Useless.
Conclusion:
You call the BBT as "theory".
However, it is just hypothetical idea.
In order to call it a theory, First you must understand clearly how it works and then try to convince us that what you understand is correct.
There is no way to convince us that what you "don't know" is correct.
Hence - As long as you "don't know" how the BBT really works step by step - then you and all the BBT believers lie when you call the BBT as a "Theory".
It is not a theory and not closes to theory.
It is just unproved idea.
Hence, from now on we all must call it : the Big Bang Idea or "BBI" instead of BBT.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/03/2021 07:21:05
I'm not saying that the theory has found a way to bypass it.I fully agree that "If there wasn't a way round the matter/ antimatter problem, we would not be here".
I'm saying the universe found a way to bypass it.
And the proof of that is obvious; we are here.
If there wasn't a way round the matter/ antimatter problem, we would not be here.
But, why do you insist on the BBT?
Why can't you accept the idea that the BBI is just a useless idea and it's the time to find the real ultimate theory for "why we are here"?
However, based on this message it seems that you claim that the BBT is the master of the Universe.
If you offer a theory - you first must understand how it works.
We all can agree or disagree on specific idea/elements in any theory.
However, there is no way to offer a realistic theory while you and all the other 10,000 believers don't know how it really works.
As you don't know how the BBT really works than there is no meaning to continue the discussion about this useless theory/idea.
Just after finding a solution for those key elements in the BBT, give me a call.
Do you understand that I can know that there is an answer to a problem, without knowing what that answer is?There is no logic and no physics in a useless theory which no one can understand.
Again, this is a matter of logic, not physics.
So, do you understand that you can't know that there is an answer to a problem in the BBT, without knowing what that answer is?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2021 11:05:13
But, why do you insist on the BBT?It fits the evidence and is consistent with the laws of physics.
If you had a basic knowledge in science and especially in pair creation you would understand that this is incorrect/imaginationNo.
The bang came first and the particle formation happened afterwards.
If I would use the same argument in my theory, you would kill it at the same moment.It would have been better if you had used it.
Instead, you said that there was some impossible process by which it happened (in contradiction of the conservation laws).
If you offer a theory - you first must understand how it works.At the time when Darwin put forward the theory of evolution, nobody knew how DNA worked.
You just proved that you don't understand science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/03/2021 17:35:12
You just proved that you don't understand scienceYou have lied to me all the way.
Our scientists clearly know how the Annihilation process works.
They know that any available participle/matter would be annihilated by any available antiparticle/antimatter.
However, somehow they hope that there were more particles than antiparticles as it is stated:
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm
"During baryogenesis, the universe filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter. There was more matter than anti-matter, so while most particles and anti-particles annihilated each other, some particles survived. These particles would later combine to form all the matter in the universe."
Therefore, based on that BBT, all the matter that we see in our current universe represents the extra matter/particles over the antimatter/antiparticles that had been survived the annihilation process.
So, our scientists do not claim that they do not know how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process as you do.
They do not lie as you do. They all clearly know that any new created participle must be eliminated with its twin antiparticle due to the annihilation process.
However, somehow they hope that the BBT would deliver more particles than antiparticle.
So, please tell them that only in their dream "pair" means that 1+1 = 3.
If they do not understand the simple meaning of pair then they can't call themselves as BBT scientists.
Any scientist that wishes to believe that during the participle pair creation there will be more participles than antiparticle is just a BBT believer.
How our BBT scientists/believers could claim that during the participle pair creation process, there were more particles than antiparticles?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:21:05It fits the evidence and is consistent with the laws of physics.
But, why do you insist on the BBT?
That idea is a direct contradiction with the basic law of physics.
Therefore, you have to apologies for all your lies so far, while all the other BBT scientists/believers should go to class A and learn the real meaning of pair (1+1 can't be 3) and improve their knowledge in the law of physics...
In the meantime - that BBI (or BBT if you wish) would be locked in the garbage.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2021 18:22:56
You have lied to me all the way.Show me a single lie.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2021 18:27:36
So, our scientists do not claim that they do not know how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process as you do.But all the models should produce exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
There should be no excess.
And so nobody understand this
There was more matter than anti-matter,
As I have pointed out, we know that it is true- because we are here.
But we do not know why it is true.
As usual, you are calling me a liar because you do not understand the truth.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/03/2021 19:19:15
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:35:12But all the models should produce exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
So, our scientists do not claim that they do not know how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process as you do.
There should be no excess.
So you fully confirm my understanding that "all the models should produce exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter".
Therefore, our scientists have a fatal mistake as they claim that there was more matter than antimatter.
However, why did you claim that there was more matter than antimatter:
No, the idea that we are here can't be used to confirm the BBT.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:35:12As I have pointed out, we know that it is true- because we are here.
There was more matter than anti-matter,
So, as I have pointed out, we are here, but not due to the Big bang science fiction.
Hence by now we know that it is a Lie!
It fits the evidence and is consistent with the laws of physics.This is a lie.
We all know that based on the law of physics the total no. of matter must be identical to the antimatter and therefore due to the annihilation process not even one participle could be survived.
And so nobody understand thisThis is one more lie.
All of us do understand that there is no way to get even one real participle after the annihilation process based on the Big Bang Idea.
As usual, you are calling me a liar because you do not understand the truth.No, I don't think that you are a liar.
I actually have highly appreciation for your high knowledge in science.
However, you are ready to lie in order to support the BBT.
This is really a frustration for me.
Please wake up.
Please try to understand the truth of our universe.
Try to understand that based on that truth and laws of physics - there is no room for the BBT in the Universe history.
Once we all agree on that, we will look for better story for our Universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2021 20:01:01
We all know that based on the law of physics the total no. of matter must be identical to the antimatter and therefore due to the annihilation process not even one participle could be survived.But it isn't.
We are here.
Therefore, our scientists have a fatal mistake as they claim that there was more matter than antimatter.It is not a mistake. it is an observation.
We are here.
However, why did you claim that there was more matter than antimatter:Because it is obviously true, you and I are made of matter but there is hardly any antimatter.
All of us do understand that there is no way to get even one real participle after the annihilation process based on the Big Bang Idea.And yet, here we are.
That's the thing that nobody understands.
As usual, you are calling me a liar because you do not understand the truth.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/03/2021 20:12:22
Yes, we are here, but not due to the BBT.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:19:15And yet, here we are.
All of us do understand that there is no way to get even one real participle after the annihilation process based on the Big Bang Idea.
As there is no antimatter, we must look for better theory.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:19:15Because it is obviously true, you and I are made of matter but there is hardly any antimatter.
However, why did you claim that there was more matter than antimatter:
That's the thing that nobody understands.Do you mean that nobody from the science community understands?
However, I do understand why we are here and why the BBT is wrong.
So, please don't say "nobody" even if you think that I'm nobody for you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2021 20:24:26
However, I do understand why we are here and why the BBT is wrong.Your previous idea which you mistakenly called "theory D" shows that you do not understand.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/03/2021 20:26:09
As there is no antimatter, we must look for better theory.In the mean time, the fact that we don't have all the details of the BBT does not stop it being useful.
"Theory D", on the other hand, would never work, which does stop it being useful.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/03/2021 07:22:06
This is a lie.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:12:22In the mean time, the fact that we don't have all the details of the BBT does not stop it being useful.
As there is no antimatter, we must look for better theory.
You lie when you claim that you don't know how the BBT can bypass the annihilation process as it is clear that it can't do so.
While the other 10,000 BBT scientists lie when they claim that there were more particles than antiparticles.
Actually, you have just confirmed that they lie when they claim that there were more matter than antimatter, while based on their input you lie when you claim that not every participle would be eliminated by its twin antiparticle.
Hence, all of you lie on that key issue of the particle creation.
Without clear information about the particle creation there is no meaning for the BBT.
You and all the other 10,000 BBT believers have full knowledge about the law of science and all the requested details.
Therefore, you all know that based on the law of science there is no way to get even one free particle out of the Big Bang theory.
But you do not want to share this key information with us.
You insist to keep the BBT alive.
Therefore, you lie when you claim that you don't know
Yes – you and all the other 10,000 BBT believers know by 100% that the BBT is useless, but due to some imagination you wish us to believe that the BBT is real.
Shame on you - all of you!
There is no miracle in science. It is very clear to all of us.
The meaning of "law of science" should be clear to any individual in our Universe even if he calls himself as a BBT scientist.
Therefore, you lie when you have stated that the BBT meets the law of science as it clearly can't create even one free particle.
The only meaning for your "we don't know" is that you know that you don't know how to keep that useless BBT alive while it fully contradicts the law of science.
In any case
Let's move on.
So far we have found that the BBT can't generate even one free particle.
However, this is just the very minor difficult of the BBT.
Now I would like to discuss about the space itself.
We have a formula that can show the transformation from Energy to mass/matter
E=mc^2
However, what kind of formula are you going to use for the creation of the space itself?
What kind of energy is needed to create space?
The assumption that before the bang there was no space is a pure fiction.
If there was no space before the bang then there will be no space after the bang unless you can show the law of science or the formula that is needed to create space..
Therefore, without a clear indication of "law of science" for the space creation, there is no way to create space.
Hence, the BBT is just a useless theory based on the following two key elements:
1. It can't explain the creation of even one real particle based on law of science.
2. It can't explain the creation of the space itself based on law of science (even not at the size of proton).
Conclusion:
Please keep the BBT deep in the garbage and let us know just when you really know how to twist/bypass the law of science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/03/2021 10:16:35
You lie when you claim that you don't know how the BBT can bypass the annihilation process as it is clear that it can't do so.Something must have broke that symmetry.
We know that because we are here.
There is more matter than antimatter.
We do not know how it was broken.
My view- and that of scientist the world over, is that somehow, the extreme conditions of the early universe with enormous temperatures pressures and energies produced a breach of the symmetry and allowed matter to dominate.
You, on the other hand are saying that the universe is , and was always, like it is today.
Well, if that was true, then we would see the matter antimatter equality rule broken today just as it must have been in the past.
So why don't we see it today?
Actually, you have just confirmed that they lie when they claim that there were more matter than antimatter,
Have you ever seen antimatter?
There really is more matter than antimatter.
So far we have found that the BBT can't generate even one free particle.Yes it can; because it did.
Therefore, without a clear indication of "law of science" for the space creation, there is no way to create space.Nonsense.
Just because we don't yet know what the rules are, that didn't stop the universe doing it anyway,
The Universe isn't sat there waiting for us to discover the laws of physics, is it?
So why would us not knowing the rule stop the universe expanding?
Again, these are all failings of logic on your part.
You haven't even got to the bit where you not understanding the physics would matter.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/03/2021 17:54:06
There is more matter than antimatter.What do you mean by antimatter?
Is it a negative mass or negative charge?
If it is a negative charge, then how do we know if there are more electrons than positrons in our Universe?
If it is a negative mass - then please forget it. There is no negative mass at all in our Universe. Just Zero!!!
Again - the idea that we are here can't be used to prove the BBT or any other theory.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:22:06Something must have broke that symmetry.
You lie when you claim that you don't know how the BBT can bypass the annihilation process as it is clear that it can't do so.
We know that because we are here.
Only a theory that meets the law of science by 100% should be used!
We do not know how it was broken.As long as you do not know - then please don't tell us that you know that the BBT is correct!
My view- and that of scientist the world over, is that somehow, the extreme conditions of the early universe with enormous temperatures pressures and energies produced a breach of the symmetry and allowed matter to dominate.So, please prove it by law of science, math or by real experiment if you can.
If not, then please keep this view/imagination at the garbage next to the BBT.
Well, if that was true, then we would see the matter antimatter equality rule broken today just as it must have been in the past.We see electron and we see positron.
So, why do you claim that there is no antimatter?
Have you ever seen antimatter?Again - if you mean antimatter as negative mass or anti-mass then it is a fatal mistake as there is no anti-mass.
There really is more matter than antimatter.
If you mean to negative charge – then we see it everywhere.
It is your obligation to explain how the BBT can generate particles.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:22:06Yes it can; because it did.
So far we have found that the BBT can't generate even one free particle.
The idea that we are here can't be used as evidence or confirmation for the BBT (or any other theory)!!!
The BBT must confirms what we see.
As it can't confirm the particles creation by real law of science, then it is a useless theory.
Please be aware that for the BBT it is actually not relevant in any form of antimatter. (If the antimatter is negative charge or Negative mass). In both cases the annihilation process should kill any particle with its twin antiparticle.
Again - the fact that we are here or that the Universe is doing whatever is needed doesn't prove that the BBT is correct or Theory D is incorrectQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:22:06Nonsense.
Therefore, without a clear indication of "law of science" for the space creation, there is no way to create space.
Just because we don't yet know what the rules are, that didn't stop the universe doing it anyway,
Any theory should meet the law of science by 100%.
The Universe isn't sat there waiting for us to discover the laws of physics, is it?The laws of physics are very clear to us.
If the theory meets those laws - then we can claim that the theory is correct.
If not - then we should set the Theory in the garbage - or change the law if there is an error in that law.
So why would us not knowing the rule stop the universe expanding?The Universe is not expanding.
This is one more lie from our BBT believer.
We only see expanding galaxies.
Therefore, the galaxies are expanding, while the space of the Universe is fixed.
So, as long as you can't show us the relevant law of science for the creating new space - the whole idea of space creation by the BBT is useless.
As I have already pointed - that idea is even worse than the idea of creating more matter than antimatter.
You, on the other hand are saying that the universe is , and was always, like it is today.It is not just my understanding.
I actually represent Einstein approach.
We can discuss about it after killing the BBT.
If we would find that Einstein was wrong, then we would kill also that theory.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/03/2021 03:04:49
Is it anti-charge or Anti-mass (Negative mass)?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2021 08:42:28
Would you kindly advice what do you mean by antimatter?Again?
I mean what grown-up science means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter
Please pay attention.
Also, please answer this.
Show me a single lie.I don't mean things that you don't agree with, or don't want to be true.
I mean show me something where I said something which I know is false.
(You won't be able to, of course)
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2021 08:48:04
I actually represent Einstein approach.You are faithfully supporting the thing he called his greatest mistake.
Why?
If it is a negative mass - then please forget it. There is no negative mass at all in our Universe. Just Zero!!!Did you check?
If it is a negative charge, then how do we know if there are more electrons than positrons in our Universe?We would see the annihilation radiation from the "boundary" between areas where matter and antimatter predominate.
(Did you really not understand that there was an obvious answer to that?
It suggests, once again, that you don't know science.)
If we would find that Einstein was wrong,We don't need to.
Einstein already found that Einstein was wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2021 08:50:17
The Universe is not expanding.Yes it is.
This is one more lie from our BBT believer.OK
We only see expanding galaxies.
Therefore, the galaxies are expanding, while the space of the Universe is fixed.
So, as long as you can't show us the relevant law of science for the creating new space - the whole idea of space creation by the BBT is useless.
Here's the law involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law
Did you think that would be difficult?
Did you not understand that we have that law?
Post by: Colin2B on 25/03/2021 11:48:46
Would you kindly advice what do you mean by antimatter?Everyone should be using the standard accepted definition, broadly - “ a particle and its anti-particle (for example, a proton and an antiproton) have the same mass, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge.” It’s worth checking the detail for each pair on Wiki.
Is it anti-charge or Anti-mass (Negative mass)?
A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner leads to their mutual annihilation.
There is no antimass.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/03/2021 16:34:07
Thanks for your answerWould you kindly advice what do you mean by antimatter?Everyone should be using the standard accepted definition, broadly - “ a particle and its anti-particle (for example, a proton and an antiproton) have the same mass, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge.” It’s worth checking the detail for each pair on Wiki.
Is it anti-charge or Anti-mass (Negative mass)?
A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner leads to their mutual annihilation.
There is no antimass.
Do appreciate.
Actually I have just found an excellent explanation from Kryptid at the following thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81882.msg634195#msg634195
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/03/2021 18:17:33
It is good to see that you are starting to learn science.Thanks for your answerWould you kindly advice what do you mean by antimatter?Everyone should be using the standard accepted definition, broadly - “ a particle and its anti-particle (for example, a proton and an antiproton) have the same mass, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge.” It’s worth checking the detail for each pair on Wiki.
Is it anti-charge or Anti-mass (Negative mass)?
A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner leads to their mutual annihilation.
There is no antimass.
Do appreciate.
Actually I have just found an excellent explanation from Kryptid at the following thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81882.msg634195#msg634195
Who knows; in a year or two, you might understand why practically everything you have posted on this site is nonsense.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/04/2021 09:07:52
The missing antiproton and the missing positrons in our Universe is the most important observation in our Universe.
It clearly tells us that the BBT is useless.
As the proton includes quarks & gluons it can't be considered as a single particle.
It is closer to atom than closer to a single particle.
Therefore, the same process that could create an atom must create the proton.
Actually, there are no free protons/antiprotons and no free electron/positrons
Therefore, as Atom can't be created by the single particle pair process, also the proton can't be created by that process.
Hence, the same natural process that had been created the Hydrogen atoms had also created its integrated proton plus its extra electron.
Hence, the atom had been created in a single process with its proton and electrons in order to balance its internal electrical charge.
This can clearly explain the missing antiproton and positrons in our Universe.
Our scientists tell us that they know what is correct or incorrect with regards to the antimatter, while they clearly don't know the real answer for the missing antimatter.
The real particle generator in our Universe
The accretion disc around the SMBH is the real particle generator in our Universe
The plasma in that accretion disc is orbiting at about 0.3 the speed of light, while its temp is 10^9 c.
Our scientists wish to believe that this accretion disc is due to falling stars or cloud.
However, they have never ever seen even one falling atom into our accretion disc.
If that was correct, then it is expected to observe some sort of inwards spiral movement of matter that is taken from an external star or gas cloud as we see in the following image:
https://www.physics.wisc.edu/tag/accretion-disks/
Or
https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/accretion/
However, that is not the case in the SMBH accretion disc which is actually a ring.
The minimal radius (R1) is quite close to the event horizon while the maximal radius (R2) is limited.
Therefore, if the matter in the accretion disc was due to the falling stars, how could it be that they fall all the way to that R2 ring and accelerated to that ultra high velocity(0.3c) at almost pure circular cycle?
Why the aria between R2 to the minimal orbital radius of G cloud and S stars is so wide, while there is no matter at all in that aria?
In other words, how could it be that a star (as S2 for example) which has an elliptical orbital cycle at a relative low velocity, would fall all the way to R2 and surprisingly get that ultra high circular velocity?
Our scientists have a fatal misunderstanding about the real functionality of the accretion disc.
It seems to me that in any SMBH accretion disc the ratio between R1 to R2 must be almost fixed while R1 must be located at a fixed ratio from the event horizon.
Therefore, the matter in the accretion disc can't come from outside but can ONLY come from inside.
In other words - the accretion disc works as particles/atoms/molecular generator.
We have a confirmation for that by the molecular jet stream that we clearly see above and below the SMBH poles.
This jet stream ejects the new created matter from the accretion disc far above/below the SMBH galactic disc.
This particle generator creates only matter.
Hence, all the matter that we see in our universe had been created by the accretion disc of the SMBHs
Therefore, there is no Antimatter in the Universe.
Why is it so difficult for our scientists to understand that simple explanation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/04/2021 11:36:53
It clearly tells us that the BBT is useless.If that was anything close to being true, nobody would be using the BBT, but they are.
So you are plainly wrong.
Why do you post stuff that is obviously wrong?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/04/2021 11:40:18
The accretion disc around the SMBH is the real particle generator in our UniverseThat would still be a breech of the conservation laws and is impossible.
So why do you keep saying it?
This particle generator creates only matter.That would be a breech of the conservation of charge.
So we all know it is wrong.
Why do you keep posting stuff which is wrong?
Why is it so difficult for our scientists to understand that simple explanation?It explains nothing, because it is wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/04/2021 16:38:50
You are wrongQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:07:52That would still be a breech of the conservation laws and is impossible.
The accretion disc around the SMBH is the real particle generator in our Universe
The New particles are created by the EM energy + the super high gravity force of the SMBH without breach of the conservation laws.
Please be aware that only single particles are created as a pair positive and negative particles (quarks for example).
Due to the magnetic field, while one charged particle is drifted inwards, the other one is drifted outwards directly to the plasma at the accretion disc.
That would be a breech of the conservation of charge.At the accretion disc, three quarks get the gluons and set a proton. However, in order to balance the positive electric charge of the proton, it gets one electron and be converted to the Hydrogen Atom without breach of the conservation of charge.
I have found the following article about the "Quark–gluon plasma".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%E2%80%93gluon_plasma#/media/File:PhasDiagQGP.png
It is stated:
"Quark–gluon plasma or QGP is an interacting localized assembly of quarks and gluons at thermal (local kinetic) and (close to) chemical (abundance) equilibrium."
However, they assume that this Quark–gluon plasma took place at the early Universe:
"Quark–gluon plasma filled the entire Universe before matter was created."
There is no need to go back to the early Universe in order to find that Quark–gluon plasma.
Every accretion disc is full with Quark–gluon plasma.
So, if our scientists assume that by that Quark–gluon plasma it is possible to create new matter, than the Quark–gluon plasma of the accretion disc can do it easily.
In other words - somehow the BBT must cross that Quark–gluon plasma at the early universe.
I show you that you don't need to go back to the early universe in order to find that Quark–gluon plasma.
It is hear - at the accretion disc in front of our eyes.
If the BBT can use that idea of Quark–gluon plasma to create matter than each SMBH accretion disc can also use its Quark–gluon plasma to create new matter.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/04/2021 19:17:45
Wrong on essentially every point.You are wrongQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:07:52That would still be a breech of the conservation laws and is impossible.
The accretion disc around the SMBH is the real particle generator in our Universe
The New particles are created by the EM energy + the super high gravity force of the SMBH without breach of the conservation laws.
Please be aware that only single particles are created as a pair positive and negative particles (quarks for example).
Due to the magnetic field, while one charged particle is drifted inwards, the other one is drifted outwards directly to the plasma at the accretion disc.That would be a breech of the conservation of charge.At the accretion disc, three quarks get the gluons and set a proton. However, in order to balance the positive electric charge of the proton, it gets one electron and be converted to the Hydrogen Atom without breach of the conservation of charge.
I have found the following article about the "Quark–gluon plasma".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quark%E2%80%93gluon_plasma#/media/File:PhasDiagQGP.png
It is stated:
"Quark–gluon plasma or QGP is an interacting localized assembly of quarks and gluons at thermal (local kinetic) and (close to) chemical (abundance) equilibrium."
However, they assume that this Quark–gluon plasma took place at the early Universe:
"Quark–gluon plasma filled the entire Universe before matter was created."
There is no need to go back to the early Universe in order to find that Quark–gluon plasma.
Every accretion disc is full with Quark–gluon plasma.
So, if our scientists assume that by that Quark–gluon plasma it is possible to create new matter, than the Quark–gluon plasma of the accretion disc can do it easily.
In other words - somehow the BBT must cross that Quark–gluon plasma at the early universe.
I show you that you don't need to go back to the early universe in order to find that Quark–gluon plasma.
It is hear - at the accretion disc in front of our eyes.
If the BBT can use that idea of Quark–gluon plasma to create matter than each SMBH accretion disc can also use its Quark–gluon plasma to create new matter.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/04/2021 17:45:47
However, that is not the case in the SMBH accretion disc which is actually a ring.
The minimal radius (R1) is quite close to the event horizon while the maximal radius (R2) is limited.
Therefore, if the matter in the accretion disc was due to the falling stars, how could it be that they fall all the way to that R2 ring and accelerated to that ultra high velocity(0.3c) at almost pure circular cycle?
Why the aria between R2 to the minimal orbital radius of G cloud and S stars is so wide, while there is no matter at all in that aria?
In other words, how could it be that a star (as S2 for example) which has an elliptical orbital cycle at a relative low velocity, would fall all the way to R2 and surprisingly get that ultra high circular velocity?
Our scientists have a fatal misunderstanding about the real functionality of the accretion disc.
It seems to me that in any SMBH accretion disc the ratio between R1 to R2 must be almost fixed while R1 must be located at a fixed ratio from the event horizon.
Would you kindly advice the following data with regards to the Milky Way accretion disc:
1. What is the event horizon radius?
2. What is the R1 (minimal radius) and R2 (maximal radius of the accretion disc.
3. How many new stars the Milky Way is created per year?
Do we have the data also with regards to Andromeda accretion disc?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/04/2021 17:53:48
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/04/2021 10:33:01
Which of those data do you hallucinate will get round the conservation laws?Einstein had clearly stated that new particles are created constantly in our Universe in order to keep it steady.
So, you have to argue with Einstein about it.
In any case, the accretion disc is a solid observation that new matter is created by the SMBH.
Our scientists wish to believe that the plasma in the accretion Disc is moving inwards.
In order to support this unrealistic imagination, they have set a simulation:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/71
"Figure 2. Top: the rotational profile of the disk, expressed as a ratio of the actual tangential velocity to the Keplerian velocity, shown as a function of radius. Bottom: initial disk configuration, projected onto the $\hat{r}_c\hbox{--}\hat{z}$ plane. It has an inner radius $\hat{r}_i=0.1$, outer radius $\hat{r}_o=2.0$, and maximum height $\hat{z}_{{\rm max}}=0.2$. Finite disks require super-Keplerian rotation on the inner regions and sub-Keplerian rotation outside so that the centripetal acceleration respects the additional pressure force component. The density maximum occurs at $\hat{r}=0.23$, where $\hat{v}_t=\hat{v}_{{\rm kep}}$."
So, in figure 2 we see that the accretion disc has a shape of a vertical drop (red). The inner radius is 0.1 while the outer radius is 2.
I wonder how they have got this idea.
So, let's try to verify if this is realistic:
Our scientists tell us the orbital velocity of the accretion disc is 0.3c (speed of light).
I assume that this velocity represents the velocity of the outer radius (which is 2)
The velocity formula is as follow:
v^2 = G * M / r
G * M = v^2 * r
Hence, if r (outer radius) = 2 and v = 0.3c
G * M = 0.3c ^2 * 2 = 0.18
Hence,
r = G* M / v^2 = 0.18/ v^2
In order to find the r (inner radius) we would look for the radius which represents the maximal velocity of the speed of light
So, when v = 1c
r (inner radius) = G* M / v^2 = 0.18/ v^2 = 0.18
Hence, if the outer radius is 2 and the orbital velocity there is 0.3c, then the inner radius can't be lower than 0.18 as at this radius the orbital velocity must already be at the speed of light.
We all know that nothing can move faster than the speed of light and therefore we all must agree that the inner radius can't be 0.1 as stated in that article.
Actually, when we set the radius to 0.1 the calculated orbital velocity must be:
v^2 = G * M / r
v^2 = 0.18 / 0.1 = 1.8 c
v = 1.34 c
So, it is clearly not realistic that matter could orbit at that velocity.
Therefore, I wonder why our scientists claim that the inner radius is 0.1
However, in this article it is stated that even at the inner radius of 0.1 during the simulation the matter didn't fall inwards as it was stated: "whereas all particles remain in our simulation throughout the duration of a run."
"the accretion radius was set to the inner edge radius of the initial disk, Racc = 0.1 (G. Lodato, private communication).
"They also include an "accretion radius," Racc, such that particles that approach closer than that distance to the BH are accreted and removed from the simulation domain (G. Lodato 2011, private communication), whereas all particles remain in our simulation throughout the duration of a run. As such, their results and ours bracket the range of possible heating scenarios."
Hence this simulation proves that in order for the particles in the accretion ring to fall inwards, they must move closer (less than 0.1) and gain an orbital velocity higher than 1.34c.
This is clearly unrealistic.
The conclusion is that the matter in the accretion disc CAN'T fall inwards to the SMBH.
This is just one key explanation.
The other explanation is that as there is no matter above outer radius =2, then the idea that it is due to falling stars is also imagination.
How any scientist can believe that matter should fall from S2 (for example) which orbits at a relatively low velocity quite far away from the SMBH, would fall all the way to outer radius of the accretion disc and gain that 0.3c?
Conclusion:
The accretion disc is the ultimate observation that Nothing can fall inwards.
Not from the accretion disc to the SMBH and not from any external orbital star or gas cloud to the accretion disc.
As nothing can fall inwards to the SMBH (or to the accretion disc) while all the accretion discs all over the Universe are full with matter - it proves that the matter in the accretion disc must come from INSIDE.
That activity proves that new particles are created by the SMBH and ejected into the accretion disc.
Latter on as those new created particles are converted to real atoms / molecular and they are ejected from the accretion disc in that molecular clear jet stream.
It is very clear to me that you would continue with you: No No.
The question is how long the 10,000 scientists can hold a useless theory as a BBT?
So far they have kept it for almost 100 years.
In the past they have hold a theory that we are at the center of the Universe for almost 500 years.
Hence, I assume that it might take them 400 more years to hold that useless BBT theory
I can't change the history of the modern science. Who am I?
I also can't argue with you and all the other people that believe in that useless BBT theory..
However, sooner or later you all would discover the Einstein was fully correct when he had stated that new matter is created in our universe in order to keep it steady forever and ever.
It might not be in our life time, but it would come.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2021 11:29:44
Einstein had clearly stated that new particles are created constantly in our Universe in order to keep it steady.No.
So, you have to argue with Einstein about it.
Einstein knew that was wrong.
He called it his greatest blunder
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/29/this-is-why-einsteins-greatest-blunder-really-was-a-tremendous-mistake/
You are insulting his memory by not accepting that he had the strength to realise he had made a mistake, and admit it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2021 11:35:03
Our scientists wish to believe that the plasma in the accretion Disc is moving inwards.Scientists say that things fall down.
In order to support this unrealistic imagination
You call this unrealistic.
Nobody is taking you seriously.
Post by: Origin on 10/04/2021 13:44:06
In any case, the accretion disc is a solid observation that new matter is created by the SMBH.I don't see how that logically follows at all.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/04/2021 17:34:44
I don't see how that logically follows at all.
It doesn't, but that doesn't seem to bother Dave for some reason.
Post by: Origin on 10/04/2021 17:42:26
It doesn't, but that doesn't seem to bother Dave for some reason.I guess for him it is more fun to have his own theory even if makes no sense. Seems odd to me, but what the hay...
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/04/2021 20:03:03
Very simple.In any case, the accretion disc is a solid observation that new matter is created by the SMBH.I don't see how that logically follows at all.
Do you agree that the accretion disc is full with matter/plasma?
If so, what is the source for that matter?
Do you agree that our scientists assume that the matter in the disc is coming from a falling star or gas cloud?
If so, do you agree that the matter had to fall in some sort of inwards spiral shape?
As an example please see the following:
https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/accretion/
"The giant star is so large that for some of the matter in its outer envelope, the gravitational pull of the compact companion is greater than that of the giant star itself. Matter is pulled towards the companion. However, that matter does not plunge directly onto the companion star because it has sufficient sideways motion to build up a so-called accretion disk. This disk made of stellar material orbits the companion star."
In this case, we clearly see a direct connection from the giant star to the spiral accretion disc.
However, when it comes to a SMBH' accretion disc, we don't see that kind of spiral shape in the accretion disc.
We actually see the inner ring (r = 0.1) and the outer ring (r = 2).
As there is no spiral shape (at any SMBH' accretion disc in the whole Universe) it proves that matter isn't falling from outside into the accretion disc.
If the matter isn't coming from outside the accretion disc, then it must come from inside.
The meaning is that the matter in the accretion disc must come from the pair process activity near the event horizon of the SMBH.
Please also be aware that our scientists are so eager to show that at least some of the matter in the accretion disc should fall into the SMBH. However, I have proved that based on the following simulation:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/71The assumption that the inner radius could be 0.1 or less is clearly not realistic.
In this simulation, our scientists found that matter at radius 0.1 can't fall in. The radius must be lower than that to achieve this goal.
However, as the inner radius must be higher than 0.1, than nothing could fall from the accretion into the SMBH.
Is it clear to you by now?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2021 21:12:42
As there is no spiral shape (at any SMBH' accretion disc in the whole Universe)Did you check them all?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/04/2021 21:13:48
Is it clear to you by now?It was already clear when I wrote this.
Our scientists wish to believe that the plasma in the accretion Disc is moving inwards.Scientists say that things fall down.
In order to support this unrealistic imagination
You call this unrealistic.
Nobody is taking you seriously.
Post by: Origin on 11/04/2021 00:37:13
Is it clear to you by now?It is clear what you think.
It is clear that your idea is wild speculation.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/04/2021 20:33:05
Well, I base my understanding on the available data as the following article:As there is no spiral shape (at any SMBH' accretion disc in the whole Universe)Did you check them all?
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/71
In this articale, our scientists explain why they have used in their simulation the inner accertion disc radius as 0.1 and the outer radius as 2.
So, the ratio is as follow:
R (outwards) / R (inwards) = 2/0.1 = 20
They don't claim for any sort on spiral inwards activity in this simulation.
There are billions of galaxies in our Universe.
Our scientists observe the accretion disc of many galaxies.
So, If you think that there is an error in this article, then would you kindly offer any article to support your understanding that the ratio between R(outwards to R(inwards) should be different.
Scientists say that things fall down.Sorry, our scientists are wrong.
You call this unrealistic.
Nobody is taking you seriously.
Yes, all the 10,000 BBT scientists.
They have to prove this kind of understanding of falling matter.
If in all the SMBH accretion discs that our scientists observe (all over the universe) they don't see even one accretion disc with inwards spiraling/falling matter, then how can they claim for this imagination?
Let's try to understand it from statistical point of view.
Our scientists observe the SMBHs accretion discs for more than 50 years.
Can we assume that so far they have observed over than 10,000 SMBH accretion discs?
Assuming that the theory of falling matter is correct, what is the chance to see a falling matter into at least one accretion disc?
How could it be that so far they have NEVER EVER seen any sort of falling matter into the accretion disc and also no inwards spiraling shape of falling matter?
Why a wrong theory as falling matter is stronger than the clear observation?
How many more years are needed for them to understand that the idea that the accretion disc is full with falling matter is a pure imagination?
100 years or 10,000 years?
Sorry I don't take those scientists seriously while they set a theory without even one real observation to support their imagination.
It is clear that your idea is wild speculation.Sorry, my idea is 100% correct!
The current Theory of falling matter is the real wild speculation.
Can you please offer just one real observation which shows the inwards spiral shape of falling matter (from gas cloud or star as S2 at relative low orbital velocity) into a SMBH accretion disc while the orbital velocity of the falling matter is increasing step by step to almost 0.3 c as it gets to the outer radius of the accretion disc.
I wonder how can you accept this wrong wild speculation of falling matter without any backup by real observation.
Post by: Origin on 11/04/2021 21:49:29
In this articale, our scientists explain why they have used in their simulation the inner accertion disc radius as 0.1 and the outer radius as 2.
Sorry, our scientists are wrong.Quotes from the same post, you're a hoot.
You seem impervious to logic, facts or reason.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2021 22:01:35
Sorry, my idea is 100% correct!Your idea breaks two of the laws of physics.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2021 22:04:15
Sorry, our scientists are wrong.It's not just the 10,000 scientists who think that things fall down.
Yes, all the 10,000 BBT scientists.
They have to prove this kind of understanding of falling matter.
Everyone does.
You are saying that the entire population of the planet (apart from, a few infants) is wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/04/2021 22:05:45
You seem impervious to logic, facts or reason.That's about the only thing he is consistent about.
How could it be that so far they have NEVER EVER seen any sort of falling matter into the accretion disc and also no inwards spiraling shape of falling matter?Because we haven't been looking for long, and it's a very long way away.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/04/2021 04:33:31
ThanksHow could it be that so far they have NEVER EVER seen any sort of falling matter into the accretion disc and also no inwards spiraling shape of falling matter?Because we haven't been looking for long, and it's a very long way away.
You have just confirmed my key evidence/observation that so far we didn't see any falling star or gas cloud into any accretion disc in the entire universe..
There are billions of galaxies in the Universe. Each one carries a SMBH with its accretion disc.
All of those accretion discs are full with matter/hot plasma that revolves at about 0.3c.
Out of all of those billions SMBH' accretion discs our scientists have NEVER EVER seen any sort of falling matter into the accretion disc and also no inwards spiraling shape of falling matter.
However, you have the hope that one day we would see a falling star as it is accreted into the accretion disc.
So how long do we have to wait until all the 10,000 BBT scientists would understand that they have a fatal mistake?
One more year? 100 years? or minimal of one billion years?
People believe that there is a monster in loch-ness lake (Nessie).
Your daughter might believe that there is a monster under her bed.
So, how long do we have to wait in order to understand that there is no monster under the bed or in loch-ness lake?
Let's go back to the statistical calculation.
We look at all of those billions of accretion discs in the universe and we see that all of them (without exception) are full with matter/hot plasma.
However, our scientists tell us that some matter from the accretion disc must fall into the SMBH and some must be ejected back outwards.
We know that the Milky Way is creating about 3 new baby stars every year.
We also see that it ejects a molecular jet stream above and below its poles.
Our scientists claim that those molecular jet stream carry more than 10,000 sun mass.
So, how many stars must fall into the Milky way accretion disc to support all of this activity?
Do you agree for at least 3 stars per year?
So, why we didn't see even one falling star into the Milky Way accretion disc in the last 50 years?
Let's assume that only one star per 100 years is good enough for the Milky way.
So, you can claim that we need 50 more years.
However, there are billions of similar accretion discs in our universe.
If only one star per 100 years must fall into each accretion disc, then statistically, each year we have to observe about
1,000,000,000 / 100 = 10,000,000 falling stars in our Universe.
How could it be that for the last 50 years we didn't see even one falling star in the entire Universe while all the SMBH' accretion discs are full with hot plasma???
How long time might be long enough for you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2021 08:42:29
People believe that there is a monster in loch-ness lake (Nessie).And you believe that things fall upwards.
Your daughter might believe that there is a monster under her bed.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/04/2021 16:44:20
Sorry, the missing" falling" stars observation proves that you and all the 10,000 BBT scientists don't have a clue how the SMBH' accretion disc really works.People believe that there is a monster in loch-ness lake (Nessie).And you believe that things fall upwards.
Your daughter might believe that there is a monster under her bed.
You all don't wish to understand the real meaning of upwards or downwards in that accretion disc as it contradicts the BBT.
In order to prove that nonsense, our scientists are eager to find just one falling star in the entire Universe.
However, somehow our Universe is not so cooperative with their expectation.
Therefore, they don't let the missing stars observation to confuse their unrealistic theory.
So please, would you answer my following question:
how long do we have to wait until all the 10,000 BBT scientists would understand that they have a fatal mistake?How could it be that you reject the clear observation that matter/Stars/gas DO NOT FALL into the accretion disc?
One more year? 100 years? or minimal of one billion years?
How long do we have to wait for you until you would accept that simple observation?
You have stated that the BBT is based on observation - so why do you lie?
How can you reject this clear observation?
What is needed for you to finely understand that matter does not fall into the accretion disc?
Do you need God to tell you that message or do you have a contract with the BBT to believe in that nonsense indefinitely?
If you and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists would continue to reject that observation, why don't you step away and let other people to find the real meaning of that missing falling stars observation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2021 17:36:09
how long do we have to wait until all the 10,000 BBT scientists would understand that they have a fatal mistake?They won't change until you provide evidence.
One more year? 100 years? or minimal of one billion years?
I presume you can not provide any.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2021 17:37:59
How could it be that you reject the clear observation that matter/Stars/gas DO NOT FALL into the accretion disc?This works both ways.
I can't show a video of the stuff going in because it is too slow.
Can you show a video of it "falling up"?
If not, you don't have any valid argument.
However, common sense says it falls in.
Why would it fall up?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/04/2021 17:38:29
What is needed for you to finely understand that matter does not fall into the accretion disc?Evidence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2021 04:16:28
The evidence is already there in front of our eyes.What is needed for you to finely understand that matter does not fall into the accretion disc?Evidence.
We have NEVER EVER seen any falling star into any SMBH' accretion disc.
Therefore, the missing observation is by itself a clear observation and clear evidence.
As I have already explained, there are billions of galaxies in front of our eyes.
Each galaxy carries an accretion disc that is full with matter.
We clearly observe the matter that each accretion disc ejects outwards.
However, we have never ever observed any falling star into those accertion discs.
If the accretion disc was really an accretion disc, then from statistical point of view, Millions or even billions of stars have to fall into all of those discs per year.
However, we don't see even one falling star at all of those available billions accretion discs in the Universe.
Therefore, the current evidence/observation is very clear -
Stars do not fall into the BBT accretion disc.
You can continue to wait as long as you wish for your lovely falling star. It won't help you. Even if you wait for 100 billions more years, you wouldn't see even one single falling star.
So, based on the current available evidence, the Universe tells us that the BBT accretion disc is actually excretion disc.
This is the real evidence of our current Universe. You can't change it!!!.
However, surprisingly for you, that evidence doesn't meet your current mainstream/theory/law of physics.
Sorry - our mission is to fit the theory and the law of physics to the current universe evidence/observation and not the vice versa.
You can't just insist forever to force the universe to work according to our theory / law of physics.
First you must accept the simple observation / evidence that all the current BBT' accretion discs in the entire Universe - without any exception, work as execration discs.
Then it is your job to fit / fix your theory and law of physics to this clear evidence /observation !
Is it claer?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2021 08:29:51
We have NEVER EVER seen any falling star into any SMBH' accretion disc.We have not been looking for long enough to see any.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/04/2021 16:21:23
We have NEVER EVER seen any falling star into any SMBH' accretion disc.We have not been looking for long enough to see any.
We are looking at the accretion discs all over the Universe for more than 50 years
We also have supper advanced sensitive detectors which help us to see an Earth size gas cloud at a distance of one billion light years away.
If the "falling stars" imagination was real, then each year more than billions stars had to fall into all the available SMBH' accretion disc.
There is no way to miss those falling stars as they must come with ultra energy emission.
We don't see it and we would never see it.
50 years is more than enough.
How many more years do you need in order to understand that your theory is useless?
So, let's agree on the following observation:
1. Based on our current data/observation/evidence we didn't find yet even one star in the entire Universe that falls into the SMBH accretion disc.
2. Therefore, based on this observation (or missing observation) all the SMBH accretion discs in our CURRENT universe are actually excretion disc.
Please be aware that I specifically highlight the idea of current Universe.
I hope that you fully agree that in our current universe (based on our current observation - or actually the missing observation) the SMBH's accretion discs are acting as excretion discs?
If in the future we would find a falling star, then for this future universe we would agree on accretion disc.
However, please relax. We won't see any falling star. Not tomorrow, not next year and not in one billion years from now!
Please, would you kindly set a time frame to expire your imagination?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/04/2021 17:58:56
We are looking at the accretion discs all over the Universe for more than 50 yearsAnd the best pictures we have look like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg
So it's impossible to say much about them, isn't it?
However, isn't it more likely that stuff is falling down into them than "falling up" out?
Post by: Origin on 13/04/2021 18:25:14
However, isn't it more likely that stuff is falling down into them than "falling up" out?Dave's not very good at this stuff. He just kinda guesses and invariably guesses wrong.
Post by: puppypower on 14/04/2021 15:07:38
We are looking at the accretion discs all over the Universe for more than 50 yearsAnd the best pictures we have look like this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg
So it's impossible to say much about them, isn't it?
However, isn't it more likely that stuff is falling down into them than "falling up" out?
Years back I developed a BB theory variation, that did not start the same way as the current model. Instead of the singularity of the BB, expanding into umpteen particles, the singularity of the new model split like a mother cell, into two daughter cells.
If you compare these two scenarios, the atomization into umpteen particles increases entropy way more than a single splitting event. The atomization scenario of the standard model would be much more endothermic compared to the split scenario. It should have rapidly cooled. This also means the split scenario, does not require as much energy to happen. All else equal, a spilt can occur way before a BB atomization, using much less zero point energy. Or if it used the same amount eh first split would have much more left over energy for further splitting.
After the singularity splits into two, local space-time will expand, somewhat, since the mass/energy is now in two places. If these continue to split,with the left over energy, into smaller and smaller singularities, the universe will also expand as the super structures of the universe are laid out. This settles this conceptual problem of the observed superstructure, common to the current theory. The standard model makes it harder to form supers structure in the time; 15 billion years, that is available.
In the split model, based on the modern universe, at a certain point, the smallest scale daughter cells; galaxy level, undergo a mini-BB phase, similar to the BB theory. The material for the galaxy and its stars come out of the black hole style mini BB phenomena; 3-D white hole.
As each galaxy fluffs up with atomized matter, powerful energy wave fronts are emitted by all the expanding daughter cells, These powerful energy waves, add pressure waves that resist too much galaxy expansion, while also expanding the universe relative to the galaxies. This this energy also also adds eddies for early star formation. This explains the rapid formation of early galaxies and stars as well as the observed movement of galaxies relative to reach other. These all pose other problems for the current theory.
Post by: Origin on 14/04/2021 16:57:55
Years back I developed a BB theory variation, that did not start the same way as the current model. Instead of the singularity of the BB, expanding into umpteen particles, the singularity of the new model split like a mother cell, into two daughter cells.Yep, it is kinda fun to make up little fantasies and pretend you are a great scientist. I think it is even more fun to learn about the real universe, but hey everybody is a different.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/04/2021 17:00:49
And the best pictures we have look like thisThanks for this article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg
So it's impossible to say much about them, isn't it?
However, in the article they discuss about an accretion disc of a star:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg
"An accretion disk is a structure (often a circumstellar disk) formed by diffuse material in orbital motion around a massive central body. The central body is typically a star."
They also add that the matter in the disc spirals inwards:
"Friction causes orbiting material in the disk to spiral inward towards the central body."
However, at the attached image they discuss about a SMBH' accretion disc and there is no evidence for any sort of "spiral inward towards the central body".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg
It is very clear that our scientists can't see the difference between SMBH accretion disc to Star accretion disc.
In a star accretion disc we might see that "spiral inward" image. However, when it comes to a SMBH accretion disc, we would never see it.
Actually, if you look carefully in the image you should see some gas clouds that had been ejected from the SMBH accretion disc.
So, in the center there is no sign for "spiraling inwards" while after the outer ring edge there are signs for ejected gas clouds.
Hence, many thanks for that image.
For the first time I can get the real size of the SMBH' accretion ring size.
It is stated:
"The black hole’s boundary — the event horizon from which the EHT takes its name — is around 2.5 times smaller than the shadow it casts and measures just under 40 billion km across".
So our scientists know the size of the event horizon and the innermost ring (let's call it Rin).
If you also look carefully, you would see that the total size of the ring is similar to twice the radius of the innermost ring.
Therefore, the size of the outer radius is as follow (Rout)
Rout = Rin + 2 Rin = 3 Rin
Hence the ratio between Rin to Rout is only 1 to 3.
That data contradicts the assumption of our scientists in the other article:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0004-637X/745/1/71
"It has an inner radius ri = 0.1, outer radius ro=2.0, and maximum height zmax =0.2"
In this simulation article our scientists assumed that the ratio is 0.1 to 2
So, in this simulation, our scientists have used a wrong ratio of 1 - 2 instead of 1 - 3.
This leads them to fatal error in their simulation.
Hence, their mission now is to change the ratio from 0.1 - 2 to 1 -3 and then rerun the simulation.
Please also be aware that they have stated that in the simulation they have implemented an accretion radius Racc = 0.1, inside of which all particles are immediately accreted and removed from the simulation:
"Prior SPH works in which a prompt radiation assumption was used (see, e.g., Rossi et al. 2010) have implemented an accretion radius Racc, inside of which all particles are immediately accreted and removed from the simulation. In Rossi et al. (2010), the accretion radius was set to the inner edge radius of the initial disk, Racc = 0.1 (G. Lodato, private communication)."
This is actually the most critical fatal error in this simulation.
If our scientists wish to prove the idea of accretion matter into the SMBH, how can they set the simulation for accretion ring at 0.1?
They should eliminate that pre-setting from the simulation and only then try to verify if something could fall into the SMBH.
Therefore, our scientists have used wrong data and wrong pre-setting in their simulation
Hence, this simulation is pure GARBAGE!
I have already set a calculation for the velocity at Rin = 0.1:
The velocity formula is as follow:Based on this calculation, assuming the ratio of the ring is 1 -3, while the orbital velocity at the outer ring of 3 is 0.3c.
v^2 = G * M / r
G * M = v^2 * r
Hence, if r (outer radius) = 2 and v = 0.3c
G * M = 0.3c ^2 * 2 = 0.18
Hence,
r = G* M / v^2 = 0.18/ v^2
In order to find the r (inner radius) we would look for the radius which represents the maximal velocity of the speed of light
So, when v = 1c
r (inner radius) = G* M / v^2 = 0.18/ v^2 = 0.18
Hence, if the outer radius is 2 and the orbital velocity there is 0.3c, then the inner radius can't be lower than 0.18 as at this radius the orbital velocity must already be at the speed of light.
We all know that nothing can move faster than the speed of light and therefore we all must agree that the inner radius can't be 0.1 as stated in that article.
Actually, when we set the radius to 0.1 the calculated orbital velocity must be:
v^2 = G * M / r
v^2 = 0.18 / 0.1 = 1.8 c
v = 1.34 c
Then the velocity in the inner ring (Rin = 1) is:
v^2 = G * M / R
G * M = v^2 * R
Hence, if R (outer radius) = 3 and v = 0.3c
G * M = 0.3c ^2 * 3 = 0.27
Hence,
For R in = 1
v^2= G* M / R in = 0.27/ 1 = 0.27
v (for R in = 1) = 0.52c
So, the velocity of the plasma at the innermost accretion ring in elliptical galaxy Messier 87 is 0.52 c.
This is much more realistic the calculated 1.34c at the innermost ring (Rin =0.1) in that fatal simulation.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/04/2021 17:02:39
However, isn't it more likely that stuff is falling down into them than "falling up" out?NO!
You and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists don't have a basic clue how our universe really works. Nothing can fall into the accretion disc of the SMBH as in reality it is an excretion disc.
It is covered by ULTRA high electromagnetic field.
If something from outside would dare to come closer, the Ultra power magnetic force would boost it high above/below the poles.
The jet stream that we see above and below the poles of our SMBH is the ultimate evidence and clear indication for its existence.
However, our scientists don't let the evidences and observations to confuse them.
If they think that something must fall into the accretion disc, then they won't let the NO observation to confuse them.
If they think that the universe had been created 13.8 BY ago from a proton size, they won't change the theory even if they do understand today that our universe might be infinite in its size and there is virtually no possibility to set so big universe in that limited time frame.
Dave's not very good at this stuff. He just kinda guesses and invariably guesses wrong.Are you sure that you and all the other BBT scientists are good in this stuff?
They don't see any falling star, planet or moon into the accretion disc. Not even one single asteroid or single atom.
However they continue to guess/hope that somehow one day they would see it.
So let me tell you a brief story:
Do you know that deep in the ocean there is a Big Black Tuna fish (or in short BBT fish)
That BBT fish can swim at the speed of light. Therefore, it is very difficult to see it.
So, would you believe me if I will tell you that one day in the future, if we would wait long enough we must see it?
What is the chance that you would say that if we can't see it then it doesn't exist?
So why when it comes to my BBT fish theory you are not willing to wait even one day in order to see that BBT fish, while when it comes to the BBT theory you and all the 10,000 BBT scientists are ready to wait indefinitely for that "fishing" falling star nonsense.
Sorry - if we couldn't see that falling star with all our current advanced technology for more than 50 years (in any galaxy in the entire Universe), then we would not see it not tomorrow not next year and not in one billion years from now.
The BBT theory is a fiction and it is based on a fatal mistake.
The science community should offer me a Nobel reward for my discovery.
One day you all would ask me to forgive you as you had rejected the ultimate real explanation for our Universe/
How long can you keep that BBT nonsense? It's better for you to accept the BBT fish story instead of your BBT theory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/04/2021 17:14:26
You and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists don't have a basic clue how our universe really works.Says the man who thinks that things fall up.
They don't see any falling star, planet or moon into the accretion disc. Not even one single asteroid or single atom.They also don't see them come out.
However they continue to guess/hope that somehow one day they would see it.
Do you accept that the observational evidence for your idea is just as much "missing" as it is for the conventional viewpoint?
Post by: charles1948 on 14/04/2021 20:03:57
Because of this, I predict that the BBT will not last much longer. It's been with us since the 1950's. That's a long time for a theory of the Universe to survive without being replaced by a new one.
The new one will, I confidently predict, take the form of a modified "Steady State" theory.
Don't you feel, in your bones, that's what going to happen? How soon it will happen, I'm not sure.
2040 would be my best guess, though it could be earlier.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/04/2021 21:10:01
The so-called "Big Bang Theory" has inherent inconsistencies, and contradictions. Many of which have been pointed out in the preceding posts.Where?
Please note that most of what Dave has said makes no sense. It doesn't show problems with teh BBT, it shows problems with his understanding of physics.
The new one will, I confidently predict, take the form of a modified "Steady State" theory.One of the first options to have been proven wrong .
It's been with us since the 1950's.Not as long as the theory that says that things fall down (rather than up); but Dave hasn't understood that yet.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/04/2021 06:37:00
Dear BCQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:02:39Says the man who thinks that things fall up.
You and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists don't have a basic clue how our universe really works.
For how long you and all of those BBT "scientists" are going to keep that nonsense of "falling up" matter, while all the observations and evidences fully contradict your imagination?
Based on the data which you had offered:
1. Do you confirm that in the accretion disc of elliptical galaxy Messier 87 there is no signs of matter that spirals inwards?
Not from the accretion disc to the SMBH and not from outside into the accretion disc?
Yes or no please.
2. Do you also confirm that the most inwards radius of the accretion disc (Rin) is very close to the event horizon while the most outwards radius (Rout) is about 3 times Rin?
Yes or No?
3. So, do you confirm that this accertion disc is very compact, has no spiraling inwords matter and can't support your imagination for falling stars?
4. As this image can't support your imagination, please feel free to offer other image. If you can't find even just one SMBH accretion disc out of the Billions in the Universe to support your imagination for falling stars and spiraling inwards matter - then why do you insist to keep on with this imagination?
5. Do you confirm that this size of the accretion disc contradicts the simulation data which had been used by our scientists to prove the accretion activity of the disc
6. Do you confirm that our scientists have no confirmation for the idea of accreted matter – not by observation and not by simulation?
How can you ignore all the observations/evidence/technical data about our Universe which that fully contradicts the idea that matter falls into the SMBH accretion disc and still call yourself "scientist"?
How could it be that the BBT nonsense is more important than all the observations that we see in our real universe?
Sorry - Your mission as a scientist is to fit the theory to the observation and not just to fit our Universe to that nonsense that is called BBT.
As the BBT can't explain those observations - then this BBT should be set in the garbage once and for all.
Why do you lie?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:02:39They also don't see them come out.
They don't see any falling star, planet or moon into the accretion disc. Not even one single asteroid or single atom.
However they continue to guess/hope that somehow one day they would see it.
Our scientists clearly see all the matter that the SMBH accretion disc is ejected outwards.
I have already offered several articles about it.
You are willing to lie in the name of the BBT.
Shame on you!
Do you accept that the observational evidence for your idea is just as much "missing" as it is for the conventional viewpoint?All the observations and evidences of our universe are there in front of our eyes and they fully contradicts the BBT.
So, you don't have to deal with my personal idea, you have to deal with those real observations.
As long as you ignore them all and just wait to see that maybe in the future you would find something to support your imagination, then you can't represent the science any more.
You have to explain what we see TODAY
Is it clear to you?
From now on -
If you think that matter must fall into the accretion disc - then please show the observations to support this imagination.
TODAY not tomorrow.
As long as you can't find any falling star or any spiraling inwards matter, your lovely BBT is just imagination and you have no justification to support it any more!
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/04/2021 08:40:13
1. Do you confirm that in the accretion disc of elliptical galaxy Messier 87 there is no signs of matter that spirals inwards?Do you understand that there is no evidence that it spirals outwards?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/04/2021 04:50:32
I would like to remind you that we focus in this tread on the BBT.1. Do you confirm that in the accretion disc of elliptical galaxy Messier 87 there is no signs of matter that spirals inwards?Do you understand that there is no evidence that it spirals outwards?
Based on the BBT our scientists tell us that the hot plasma in that accretion disc around the SMBH is there due to falling stars from outside the disc. They also tell us that the falling matter creates a spiral inwards shape. They have even set an image for that falling matter that is spiraling inwards.
Few years ago I was positively sure that our scientists clearly see this activity
However, now it is clear to all of us that our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any falling star or any sort of matter that is spiraling inwards, not from outside into the accretion disc and not from the disc into the SMBH.
Therefore, this assumption of falling matter has no real evidence or observation. Hence this falling matter assumption is a simple lie.
However, in order to backup this lie, our scientists tell us that they are sure that one day in the future, they hope to see the that falling matter. They say that we just didn't wait long enough to see this activity.
Sorry - our scientists must explain how the Universe works based on all the CURRENT observations & evidences. They shouldn't use any sort of hope or lie as an observation.
Therefore, as they have never seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc, it is a lie to call the ultra hot plasma that orbits the SMBH at almost 0.3c as "accretion disc".
Let's make it clear:
Our scientists have never even seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc.
Therefore, that assumption of accreted matter is lie.
Hence, the BBT is based on lie.
How any person in our universe can support the BBT under this key lie?
Please note that most of what Dave has said makes no sense. It doesn't show problems with teh BBT, it shows problems with his understanding of physics.Sorry, the BBT is based on lie.
There is no real physics in that BBT.
I have offered many contradictions in the BBT.
Just two examples:.
1. Our scientists clearly understand today that the Universe is very big. Some of them claim that it might be Multiverse or even infinite.
If so, how can we accept the idea that a Multiverse or infinite universe can be created in just 13.8 BY from a proton size universe?
2. Actually the creation of matter is just a very minor problem comparing to the creation of space and time.
Our scientists try to explain how matter had been delivered to our universe from nothing but they didn't offer any explanation how the space and time could be created.
Can you please show the physics/math that could support the creation of space and time out of nothing?
If before the BBT there was no space and no time in the Universe then how space and time could be created by the Big Bang or any other sort of bang?
Sorry – the BBT is a useless theory, it is based on lie and it’s the time to set it once and for all at the garbage.
Unless, you wish to continue with that BBT lie.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2021 11:00:41
There is no real physics in that BBT.Says the man who thinks things fall up.
Our scientists have never even seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc.True (at least for the time being)
Therefore, that assumption of accreted matter is lie.No. The assumption that things fall down is not a lie; it is common sense.
Hence, the BBT is based on lie.The BBT is not based on anything to do with black holes anyway, so your claim makes no sense.
How any person in our universe can support the BBT under this key lie?Well, that"lie" doesn't exist, so all the scientists can, and do, support the BBT with no problems.
If so, how can we accept the idea that a Multiverse or infinite universe can be created in just 13.8 BY from a proton size universe?We can.
And, because we are scientists, we must- because that's what the evidence says.
Actually the creation of matter is just a very minor problem comparing to the creation of space and time.Actually, it's not.
The creation of mass/energy is mathematically impossible, but the creation of space is permitted.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2021 11:04:01
Based on the BBT our scientists tell us that the hot plasma in that accretion disc around the SMBH is there due to falling stars from outside the disc.The accretion disks are nothing to do with the BBT.
I would like to remind you that we focus in this tread on the BBT.So stop going on about things falling up out of accretion disks, because that's nothing to do with the BBT. It has something to do with your idea which was proved wrong before the start of last century.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers%27_paradox
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2021 11:06:17
our scientists must explain how the Universe works based on all the CURRENT observations & evidences.So, we should never do another experiment; we should stop with what we currently know.
Is that what you really mean?
The so-called "Big Bang Theory" has inherent inconsistencies, and contradictions. Many of which have been pointed out in the preceding posts.Are you starting to see that Dave hasn't even got a grasp of logic, never mid the actual science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/04/2021 16:07:38
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:50:32True (at least for the time being)
Our scientists have never even seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc.
At least we all agree that our scientists had never even seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc.
Common sense of whom?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:50:32No. The assumption that things fall down is not a lie; it is common sense.
Therefore, that assumption of accreted matter is lie.
As you confirm that our scientists had never observed any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc, then based on what common sense you can claim that matter must fall in.
In the following article about Messier_87 accretion ring it is stated that we have the technology to see a credit card on the surface of the Moon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg
"This ring is only about 40 microarcseconds across — equivalent to measuring the length of a credit card on the surface of the Moon."
Hence, with all of that advanced technology and while there are Billions of SMBH accretion discs all around us, how could it be that we have never ever seen any falling star?
The common sence should tell us that as we don't see any falling stars while there are billions of accretion discs in the Universe and all of them are fully loaded with hot plasma then their matter must come from inside.
It is very clear to any person with basic common sense that if the matter at the accretion disc was based on falling stars and while we never see any falling star then by definition some of the accretion disc have to lose all their matter
However, this is not the case. So as all of the accretion discs in the Universe are full with matter then the common sense tells us that their matter is not coming from falling stars.
We actually get a confirmation for the activity at the accretion disc from Hawking radiation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Hawking radiation is black-body radiation that is predicted to be released by black holes, due to quantum effects near the black hole event horizon. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who provided a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974.[1]"
"A pair of virtual waves/particles arises just outside the event horizon due to ordinary quantum effects. Very close to the event horizon, these always manifest as a pair of photons. It may happen that one of these photons passes beyond the event horizon, while the other escapes into the wider universe ("to infinity").[2] A close analysis shows that the exponential red-shifting effect of extreme gravity very close to the event horizon almost tears the escaping photon apart, and in addition very slightly amplifies it.[2] The amplification gives rise to a "partner wave", which carries negative energy and passes through the event horizon, where it remains trapped, reducing the total energy of the black hole.[2] The escaping photon adds an equal amount of positive energy to the wider universe outside the black hole"
So, we have a clear indication that particle pair could be created near the event horizon of a Black hole and while one particle/photon falls into the BH, the other one is ejected outwards.
It is specifically stated: "The escaping photon adds an equal amount of positive energy to the wider universe outside the black hole"
So, the SMBH has the capability to generate new particle pair. While one is falling into the SMBH, the other one is ejected outwards from its event horizon..
Please be aware that the innermost of the accretion disc is quite close to the event horizon.
So, the common sense must tell us that the accretion disc gets all its photons and particles from that Hawking pair activity.
Therefore, we also clearly see that the matter/plasma at the accretion disc is so hot and orbits at almost the speed of light as the virtual pair must also orbits at the speed of light before it can be transformed into real particle pair.
So, based on Hawking radiation explanation and a basic common sense we must understand that all the matter at the accretion disc comes from inside due to that hawking pair creation.
This Hawking activity clearly explain all the features of the accretion disc:
1. Ultra high orbital velocity - That velocity is almost at the speed of light which is due to the orbital velocity of the virtual pair.
2. Ultra hot temp - The pair creation process must come also with ultra high temp. therfore we call it hot plasma.
3. Falling matter - We can agree that matter can fall inwards directly into the SMBH. But there is no common sense to assume that matter falls into the accretion disc just to gain that ultra high orbital velocity and temp. There is no common sense in that activity. How could it be that the SMBH with all of its ultra gravity force let his food just to orbit near his mouth at almost the speed of light just to be ejected later on to the open space? If S2 star (for example) was really the food of our SMBH milky way, it would swallow it in less the less then a second and not brake it to its particles just to see as it orbits near his moth. That is a fantasy.
4. Rin - The most inwards ring of the accretion disc is almost at the same radius of the event horizon. That is evidence that due to the Hawking radiation one particle (out of the virtual pair) is ejected from the event horizon directly into the innermost ring. That proves that Hawking radiation process can create the matter that we see in the accretion disc.
5. Rout - Rout is just 3 times the size of Rin. After that we only may see some hot gas that had been ejected from the accretion disc.
6. Spiraling inwards - as we do not observe any sort of spiraling inwards - not from outside into the accretion disc and not from the accretion disc into the SMBH it proves that matter doesn't come from outside. If matter was coming from outside then we had to see a spiraling shape from the radius of S2 high above the accretion disc and all the way to Rout.
We don't see it at any accretion disc in the universe. Therefore, even if we don't see any falling star in real action, it also proves that nothing from the past is in falling spiral path into the accretion disc. Hence, Nothing - Just nothing from outside can fall into the accretion disc and increase its orbital velocity and temp to that level of the plasma that exist in that disc.
7. Twin molecular jet stream - Our scientists tell us that the matter at that jet stream is coming from the accertion disc. So, the particles that had been ejected from the accretion disc are trapped by the Ultra magnetic force of the SMBH and boosted at almost 0.8c high above/below its magnetic poles. Again, there is no common sense for the SMBH to "eat" a star into its accretion disc and then boost most of that broken star' particles above and below its poles.
8. Most of the new form stars activity takes place near the SMBH. Based on what common sense we assume that the SMBH eats those new created stars just to break them to their basic particles, orbit those broken particles at 0.3c and then boost them at 0.8c just to start the whole process of new stars activity.
Conclusion -
Our scientists have never even seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc as all the matter there is created by the SMBH.
This is real.
This is based Hawking radiation activity, real observation, real evidence and real common sense.
So, how can you claim that while we don't see any falling matter, the matter must come from outside?
Yes it does.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:50:32The accretion disks are nothing to do with the BBT.
Based on the BBT our scientists tell us that the hot plasma in that accretion disc around the SMBH is there due to falling stars from outside the disc.
The accretion disc is a vital evidence that new matter is created in our Universe in order to keep it steady as Einstein had clearly explained.
NoEinstein had clearly stated that new particles are created constantly in our Universe in order to keep it steady.No.
So, you have to argue with Einstein about it.
Einstein knew that was wrong.
He called it his greatest blunder
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/10/29/this-is-why-einsteins-greatest-blunder-really-was-a-tremendous-mistake/
You are insulting his memory by not accepting that he had the strength to realise he had made a mistake, and admit it.
You don't understand the attached article or you just don't wish to understand.
Einstein had stated that his idea of the cosmological constant was his greatest blunder
However, later on he had used that cosmological constant for new matter creation (new particles of matter must be continually formed in the volume from space) to keep the overall density of matter constant as needed for a steady universe:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
And so Einstein proposed a revision of his model, still with a cosmological constant, but now the constant was responsible for the creation of new matter as the universe expanded (because Einstein believed that in an expanding universe, the overall density of matter had to still stay constant):
“In what follows, I would like to draw attention to a solution to equation (1) that can account for Hubbel’s facts, and in which the density is constant over time.” And: “If one considers a physically bounded volume, particles of matter will be continually leaving it. For the density to remain constant, new particles of matter must be continually formed in the volume from space.”
Einstein achieves this property by the use of his old cosmological constant, λ:
“The conservation law is preserved in that by setting the λ-term, space itself is not empty of energy; as is well-known its validity is guaranteed by equations (1).” (Quoted in O’Raifeartaigh, et al., 2014, p. 7.)
So Einstein keeps on using his discarded lambda — despite the fact that he invented it for a non-expanding universe. If the universe expands as Hubble showed, Einstein seems to be saying, then I still need my lambda — now to keep the universe from becoming less dense as it expands in volume
Therefore, Einstein had never ever accepted the BBT theory and he also never ejected his theory for a steady Universe
Hence, you are the one that is insulting his memory and the real history.
Einstein had clearly stated that new particles of matter must be continually formed in the volume from space I have confirmed that the accretion disc does not get its matter from outside. Therefore the accretion disc must get its matter from inside. In other words - all the matter there must be formed by the SMBH Ultra high EM + Gravity force.
In any case, even if you reject hawking radiation as a source for pair creation it isn't my job to explain how the SMBH form or deliver new particles into the accretion disc.
I only highlight the real evidence from Einstein that new particles must be created in our Universe, the real observation that all the particles in the accretion disc doesn't come from outside as falling stars and the hawking radiation that proves the idea of pair creation b the SMBH.
Based on those real facts/evidences/observations it is your mission to explain how the SMBH really works and how it eject new particles to its accretion disc
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:50:32Yes it does.
Based on the BBT our scientists tell us that the hot plasma in that accretion disc around the SMBH is there due to falling stars from outside the disc.
The accretion disks are nothing to do with the BBT.
The accretion disc is a vital evidence that new matter is created in our Universe in order to keep it steady as Einstein had clearly explained.
Yes, the BBT is based on lie.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:50:32The BBT is not based on anything to do with black holes anyway, so your claim makes no sense.
Hence, the BBT is based on lie.
As the matter in the accretion disc comes from inside (by new pair creation of the SMBH) it fully contradicts the BBT that new matter can't be created in our universe in order to keep it steady as Einstein had stated.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2021 16:47:42
Common sense of whom?Anyone older than about 3.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2021 16:49:33
I would like to remind you that we focus in this tread on the BBT.Fine.
Stop banging on about your idea where things fall up.
And, when you do that , you will realise that black holes have nothing to do with it.
The black holes and accretion disks might have something to do with your fantasy, but they have nothing to do with the BBT.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/04/2021 19:11:58
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.Common sense of whom?Anyone older than about 3.
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2021 19:55:47
Based on that simple common sense our scientists must explain the real source of the matter in those SMBH accretion discs.It fell in.
And I remind you that you have no evidence that says otherwise.
Hawking told us about the pair creation & radiation around the BH event horizon.And it has nothing to do with the BBT which is why the BBT was decades earlier.
The only "link" between the BBT and BH is your bizarre idea that the universe is continuously falling out of a black hole.
But that's plainly impossible- where did the BH come from?
I hope that even you confirm his explanation that SMBH can generate new pair particles near its event horizon.Yes.
Those new created particles can keep the universe steady as Einstein clearly told us.No
Partly because Einstein said that was a mistake.
But mainly because, as the BH generates particles, the BH itself loses mass.
After it has emitted it's own mass in particles, it will cease to exist.
That will take a long while, but it isn't "forever".
So it can not be responsible for a steady state universe.
Post by: charles1948 on 16/04/2021 20:14:36
Rival theories such as BBT are unsatisfactory, Because they posit that the Universe began at a specific moment in time.
Which invites the obvious question - what was happening before that time? To which there's no answer.
Other than a claim, than even before the Universe came into physical existence. the "Laws" of Quantum Mechanics already existed.
Doesn't that give rise to the question: then where did the "Laws" come from?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2021 20:48:36
Steady State Theory offers the only plausible explanation for the UniverseIt isn't plausible, because it is impossible.
It would be a breach of the conservation of energy.
It also runs into this problem.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
So the "steady state" is one option we can absolutely rule out.
Because they posit that the Universe began at a specific moment in time.We know when that happened.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/04/2021 21:06:27
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:11:58Yes.
I hope that even you confirm his explanation that SMBH can generate new pair particles near its event horizon.
So you have to agree that SMBH can generate the matter/particles to its accretion disc.
Therefore, there is no need for any falling star.
But that's plainly impossible- where did the BH come from?They all come from the SMBH. We have clear evidence for that:
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2165505-the-centre-of-our-galaxy-may-be-swarming-with-10000-black-holes/
As many as 10,000 new black holes have been discovered buzzing around in the centre of the Milky Way galaxy.
If those 10,000 BH were the food of the SMBH, it would eat them all long ago.
As they all bussing around the Milky Way SMBH it proves that all of them had been created by the SMBH itself.
Partly because Einstein said that was a mistake.No
Einstein had just said the cosmological constant idea was his biggest mistake.
Till his last day he believed in a steady Universe.
You can't just change the history.
as the BH generates particles, the BH itself loses mass.Well this is the only issue that Hawking missed.
There are no negative mass in our universe and therefore the pair particles that the SMBH generates have both positive mass but negative charged.
Therefore, as one is ejected outwards into the accretion disc, the other one falls in and increase the total mass of the SMBH.
Each one of those 10,000 BH that are buzzing around in the centre of the Milky Way galaxy has the ability to generate pair particles.
Sooner or later each one of them might become bigger and might carry its own galaxy.
Each BH at the center of each dwarf galaxy that we see around the Milky Way had been created by the SMBH Milky Way.
There is no need for the SMBH Milky way to eat any sort of matter from outside. It can generate its own food.
As it eats one particle from the pair, the other one is ejected outwards.
We can claim that all the matter that we see in our universe is actually a byproduct of that pair process.
All the stars in the Milky Way had been created by the SMBH Milky Way. Nothing comes from outside.
So, the Milky Way is the real mother of all the stars, Planets, moons, BH in the galaxy.
Anyone older than 3 would tell you that Mothers do not eat their child.
Therefore, the SMBH would NEVER EVER eat even one atom from outside.
If we could verify the stars DNA in the Milky Way, we should find that all the 400 Billions stars in our galaxy are our sun blood brothers.
Steady State Theory offers the only plausible explanation for the Universe - which is, that it has always existed.Thanks
I fully agree
Which invites the obvious question - what was happening before that time?Well, in order to set our wonderful infinite universe full with matter and steady, all is needed a single BH.
We can compare the creation of matter in our universe to Darwin theory.
Darwin had stated that all the versatility of life had been evolved from just one cell of life (as ameba). In the same token, all the versatility of galaxies had been evolved from just single BH.
There is good chance that this first BH had been created by some sort of Bang (Big Bang or small bang).
However, once it had been created, it can become the mother of all the matter in the entire infinite Universe.
Post by: charles1948 on 16/04/2021 21:30:17
But actually I don't think it's a real paradox. It arises from the relative insensitivity of the human eye when viewing objects at night. In the dark of the night, our eyes can't see very well.
But the eyes of other creatures can see better in the dark. For example, owls.
When owls look up at the night-time sky, don't they see a sky ablaze with the light of stars?
Of course, ordinary owls spend their all their time looking downwards, at the ground, to find voles to eat.
But what if a mutant owl evolved to keep looking upwards?
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/04/2021 22:49:22
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2021 23:17:26
Thanks BC, I've looked at the link you kindly provided, about "Olber's Paradox". Which I knew about already.So, you read it, but you didn't understand it.
But actually I don't think it's a real paradox. It arises from the relative insensitivity of the human eye when viewing objects at night. In the dark of the night, our eyes can't see very well.
It has nothing to do with eyesight.
The paradox is that it should be as bright during the night as it is during the day,
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2021 23:20:05
So you have to agree that SMBH can generate the matter/particles to its accretion disc.No. i don't have to agree with that, because it is silly.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2021 23:20:43
There are no negative mass in our universeThen there is no particulate Hawking radiation.
You can't have one without the other.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2021 23:23:54
They all come from the SMBH. We have clear evidence for that:So, your stupid answer to the question "where did the black hole come from?" is that it came from the black hole.
Did you stop to think about that before you posted it?
Therefore, as one is ejected outwards into the accretion disc, the other one falls in and increase the total mass of the SMBH.Obviously false, because it is inconsistent with the conservation laws.
Why do you keep saying it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/04/2021 23:26:37
Well, in order to set our wonderful infinite universe full with matter and steady, all is needed a single BH.No, we also need the laws of physics to not work.
You keep lying about that problem.
Why?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/04/2021 04:47:02
The creation of new particles pair doesn't contradict the conservation laws due to tidal activity.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:06:27Obviously false, because it is inconsistent with the conservation laws.
Therefore, as one is ejected outwards into the accretion disc, the other one falls in and increase the total mass of the SMBH.
Each pair gets its energy from the Ultra high SMBH EM energy and gravity. That should reduce the total EM of the SMBH. However the tidal activity compensates that EM lose of energy.
So let's verify how it works.
Please look at the following Image of Low and high lunar tides diagram:
https://www.dreamstime.com/low-high-lunar-tides-diagram-effect-moon-gravitational-force-seacoast-water-level-astronomy-geography-science-kids-image126122013
Now instead of the Earth let's set the SMBH and instead on one single moon let's set millions of stars.
Each star sets some minor internal friction in the SMBH. Please remember that each star is moving at different orbital cycle. Therefore when we combine the total impact of all of those million stars we should find that their tidal impact should keep the SMBH internal heat and its EM force even as it loose some energy due to that pair creation process.
Actually, as more particles falls into the SMBH it increases its mass and its gravity force. On the other hand as more particles are ejected outwards there are more stars around it. That process increases the tidal forces on the SMBH which increase its internal heat and its EM force.
Therefore, over time the SMBH increases its mass, its EM force and its gravity force, all of that due to tidal force.
Hence, the SMBH can generate new pair particles without violating the conservation laws.
Based on this activity, some galaxies are very productive:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baby_Boom_Galaxy
"The Baby Boom Galaxy has been nicknamed "the extreme stellar machine" because it is seen producing stars at a rate of up to 4,000 per year (one star every 2.2 hours). The Milky Way galaxy in which Earth resides turns out an average of just 10 stars per year.[4]"
So, this galaxy produces 4000 stars per year while the Milky Way produces about 10 stars per year.
This is evidence!
If your imagination/hope of falling stars into the accretion disc was correct, then how those galaxies could produce so many new stars while the SMBH should eat any nearby star?
Where the energy/mass for those new stars comes from?
How many billions years is needed for you and for all the BBT believers to understand that NOTHING falls into the SMBH accretion disc? Not even a single atom!
That observation fully supports Einstein theory for new mass creation in order to keep our Universe steady.
However, It is clear that you don't confuse yourself with real observations and evidences.
You and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists keep on with that useless imagination and ignore any evidence/observation that contradicts the BBT.
Sorry, there is no science in the BBT and anyone that supports the BBT can't even call himself as scientist!
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2021 12:30:09
The creation of new particles pair doesn't contradict the conservation laws due to tidal activity.It does.
Making more stuff is a contradiction of the law of conservation of mass.
Nothing you can say will stop that being true, so it's silly that you keep insisting on it.
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/04/2021 12:59:36
There are no negative mass in our universeThen there is no particulate Hawking radiation.
You can't have one without the other.
That's a very interesting point BC.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2021 13:34:02
And it demolishes Dave's idea.There are no negative mass in our universeThen there is no particulate Hawking radiation.
You can't have one without the other.
That's a very interesting point BC.
But he will ignore that and continue to claim that creating mass from nowhere is consistent with the conservation of mass a.d that things fall up.
He just doesn't science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/04/2021 14:46:03
It is very clear that you and all the BBT believers are not going to confuse yourself with the evidences / observations of our Universe.The creation of new particles pair doesn't contradict the conservation laws due to tidal activity.It does.
Making more stuff is a contradiction of the law of conservation of mass.
Nothing you can say will stop that being true, so it's silly that you keep insisting on it.
You all clearly see that he Milky Way creates every year 10 new stars and that Baby Boom Galaxy creates 4,000 new stars every year.
But who cares?
In your imagination the Universe must obey to your physics laws.
If you see a contradiction between the observation to your laws, then those laws must win.
Based on the conservation of mass law galaxies can't generate new mass.
So, even if you clearly see that it generates new mass/stars you all confirm that it shouldn't do so.
Hence, you really don't care about that clear observation of a galaxy that creates 4000 new stars per year.
You also don't care that you have never ever seen any falling star into any accretion disc in the entire Universe while all of those discs are fully loaded with hot plasma.
You only care about your physics laws.
It is forbidden for the Universe to work differently from those laws
I wonder what should be the correct punishment for those galaxies that does not obey to your laws?
Are you going to set them in jail for the rest of their life or just eliminate them from our observations?
If we would ask a child older than 3 what is the source of mass for a galaxy that creates 4000 stars per year while its accretion disc is full with matter and not even a single star falls into that disc (at least in the last 50 years or more), what do you expect to get as an answer:
1. Based on our law of physics, galaxies shouldn't generate new mass and therefore, please kill all the galaxies that do not obey to our laws
2. Those galaxy generate new matter to cover all the mass that is needed for the new created stars and therefore, we have an error in your law of physics.
So please as we see a severe contradiction between the observations to our physics laws - what is more important for you?
The observation/ evidence of our universe or your physics laws?
Sorry - if you were real scientists you had to ignore all your physics laws and focus only on real observations and evidences.
We are so lucky that you and all the other BBT scientists do not charge on electronic engineering & new technologies as based on this approach we would be stuck at the technology of 1915.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2021 14:51:11
You all clearly see that he Milky Way creates every year 10 new stars and that Baby Boom Galaxy creates 4,000 new stars every year.Nobody, because they understand that the new stars are made from hydrogen that is already there (being drawn in by gravity).
But who cares?
However, your claim is that mass spontaneously pops into existence near black holes and that's an obvious breech of the conservation of mass.
Making more stuff is a contradiction of the law of conservation of mass.
Nothing you can say will stop that being true, so it's silly that you keep insisting on it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/04/2021 17:18:42
Do you have any evidence that could support this understanding that hydrogen is already there as it is drawn by gravity?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:46:03Nobody, because they understand that the new stars are made from hydrogen that is already there (being drawn in by gravity).
You all clearly see that he Milky Way creates every year 10 new stars and that Baby Boom Galaxy creates 4,000 new stars every year.
But who cares?
If so, would you kindly introduce it?
I actually found evidence/observation that contradicts this assumption:
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-swarm-hydrogen-clouds-center-galaxy.html
"A team of astronomers has discovered what appears to be a grand exodus of more than 100 hydrogen clouds streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space."
In our real universe Hydrogen clouds streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space.
Please be aware that this baby boom galaxy creates 4000 stars per year and 4,000,000 stars per 1000 years.
Please show us why do you claim that all of that mass drawn in by gravity while we clearly see that the hydrogen clouds are streaming away from the galaxy.
So, based on what kind of observation do you claim that hydrogen is moving inwards?
If you don't have any support to this imagination, then your assumptions are wrong and this message would be considered as a lie.
You set the physics law high above the observation and evidence.
You have one mission in your life - to protect the BBT from any sort of evidence and observation.
You are ready to offer lies just to bypass the contradiction.
I offer real observations to protect my understanding, while you offer unproved ideas and nonsense
Therefore, you and all the other BBT scientists don't have a basic clue how our universe really works and you even don't wish to understand how it works.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2021 18:15:09
Why did you ask me to prove that the hydrogen is there when you already knew it?
You set the physics law high above the observation and evidence.You have offered no evidence.
You just keep claiming that things fall up.
There is ample evidence that you are wrong about that.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/04/2021 20:14:19
If the hydrogen can go away in a jet, then the hydrogen is there.Wow
Why did you ask me to prove that the hydrogen is there when you already knew it?
Why is it so difficult with you?
1. You have stated that due to gravity Hydrogen must move inwards due to gravity but based on real observation the Hydrogen clouds are moving outwards AGIENST the gravity. Actually, our scientists even claim that they are not just moving outwards but they are streaming away from galaxy and heading into intergalactic space.
You should apologize for this lie!
2. You also have stated that stars must fall into the accretion disc - But we have NEVER EVER seen any falling star in any SMBH accretion disc even as there are billions of discs and all of them are fully loaded with hot plasma at any given moment.
3. So, how come that this baby boom galaxy generates about 4000 stars per year (or 4M stars per 1000 years) while its disc is full with hot plasma, not even a single star falls in and any available hydrogen cloud is streaming outwards from the galaxy?
You just keep claiming that things fall up.Why do you keep on with this nonsense while we clearly see that no star /matter is falling in and hydrogen clouds are actually ejected outwards?
Is there any possibility for you to accept the real observations and evidences?
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that those observations clearly indicates that new hydrogen MUST be created by the galaxy?
From now on - If you still insist that new stars could be created without new mass creation by the galaxy then it is your obligation to prove your imagination by real observation.
If you can't do so, I'm not going to accept any more lies/imaginations from you.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/04/2021 20:39:20
Why is it so difficult with you?Because I'm right, and you know it.
That's why you post nonsense.
Why do you keep on with this nonsense while we clearly see that no star /matter is falling inWe can't see anything "clearly" at that distance.
it is your obligation to prove your imagination by real observation.No.
You are the on proposing some new ideas; it's your job to provide the evidence.
Is there any possibility for you to accept the real observations and evidences?You have not provided any evidence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/04/2021 20:40:25
You are absolutely wrong and you know that.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:14:19Because I'm right, and you know it.
Why is it so difficult with you?
Why do you keep on with those lies?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:14:19We can't see anything "clearly" at that distance.
Why do you keep on with this nonsense while we clearly see that no star /matter is falling in
Our scientists have supper advanced technology and they observe the Hydrogen gas clouds as they are streaming away from galaxy and heading into intergalactic space. So, how can you claim that "We can't see anything "clearly" or assume that the Hydrogen drawn in by gravity?
because they understand that the new stars are made from hydrogen that is already there (being drawn in by gravity).Why do you insist to confuse us with wrong data?
Actually as expected you don't let the observation/evidence to confuse you.
You want to force Hydrogen from outside the Galaxy to move inwards however in our real universe our scientists OBSERVE that the Hydrogen clouds are moving outwards.
In order to bypass the contradiction between real observations to your imagination you suddenly claim that: "We can't see anything "clearly" at that distance".
Sorry – We do see and therefore this message is lie.
We clearly see the hydrogen clouds and we do observe their outwards direction.
Hence, you have the following possibilities:
1. if you didn't know that the Hydrogen clouds are streaming outwards from the galaxy, then it is not too late for you to understand that the matter/Hydrogen for the new created stars can't come from outside the galaxy.
2. If you already knew that the hydrogen clouds are moving outwards but you just wish to confuse us with wrong data, then you have to apologies for your lies.
In any case, you have failed to prove your "understanding" that matter/Hydrogen from outside the galaxy is using for the new created stars.
Hence, if the hydrogen isn't coming from outside - then it must come from Inside.
Therefore, in order to explain the creation of new stars in the galaxy - New matter/hydrogen clouds MUST be created at the SMBH accretion disc. Some might be ejected outwards from the galaxy while others would be used to form new stars.
your claim is that mass spontaneously pops into existence near black holes and that's an obvious breech of the conservation of mass.You must have a fatal misunderstanding.
As the Observations clearly tell us that new matter must be created at the galaxy, then you can't prevent it by any law even if you call it "the conservation of mass".
The Observations and evidences are much more important than any physics law.
As there is a clear contradiction - it's time for you and for all other BBT believers to fit our laws to the observation and not vice versa.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/04/2021 20:55:39
So, how can you claim that "We can't see anything "clearly" or assume that the Hydrogen drawn in by gravity?Show me the clear pictures of accretion disks round blackholes or accept that we can't see them clearly.
If you don't think that gravity acts on hydrogen, what is keeping the Sun from exploding?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/04/2021 18:51:16
Is it real?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:40:25Show me the clear pictures of accretion disks round black holes or accept that we can't see them clearly.
So, how can you claim that "We can't see anything "clearly" or assume that the Hydrogen drawn in by gravity?
You don't have to argue with me about that picture, it's better for you to argue with our scientists.
They claim that they cleary observe that 100 Hydrogen clouds are streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space:
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-swarm-hydrogen-clouds-center-galaxy.htmlDo you think that they are liers?
"A team of astronomers has discovered what appears to be a grand exodus of more than 100 hydrogen clouds streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space."
In our real universe Hydrogen clouds streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space.
Do you assume that if the picture/observation of the galaxy was no clear enough, they would tell us that kind of message? How could they count 100 Hydrogen clouds if they didn't really see them all?
Sorry - if they claim that they see/observe that those 100 Hydrogen clouds are streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space then this message is real by 100%.
In the same token they also told us about their observation of the Molecular jet stream that is boosted outwards at almost 0.8c
Hence, our scientists tell us that they clearly observe matter/molecular/100 hydrogen clouds as they are moving outwards.
Do you accept all of those observations?
If you confirm that they see that matter is moving outwards from the galaxy, then how can you claim that the same matter should move inwards to the center of the galaxy or to the accretion disc or even to the SMBH?
You personally confirmed that we have never ever seen any falling star into the accretion disc.
So, if our scientists only observe outflow of matter from the galaxy, then how can you explain the creation of 10 stars per year in the Milky way or 4000 stars in the Baby boom galaxy?
Don't you see that you have already lost the game?
Don't you understand that galaxies MUST create new matter in order to support all the creations of new stars and all the outflows matter from the galaxy?
Actually, I already know your answer.
It is No No No.
You would never let the evidence/observation to confuse you.
So, you are more than welcome to keep on with your imaginations.
However, I would like to get the feedback from other friends as Kryptid, Halc and other about this key issue.
Do you agree or disagree that based on our scientists' observation and all the outflows of matter from the galaxy, there is no way for the galaxy to create new stars without the ability to generate new matter by itself?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/04/2021 19:00:42
Is it real?You have moved the goal posts.
You don't have to argue with me about that picture, it's better for you to argue with our scientists.
They claim that they cleary observe that Hydrogen clouds are streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space:
There is plenty of hydrogen in the universe so it isn't a problem that some, near the BH is falling in, but other hydrogen far away is expanding out.
But there really is no clear picture of the accretion disk.
So we are left with extrapolation.
In every case which we have observed, unless there's some other effect happening, things fall down.
It is reasonable to amuse this happens near black holes, because there si no reason to expect it not to.
.
Do you think that they are liers?No
I think they are talking about something else.
They are talking about hydrogen that is relatively far from the BH, but the stuff falling into the BH is stuff that is near the BH.
They understand that "far way" is not the same as "near to"; do you?
Post by: Origin on 19/04/2021 19:25:02
Hence, our scientists tell us that they clearly observe matter/molecular/100 hydrogen clouds as they are moving outwards.Those scientist also support the bbt, so you don't think they're believable, right? What you are doing is known as a bad faith argument. You accept anything that even vaguely supports your position and you reject everything that doesn't.
Do you accept all of those observations?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/04/2021 10:44:30
There is plenty of hydrogen in the universe so it isn't a problem that some, near the BH is falling in, but other hydrogen far away is expanding out.Dear BC
You try to offer an explanation for the clear evidence/observation that so far our scientists have only observed matter/molecular/gas clouds as they are moving away from the galaxy, away from the center of the galaxy, away from the accretion disc.
You have already confirmed that observations/evidences.
So, I really appreciate that at least we all agree on those observations and evidences.
Now, let's discuss on explanations, ideas, theories for that observations:
1. You claim: "There is plenty of hydrogen in the universe so it isn't a problem that some, near the BH is falling in, but other hydrogen far away is expanding out -
My answers are as follow:
A. Our scientists clearly see in the Milky Way that 100 gas clouds are streaming away from the Milky Way galaxy. They also clearly see the molecular jet stream as it is moving away from the galaxy at 0.8c. So, if some other gas clouds near the BH or the accretion disc are falling in, then we had to see them. The chance that we see all of those 100 Gas clouds as they all streaming away and just one is falling in is zero. Please be aware that any falling in must come with Fireworks. so even if we assume that one hydrogen gas cloud was really falling inwards then we had to see its fireworks at that falling in activity. Hence, there is no way for us to miss even a small gas cloud as it falls into the accretion disc.
B. I also hope that you agree that there is no way for those 100 gas clouds to be ejected while at the same time and in the same path/distance other gas clouds would fall in.
That by itself kill the assumption that gas clouds from outside could fall into the galaxy. Therefore, we can only discuss about the gas cloud that are currently located in the galaxy. So how many of gas clouds are there by now?
C.
But there really is no clear picture of the accretion disk.Even if you claim that it is difficult to observe our own galaxy, then there are other Billions galaxy and we clearly see their accretion discs. Therefore, the chance to miss a falling gas cloud from all of those opportunities is virtually Zero.
D. You actually offered a clear photo of M87. We don't see there any sort of falling in or even a spiral inwards shape. Not from outside to the accretion disc and not from the accretion disc into the SMBH. That proves that at least for the last several Millions/billions years nothing really fall into that accretion disc.
E.
So we are left with extrapolation.Ok let's set the extrapolation:
The age of our galaxy is estimated to be more than 12 B years. So, if during all of that long time our galaxy was ejecting so many gas clouds outwards, how could it be that after so long time the center of the milky way is still full with hydrogen gas ?
Don't forget that the gas clouds are used also to create new stars. As the Milky Way generates 10 stars per year than in the last 12 Billion years it should generate 120 Billion stars. So how come that while so many gas clouds are streaming outwards, the galaxy could generate 120 Billion stars, "eat" some of the gas clouds and still be full with Hydrogen gas clouds?
Sorry, based on the extrapolation there is no way to keep so much gas clouds at the center of the galaxy after 12 BY. That extrapolation tells us that the only way for the galaxy to keep on with all of that activity of using so much Hydrogen gas and still streaming toady 100 Gas cloud from the galaxy is by creating constantly new hydrogen at the galaxy.
Please be aware that the accretion discs of all the Billions galaxies around us is still full with plasma. They all generate new stars while they all eject gas clouds. The Baby Boom galaxy generates 4000 stars per year. so in 10 Billion years it should generate 4,000,000,000,000 stars. There is no way for this galaxy to get all the requested hydrogen for this activity from outside, ejects hydrogen clouds and still be so productive after so long time.
You all have a severe mistake.
The galaxies MUST generate their own Hydrogen clouds in order to keep with their activity to eject gas clouds, creates new stars and increase the mass of the SMBH over time.
Those scientist also support the bbt, so you don't think they're believable, right? What you are doing is known as a bad faith argument. You accept anything that even vaguely supports your position and you reject everything that doesn't.
You miss the key point in my explanation.
I do understand that those scientists fully support the BBT (I assume that without supporting the BBT, no one can be considered as a scientist)
Therefore, I try to distinguish between observation and ideas.
So, when they claim that they observe the 100 gas clouds streaming outwards from the galaxy – than this data is correct.
However, when they tell us that although they have never ever observed any falling gas cloud into the galaxy on into the accretion disc and in the same token they assume / believe that matter must fall in based on their common sense, then I have no intention to accept this kind of stories/imagination/hope
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/04/2021 11:49:41
The chance that we see all of those 100 Gas clouds as they all streaming away and just one is falling in is zeroThe stuff falling in is near the BH and the stuff not falling in is far.
The volume that is "near" is much smaller than the volume that is "far".
It is much easier to see big things than small things.
So the likelihood of only seeing the big things, but not the small things, is not "zero"; it is obviously very likely indeed.
This is just common sense.
Why didn't you realise that?
Please be aware that any falling in must come with Fireworks.That's why we see accretion disks (albeit not very clearly).
Your own observation confirms the truth; stuff falls in.
Hence, there is no way for us to miss even a small gas cloud as it falls into the accretion disc.We don't see the gas until it's in the process of falling in, and is getting compressed and heating up (because it's cold). The hot gas, heated by the energy released by converting potential energy to kinetic (and then heat) is called the accretion disk, and we do see it.
I also hope that you agree that there is no way for those 100 gas clouds to be ejected while at the same time and in the same path/distance other gas clouds would fall in.No, I don't agree with things that are wrong.
There's an obvious way for it to happen, and I already explained that.
The problem is either that you do not read, or that you do not understand.
I can't really help with that.
You actually offered a clear photo of M87. We don't see there any sort of falling in or even a spiral inwards shape.Which shows that stuff isn't spiraling out, doesn't it?
Really, the picture isn't clear enough and you saying " a clear photo of M87" is just wrong.
Even if you claim that it is difficult to observe our own galaxy, then there are other Billions galaxyWhich are even further away than our own BH, so we see even less detail.
Do you really not understand that it is easier to see things if they are near, glowing, or big?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/04/2021 19:31:07
So far we clearly observe matter/100 gas clouds as they are ejected outwards from the center of the galaxy.
You have already confirmed that we have never ever observed any sort of matter that is falling in.
Not from outside into the accretion disc and not from the accretion disc into the SMBH.
However, now you suddenly claimQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 16/04/2021 04:50:32True (at least for the time being)
Our scientists have never even seen any falling stars or inwards spiraling shape into the accretion disc.
Sorry - how can you contradict yourself?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:44:30We don't see the gas until it's in the process of falling in, and is getting compressed and heating up (because it's cold). The hot gas, heated by the energy released by converting potential energy to kinetic (and then heat) is called the accretion disk, and we do see it.
Hence, there is no way for us to miss even a small gas cloud as it falls into the accretion disc.
The accretion disc can't be used as an indication for a falling matter.
We have already deeply discussed about the accretion disc and so there is no need to say it again.
This is not just a normal common sense. It is you BBT common sense which represents none-senseQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:44:30The stuff falling in is near the BH and the stuff not falling in is far.
The chance that we see all of those 100 Gas clouds as they all streaming away and just one is falling in is zero
The volume that is "near" is much smaller than the volume that is "far".
It is much easier to see big things than small things.
So the likelihood of only seeing the big things, but not the small things, is not "zero"; it is obviously very likely indeed.
This is just common sense.
Why didn't you realise that?
Based on this sense, there is no possibility for the galaxy to create any sort of new matter.
Therefore - even if we don't see any falling stars/matter you and all the other BBT scientists would continue to hope that something must fall it
Let's assume that those 100 gas clouds that are streaming outwards are currently located at radius R.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:44:30No, I don't agree with things that are wrong.
I also hope that you agree that there is no way for those 100 gas clouds to be ejected while at the same time and in the same path/distance other gas clouds would fall in.
There's an obvious way for it to happen, and I already explained that.
The problem is either that you do not read, or that you do not understand.
I can't really help with that.
So, while all of those gas clouds are moving outwards, you wish to believe that other gas cloud at the same location should move inwards
This is really one of your biggest nonsense.
I really feel that I'm waste my timing on something that is absolutely so clear and simple.
So, if one day you would find an indication for falling stars or matter then let me know about it.
In the meantime - I would continue to claim that new matter MUST be created by the galaxy
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/04/2021 20:05:38
As expected you have totally ignored all the key arguments in my reply.Snap!
Sorry - how can you contradict yourself?I didn't.
It's just you refusing to understand things.
We see a vague glowing blob.
That's evidence that it's hot and that means something is heating it.
One of the few plausible reasons would be heat from stuff falling in.
But we do not see enough detail to watch things fall in.
So there is no contradiction really.
You just pretended that there was.
This is not just a normal common sense.The fact that it easy to see big things is common sense.
Based on this sense, there is no possibility for the galaxy to create any sort of new matter.Good.
Because that would be impossible.
It would be a breach of the conservation laws.
We have already deeply discussed about the accretion disc and so there is no need to say it again.You have not "discussed" it, you have ignored the physics of it.
Stuff falls down.
Once you accept that there will be no need to say it again.
Therefore - even if we don't see any falling stars/matter you and all the other BBT scientists would continue to hope that something must fall itThe universe does not care what I hope.
So, while all of those gas clouds are moving outwards, you wish to believe that other gas cloud at the same location should move inwardsNo. That's just you not understanding stuff that schoolkids would.
I didn't say at the same location.
There is plenty of hydrogen in the universe so it isn't a problem that some, near the BH is falling in, but other hydrogen far away is expanding out.Do you not see that "near" is not the same location as "far away"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/04/2021 20:07:40
So, if one day you would find an indication for falling stars or matter then let me know about it.You do not need me to point out that matter falls.
In the meantime - I would continue to claim that new matter MUST be created by the galaxyYou can claim that all you like, but it is still impossible.
I really feel that I'm waste my timing on something that is absolutely so clear and simple.No.
The BBT is clear and simple, yet you waste your time on something impossible.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/04/2021 13:57:51
So, if one day you would find an indication for falling stars or matter then let me know about it.
Quote
You do not need me to point out that matter falls.You have a fatal mistake
We do not see any matter as it falls in.
Not form outside the galaxy into the galaxy.
Not from the galaxy into the center of the galaxy
Not from the center of the galaxy into the accretion disc
Not from the accretion disc into the SMBH
This is based on real observation.
Please be aware that the matter can't just fall into the accretion disc at the orbital velocity there is almost at the speed of light.
In order for the matter from outside to "fall in" to the accretion disc it must reduce its orbital radius and it also should increase its orbital velocity. So we need to see some spiraling inwards shape of that "falling matter".
For example - Let's assume that the Minimal radius of S2 is R-s2min.
At that point S2 orbits at its maximal velocity V-s2max.
However, that orbital velocity is just 0.0..1 the speed of light while the plasma at the accretion disc orbits al almost the speed of light.
So, in order for S2 matter to fall at the accretion disc, it must decrease its orbital radius and in the same token increase its orbital velocity.
That kind of activity must take time.
We know that S2 complete one orbital cycle in about 17 years.
However, the plasma at the accretion disc complete one cycle in a few second or minutes.
Hence, it should take the matter at least few years or even few thousands of years to be accreted into the accretion disc in spiraling shape.
We actually call it accretion disc as matter should be accreted inwards (and not just falling in)
You also claim that the matter must heat up at this accreted inwards (in spiraling shape).
Hence, there is no way for us to miss that accreted activity.
In any case – matter can't just fall in
It must spiral inwards and increase its orbital velocity as it comes closer to the accretion disc.
Therefore, we had to see that kind of spiraling inwards activity all the way to the accretion disc.
You have not "discussed" it, you have ignored the physics of it.Sorry - Matter can't just fall in. It must set a spiraling inwards shape in order to meet the ultra high orbital velocity at accretion disc
Stuff falls down.
Once you accept that there will be no need to say it again.
There is no way for a matter that orbit at about 0.0..1 the speed of light to fall all the way to the accretion disc and just then start to orbit at almost the speed of light.
This is the BBT imagination
This is the BBT common sense that I call a BBT none-sense!!!
Matter can't just fall into the accretion disc and just at the accretion disc start to orbit at almost the speed of light.
It must spiral inwards.
Hence, as you claim for falling in, you actually ignore the physics that is needed to set the matter in the accretion disc.
So again - matter can't just fall into the accretion disc.
This is your fatal misunderstanding.
That spiral inwards shape should be visible at any galaxy.
However, we don't see it in our galaxy and we also can't see it in any other galaxy(out of the billions) in the entire universe.
Therefore, the missing spiraling inwards shape from S2 all the way to the accretion disc proves that Nothing really falls in!
Our scientists have solid observation that matter & Hydrogen gas clouds from the accretion disc are ejected outwards while nothing is spiraling inwards.
Please don't claim again for "falling in" as it is a sever mistake!!!
Conclusion:
I have proved by real observation that the galaxy ejects matter & 100 Gas clouds while nothing from outside spiraling inwards or accreted inwards into the accretion disc.
Hence - the galaxy must generate its own matter / Hydrogen atoms and molecular.
Please go and learn the real activity at the accretion disc before you tell us about the matter from outside that based on your BBT common sense (or none-sense) should fall into that disc!
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/04/2021 16:04:40
We do not see any matter as it falls in.I have never been to Canada.
So, I have never seen whether or not objects fall in Canada.
But, obviously, I don't need to.
If someone tried to tell me that things do not fall down in Canada, I would laugh at them. I would laugh all the more if I asked them if they had been there and they said "no".
If they said they had never been to Canada, but they thought that things there fell "up", because if they fell down it would spoil there idea I might- out of curiosity- ask what their idea was.
And if that idea, in addition to requiring things to fall up in Canada also broke the laws of physics, I think I would be justified as writing them off as an idiot.
Do you agree?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/04/2021 04:41:01
If someone tried to tell me that things do not fall down in Canada, I would laugh at them. I would laugh all the more if I asked them if they had been there and they said "no".While you are laughing, I'm crying.
So, please as you deeply believe that matter must fall down into the SMBH.
How a matter from S2 or G1 gas cloud that is located high above the SMBH could fall down all the way to the SMBH and just at almost the event horizon radius it would suddenly stop its falling in direction and start to orbit at purely circular orbit at almost the speed of light?
Please also be aware that each gas cloud and each star orbits at different orbital plane around the SMBH.
So, how could it be that matter from different objects that orbit at different orbital planes, different directions and different orbital velocities would all fall to the same single accretion disc and orbit together as one unite exactly at the same orbital plane, at the same pure circular orbital direction and at almost the speed of light?
Would you kindly explain the science law for that activity?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2021 11:40:49
So, please as you deeply believe that matter must fall downJust for a moment, consider the alternative.
Do you really think that things fall up?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2021 11:43:40
How a matter from S2 or G1 gas cloud that is located high above the SMBH could fall down all the way to the SMBH and just at almost the event horizon radius it would suddenly stop its falling in direction and start to orbit at purely circular orbit at almost the speed of light?Do you understand that something which is in orbit is still falling down? It keeps missing the ground because of its tangential velocity, but it is still accelerating down to the BH.
So it hasn't stopped falling.
It would be better if you understood science.
Try learning some.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/04/2021 14:30:11
Why don't you answer my question?How a matter from S2 or G1 gas cloud that is located high above the SMBH could fall down all the way to the SMBH and just at almost the event horizon radius it would suddenly stop its falling in direction and start to orbit at purely circular orbit at almost the speed of light?Do you understand that something which is in orbit is still falling down? It keeps missing the ground because of its tangential velocity, but it is still accelerating down to the BH.
So it hasn't stopped falling.
It would be better if you understood science.
Try learning some.
As you claim that things/matter must fall down:
Do you really think that things fall up?And as this matter must accelerate down to the SMBH:
it is still accelerating down to the BH.If it hasn't stopped falling as you claim, then how could it be that it doesn't get directly into the SMBH?
So it hasn't stopped falling.
Please answer the following:
how could it be that matter from different objects that orbit at different orbital planes, different directions and different orbital velocities would all fall to the same single accretion disc and orbit together as one unite exactly at the same orbital plane, at the same pure circular orbital direction and at almost the speed of light?If you understand science as you calim, then please:
Would you kindly explain the science law for that activity?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2021 14:44:41
It keeps on falling- "forever".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
Like I said; learn the science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/04/2021 17:28:25
Do you understand what it means when something is in orbit?That is correct, but it isn't relevant to our discussion
It keeps on falling- "forever".
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbit
Based on the article that you have offered it is stated:
"As the object is pulled toward the massive body, it falls toward that body. However, if it has enough tangential velocity it will not fall into the body but will instead continue to follow the curved trajectory caused by that body indefinitely. The object is then said to be orbiting the body."
Don't you understand that simple issue?
So, although S2 is falling toward the SMBH, it will keep its average orbital radius R-S2
Hence, it keeps its orbital radius..
The plasma at the accretion disc also orbits around the SMBH but its average orbital radius is R-Accer which is close to the radius of the event horizon.
R-S2 should be at least 10,000 times the value of R-accer.
So, how the matter from S2 that orbits at R-S2 which is more then 10,000 times the radius of the accretion disc (R-accer) and at 0.0..1 the speed of light can fall all the way to R-accer and only then keep on with the new orbital radius and also increase its orbital velocity to the speed of light?
Actually we can get better understanding from Newton’s orbital cannon:
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/images/269-newton-s-orbital-cannon.
It cloud keep on falling "forever" at the same radius as you claim:
It keeps on falling- "forever".However, if you reduce the velocity it must fall in and collide with the SMBH as we see in that diagram
You might hope that S2 could be accreted inwards and decreases its radius over time all the way till it get to the accretion disc.
However, in this scenario we must see some sort of inwards spiraling motion from S2 all the way to the accretion disc.
As we don't see any sort of matter that spiraling inwards then this hope is just imagination.
Therefore, matter can't just fall in a short time from S2 that orbits at R-s2 radius all the way to accretion disc and just then orbits at the R-accer radius.
Like I said; learn the science.Please learn science and backup your nonsense by real science law.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2021 18:57:03
As we don't see any sort of matter that spiraling inwardsWe don't see anything.
It's too far away.
Why can't you accept that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2021 19:00:32
Don't you understand that simple issue?Yes, I understood it, and if you had understood it, you wouldn't have asked this.
But, since you did ask that, it's clear that you didn't have a grasp of the simple science involved.
Hopefully you are starting to learn now.
If it hasn't stopped falling as you claim, then how could it be that it doesn't get directly into the SMBH?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/04/2021 20:01:48
Thanks again for this reconfirmation.As we don't see any sort of matter that spiraling inwardsWe don't see anything.
It's too far away.I don't accept it as it is totally unrealistic!!!
Why can't you accept that?
You wish to believe that we don't see it as it is too far away.
That is incorrect!
Technically, if the plasma at the accretion disc was really based on the matter that comes from outside, then we had to see in any accretion disc an evidence for that matter as it spirals inwards.
We can clearly see millions over billions accretion discs at a distance of over than one billion light year away.
Hence, as we have the technology to observe so many accretion discs, we also have the technology to see the spiraling inwards matter - if it was really spiraling inwards from outside.
However, as we don't see that spiraling inwards matter even at one accretion disc out of the billions than the chance for that activity is less than one of a billion.
The same technology that we use to observe the accretion disc at one billion LY away should help us to observe any spiraling inwards matter as it is accreted into the accretion disc from any similar distance or less.
So, please why do you insist to convince yourself that we don't see it as it is too far away?
This is a big mistake.
Why your BBT common sense can't let you consider a possibility that we don't see even one in a billion possibilities as in our real universe nothing from outside spirals inwards?
Just as an example:
If you see one billion people without horn at their head. what is the chance that all of those people carry a horn at their head?
Sorry - what we don't see doesn't exist.
If you still don't wish to accept it, then it is your personal BBT problem!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2021 20:13:42
I don't accept it as it is totally unrealistic!!!OK, if you think we can see the accretion disk of a black hole, post pictures.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/04/2021 20:16:33
I have already did:I don't accept it as it is totally unrealistic!!!OK, if you think we can see the accretion disk of a black hole, post pictures.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk#/media/File:Black_hole_-_Messier_87_crop_max_res.jpg
"This ring is only about 40 microarcseconds across — equivalent to measuring the length of a credit card on the surface of the Moon."
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2021 20:25:41
You can't see any detail, so you couldn't tell if stuff was spiraling in, spiraling out or dancing a waltz.
Thanks for confirming what I said.
.
We don't see anything.
It's too far away.
Why can't you accept that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2021 20:27:46
That shows that it is giving out energy, so it must be getting energy from somewhere.
A plausible mechanism, consistent with the observation that things fall down, is that it is heated because gravitational potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy and then, by friction, into heat.
Are you claiming that it is hot because the unicorns say it should be?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/04/2021 20:58:22
However, you can see that it is glowing.Yes!
That shows that it is giving out energy
That is correct.
It is giving OUT energy and matter!
so it must be getting energy from somewhere.NO!!!
A plausible mechanism, consistent with the observation that things fall down, is that it is heated because gravitational potential energy is being converted to kinetic energy and then, by friction, into heat.
Your plausible mechanism, is incorrect as we don't see any sort of spiraling inwards matter.
Therefore, matter from outside doesn't fall into the accretion disc.
However, there is a better plausible mechanism - The matter MUST come from inside..
In other words - the SMBH generates its own new particles in that plasma
Are you claiming that it is hot because the unicorns say it should be?The pair creation must come with ultra high heat. Also the fusion activity at the accretion disc increases the heat of the plasma
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/04/2021 22:03:12
It is giving OUT energy and matter!No, it is giving out energy precisely because it is taking in matter.
The pair creation must come with ultra high heat.It's not nearly hot enough for pair production to be happening.
Your plausible mechanism, is incorrect as we don't see any sort of spiraling inwards matter.We still don't see it because it is still too small and too far away.
You proved this by citing the picture.
However, there is a better plausible mechanism - The matter MUST come from inside..Calling your idea, where stuff falls out of a BH "plausible" is a lie.
It's a breach of the laws of physics.
Falling up is not a plausible process.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/04/2021 05:08:06
Can you please prove this imagination by real observation?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 24/04/2021 20:58:22No, it is giving out energy precisely because it is taking in matter.
It is giving OUT energy and matter!
Sorry - we have never ever seen any matter that was taking in by the SMBH.
Therefore, this statement is a pure lie.
Our scientists estimate that the Milky Way' accretion disc temp is 10^9 c.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 24/04/2021 20:58:22It's not nearly hot enough for pair production to be happening.
The pair creation must come with ultra high heat.
If this is not enough for the pair creation, please advice the requested temp for that process.
This is nonsense!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 24/04/2021 20:58:22We still don't see it because it is still too small and too far away.
Your plausible mechanism, is incorrect as we don't see any sort of spiraling inwards matter.
You proved this by citing the picture.
Why we can see that M87 accretion disc so clearly (while it is so tiny and far away) but be can't see any matter as it is accreted from the visible orbital radius as S2 and G2 all the way to the accretion disc?
Not in the Milky way and not in any other galaxy in the entire Universe while technically there are more than billions observable accretion discs?
Do you really think that things fall up?If you claim that matter falls in than you just lie.
In order for the matter to get closer to the SMBH accretion disc at 0.3c orbital velocity it can't just fall in. It must be accreted in or spiraling inwards.
Hence, the whole idea is that orbital objects as S2 and G2 can't just fall in.
They must keep on with their orbital momentum around SMBH but while they decrease their radius over time they also increase their orbital velocity.
Hence, it should take significant time for matter in S2 or G2 to finally reduce their orbital radius to Raccr and increase their velocity to 0.3c
You claim that you are scientist
So, based on your understanding, how long it should take S2 to be accreted all the way into the Milky Way accretion disc?
It is one second, one year, one million year or more than one billion year?
In order to help you, let's look at triton.
Our scientists wish to believe that it is accreted inwards to Neptune as they have found that one orbital cycle decreases its orbital time by less than a second.
I claim that it was just an error. If they would check it again today they would surly find that triton had been drifted outwards and its orbital time had been increased. So in reality, Triton is drifting outwards as any orbital object as any moon, planet, S2 star, G2 gas cloud MUST drift or spiral outwards over time.
However, as you don't agree with that understanding, then please advice how many years it is needed for that triton moon to be accreted into Neptune?
Based on that data please try to verify how many years it might take to S2 to be accreted inwards.
Calling your idea, where stuff falls out of a BH "plausible" is a lie.Claiming that matter falls in is the real lie.
As we have never ever seen any falling matter or even any accreted matter than anyone that claims that matter falls into the SMBH accretion disc at 0.3c is a liar by definition, even if he calls himself - "scientist".
From now on - you (and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists) are more than welcome to tell that you hope, Believe or wish that matter should fall in. But it is forbidden to lie by claiming that matter really falls in without any prove or observation to support this imagination.
It's a breach of the laws of physics.Sorry - you must adjust your laws of physics to our real universe and not vice versa.
Our Universe doesn't need to dance according to your wrong laws of physics.
It is your mission to fit those laws to the real observation.
As we do not see any falling matter then you must consider a possibility that matter from outside does not fall in or even accreted in.
If you eliminate that possibility without any evidence or observation to support your imagination - then you can't be called "scientist" any more.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/04/2021 08:37:15
Can you please prove this imagination by real observation?Sure; it's a school science experiment.
https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/mechanical_equivalent_of_heat.html#:~:text=The%20temperature%20goes%20up.,falls%2C%20and%20the%20temperature%20rise.
falling things get hotter.
This is nonsense!We only see part of the accretion disk.
Why we can see that M87 accretion disc so clearly (while it is so tiny and far away) but be can't see any matter as it is accreted from the visible orbital radius as S2 and G2 all the way to the accretion disc?
We see the bit which is hot enough to glow brightly.
We don't even see the outer part of the disk.
So, obviously, we don't see the stuff outside the disk.
If you claim that matter falls in than you just lie.Either stuff falls up, or it falls down.
And I never thought I would be called a liar because I think things fall down.
In order for the matter to get closer to the SMBH accretion disc at 0.3c orbital velocity it can't just fall in. It must be accreted in or spiraling inwards.It has some initial angular momentum, which is conserved.
Again, this is high school physics.
"the skater spins faster when they pull their arms in"
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osuniversityphysics/chapter/11-2-conservation-of-angular-momentum/
You can see the same effect when bubbles show that the water speeds up its rotation as it spins down the drain.
You claim this is impossible, yet you can see it any time you bathe.
Sorry - you must adjust your laws of physics to our real universe and not vice versa.The laws I use are based on real observations like falling lead shot and spinning ice skaters.
Whereas there is absolutely no evidence to support your hallucinations.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/04/2021 13:37:44
Sure; it's a school science experiment."As a space capsule returns to Earth, friction with the atmosphere creates a great deal of heat."
https://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/mechanical_equivalent_of_heat.html#:~:text=The%20temperature%20goes%20up.,falls%2C%20and%20the%20temperature%20rise.
falling things get hotter.
Do you claim that there is an atmospher around the SMBH?
Without Atmospher there will be no friction and no heat.
We only see part of the accretion disk.You actually claim again why we don't see any falling matter.
We see the bit which is hot enough to glow brightly.
We don't even see the outer part of the disk.
So, obviously, we don't see the stuff outside the disk.
That proves that we simply don't see a falling matter.
In any case, I don't agree with your explanation.
If S2 or G2 or any other star in that radius has to "fall in" or accreted in then the accretion disc has to start from that radius.
So, if matter was really accreted from S2 we had to see a significantly wide accretion disc. It should be all the way from Racc till Rs2.
What a nonsense.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:08:06It has some initial angular momentum, which is conserved.
In order for the matter to get closer to the SMBH accretion disc at 0.3c orbital velocity it can't just fall in. It must be accreted in or spiraling inwards.
Again, this is high school physics.
"the skater spins faster when they pull their arms in"
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/suny-osuniversityphysics/chapter/11-2-conservation-of-angular-momentum/
That skater spins faster when she pulls her arms. So, without pulling her arms she can't spin faster.
Based on my understanding, stars have no arms.
So, without arms, how can they spin faster?
Sorry - there is no free matter around the SMBH that is willing to fall in.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:08:06Either stuff falls up, or it falls down.
If you claim that matter falls in than you just lie.
And I never thought I would be called a liar because I think things fall down.
Any star, any gas cloud and any matter around the SMBH is there as it ORBITS around that SMBH.
You are more than welcome to hope/believe/wish that those orbital objects are accreted inwards (or spiraling inwards), while I claim that any orbital object is excreted outwards or spiraling outwards.
Therefore, if you would continue to claim that those orbital objects fall in than it would be consider as a lie.
If you base your law on spinning ice skaters than you have to show the star' hands that are needed to increase its spinning.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:08:06The laws I use are based on real observations like falling lead shot and spinning ice skaters.
Sorry - you must adjust your laws of physics to our real universe and not vice versa.
If you also base those laws on falling objects while all the objects there orbit around the SMBH, than this idea is pure nonsense.
As long as we don't really observe any matter that is accreted inwards (and we clearly don't see!!!!) than your explanation for why we don't see is just nonsense.
Any law must based on what we see and not on what we don't see!
If you don't understand that, than you can't call yourself - scientist.
Therefore, a law that is based on nonsense without any real observation to support it - is a nonsense by definition.
Please also answer the following:
1.
Our scientists estimate that the Milky Way' accretion disc temp is 10^9 c.
If this is not enough for the pair creation, please advice the requested temp for that process.
2.
based on your understanding, how long it should take S2 to be accreted all the way into the Milky Way accretion disc?
It is one second, one year, one million year or more than one billion year?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2021 16:04:33
Based on my understandingBecause you repeatedly refuse to learn, you just don't have any understanding.
Please also answer the following:Do you need me to answer because you are too lazy, or because you are not clever enough?
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/04/2021 19:17:13
Based on my understanding, stars have no arms.
So, without arms, how can they spin faster?
Because you repeatedly refuse to learn, you just don't have any understanding.Let me explain why you have a fatal mistake:
In the article it is stated:
"Because her moment of inertia has decreased, I′ < I, her final rotational kinetic energy has increased. The source of this additional rotational kinetic energy is the work required to pull her arms inward. Note that the skater’s arms do not move in a perfect circle—they spiral inward. This work causes an increase in the rotational kinetic energy, while her angular momentum remains constant. Since she is in a frictionless environment, no energy escapes the system. Thus, if she were to extend her arms to their original positions, she would rotate at her original angular velocity and her kinetic energy would return to its original value."
This is very clear.
It is also stated:
"The solar system is another example of how conservation of angular momentum works in our universe. Our solar system was born from a huge cloud of gas and dust that initially had rotational energy. Gravitational forces caused the cloud to contract, and the rotation rate increased as a result of conservation of angular momentum "
So, our scientists compare the impact of the hands of the skater to the gravitational forces.
However, the gravitational force of that huge cloud of gas and dust is constant.
So, without a significant change in that gravitational force, the gas cloud won't spin faster.
Therefore, the extra gravitational force must come from outside.
That extra gravitational force MUST come from the SMBH itself.
So, when we look at all of those G gas clouds that orbit around the SMBH, we ignore its great impact.
As they come closer to the SMBH, they spin faster. That increase of the spin creates the requested performances for the creation of new stars in those gas clouds.
Hence, most (or even all) the stars in our galaxy MUST be created while the gas clouds orbits close enough around the SMBH.
There is no way for gas cloud to set even one moon without the impact of external ultra high gravity force.
Hence, all the stars in the Milky way galaxy had been created at the center of the galaxy.
Our Sun had also been created over there.
So, the idea that stars could be created at the spiral arms or outside the galaxy is a fiction.
As all the stars in the galaxy MUST be created at the center of the Galaxy by the impact of the SMBH gravity force, then they have to migrate outside over time.
As they migrate/spiral outwards, new matter must be created at the core of the galaxy in order to create new gas clouds constantly.
That proves that the SMBH accretion disc ejects its matter outwards.
That matter sets all the gas clouds that orbit around the SMBH.
In those gas clouds all the stars in our galaxy had been formed.
As orbital objects MUST spiral outwards over time, as the stars are drifting outwards they set the spiral shape of the spiral arms in the galaxy.
If you wish to understand that activity - You can understand how the spiral galaxy works and how our Universe really works.
Do you need me to answer because you are too lazy, or because you are not clever enough?You have stated the accretion temp in hot high enough for the pair process.
As the accretion disc temp is 10^9c it is your obligation to inform what should be the accretion temp in order to support the pair process.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2021 19:35:52
is your obligation to informNo, it's simple physics.
However, since you are saying that pair production takes place, it is your job to show that the disk is hot enough do produce pairs.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/04/2021 19:38:52
So, without a significant change in that gravitational force, the gas cloud won't spin faster.Yes it does, just like the water going down the drain, and for much the same reason.
The "change" in gravitational force is that there's a stronger force nearer the BH, so, as matter falls in, it is exposed to a greater force.
Instead of the skaters muscles doing the work, gravity does it.
That shouldn't be difficult to understand, should it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/05/2021 05:25:04
WowSo, without a significant change in that gravitational force, the gas cloud won't spin faster.Yes it does, just like the water going down the drain, and for much the same reason.
The "change" in gravitational force is that there's a stronger force nearer the BH, so, as matter falls in, it is exposed to a greater force.
Instead of the skaters muscles doing the work, gravity does it.
That shouldn't be difficult to understand, should it?
What a nonsense!
Did you ever have a chance to read Isaac Newton shell theorem?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theorem
"Isaac Newton proved the shell theorem[1] and stated that:
1. A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center.
2. If the body is a spherically symmetric shell (i.e., a hollow ball), no net gravitational force is exerted by the shell on any object inside, regardless of the object's location within the shell."
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that "A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center".
Sorry, you have just proved that your knowledge in gravity is zero (or less than zero).
So, please don't tell us about your nonsense of "self gravity increase"
We have a clear observation for the great impact of the SMBH on the G gas clouds that orbit around it:
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.2723.pdf
"The presence of young massive stars orbiting on eccentric rings within a few tenths of a parsec of the supermassive black hole in the Galactic centre is challenging for theories of star formation."
"The transfer of energy during closest approach allows part of the cloud to become bound to the black hole, forming an eccentric disc that quickly fragments to form stars. "
Our scientists clearly see all of those young massive stars that are created near the SMBH. They also clearly understand the great impact of the SMBH gravity on this process.
So why they claim that "The presence of young massive stars orbiting on eccentric rings within a few tenths of a parsec of the supermassive black hole in the Galactic centre is challenging for theories of star formation."?
The answer is very simple:
Our scientists clearly see the great impact of the SMBH on the G gas clouds.
They see all of those young massive stars that had just been created by the gravity power of the SMBH.
However, that observation contradicts the BBT.
Based on their wish the SMBH should eat stars and not create stars.
Therefore they claim that this observation "is challenging for theories of star formation".
You and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists including those at arxiv don't wish to accept the clear observations as it contradicts your lovely BBT theory.
Therefore, all of you are so confused and wonder how it could be that you have never ever seen even one star that is eaten by the one SMBH in the entire universe.
On the contrary, you actually see all of those young massive stars that had just been created by the gravity power of the SMBH.
That is a clear contradiction with the BBT.
However, as expected, you don't let the observation to confuse you.
You wish to believe that the SMBH is eating stars and not creating new stars.
Based on the BBT the SMBH MUST eat stars while what we see is that it generates new stars.
Therefore you are so frustrated that not even one SMBH in the entire universe works according to your wish.
You try to explain why it is so difficult to see even one single falling star into the accretion disc of any SMBH in the entire universe, but you do not deal with all those new created stars that we clearly see.
There is one more important issue:
https://astronomy.com/news/2019/03/astronomers-spot-massive-twin-stars-nestled-close-together
"scientists suspect that nearly all stars may form in multiples before splitting apart as they age. This is because stars form in groups, with the massive clouds of dust and gas that give birth to stars – stellar nebulae – forming thousands of stars in brief period"
Only the SMBH gravity force is strong enough to form thousand stars in groups in those nearby G gas clouds in brief period.
However, you and all the other scientists position your wish/hope (according the BBT) high above any real observation.
Shame on you. All of you!
Post by: jeffreyH on 01/05/2021 07:10:37
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/05/2021 08:18:40
Dave, science is based upon observation, not fairy tales.Dear jeffrey
Our scientists clearly ignore all the observations!!!
Do they see new thousands of stars that had been formed in groups around the SMBH in brief period?
Yes or no?
I hope that you agree that the answer is clearly - Yes.
Did they ever see any falling star into the accretion disc?
Yes or No?
I hope that you agree that the answer is clearly - No.
So, they have NEVER EVER seen any falling star into the accretion disc while they clearly see that the SMBH generates new forming groups of stars around it.
The amount of time that astronomers have had to observe Sag a* is so little that nothing of significance has had time to happen yetHow long time is need for our scientists to understand that nothing falls in?
Is it one year, one hundred years or minimal of one trillion years?
Based on this approach we can claim that every person in the Universe is a Thief.
If we didn't find him in action we can always claim that "nothing of significance has had time to happen yet".
Sorry - we can't claim that we should see something that we didn't see yet!
We must base our theory on what we clearly see and not on something that we didn't see yet.
Why is it so difficult for those scientists to understand that the SMBH isn't eating any star from outside but it generates all of those new forming stars?
Actually, if we could verify the DNA of all the stars in our galaxy you would find that we all share absolutely the same DNA.
So why is it so difficult to understand that there must be one single mother for all the 250 Billions stars in the Milky Way?
Why our scientists insist to reject all the observations that the SMBH is actually generates new stars and new matter?
The observations are then modelled.No!
They totally ignore all the observations.
They model their wrong imagination which is based on the BBT theory.
Why do they need a modeling that contradicts the observations?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/05/2021 12:13:08
Did you ever have a chance to read Isaac Newton shell theorem?I not only ready it, but I understood it.
You should try that option some time.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that "A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center".And the effect of that is to pull the material in- just like the skater's arms.
It's not me who failed to understand it.
The BH pulls stuff in, just the same as the Earth pulls us down.
The big difference is that the earth is pretty much rigid, so we get to the surface and stop.
In the case of the BH, there's nothing to stop stuff falling all the way to the event horizon.
So stuff falls in.
So, please don't tell us about your nonsense of "self gravity increase"That is nonsense, but you made it up.
The inverse square law applies to gravity. the nearer you get to the BH, the stronger gravity gets.
The shell theorem only applies inside something (like deep mines on earth) and we are not considering what happens inside the BH.
Sorry, you have just proved that your knowledge in gravity is zero (or less than zero).No, All I did was prove that you don't understand when to apply the shell theorem, because you don't understand it.
Based on their wish the SMBH should eat stars and not create stars.No, that's based on physics and observation.
The physics concerned is the conservation laws.
The observation is that things on't fall up.
So you are known to be wrong for to reasons.
Don't you feel it's time to think about actually learning science?
That is a clear contradiction with the BBT.No, it isn't.
Nothing happening today can really affect a process like the BBT which happened 14 billion years ago,.
Your claim isn't just incompatible with science, it is incompatible with common sense.
while what we see is that it generates new stars.Show me this, or shut up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/05/2021 12:13:58
Did they ever see any falling star into the accretion disc?Did they see anything coming out?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/05/2021 12:19:04
Actually, if we could verify the DNA of all the stars in our galaxy you would find that we all share absolutely the same DNA.Stars do not have DNA.
But they do have chemical compositions which can be studied by spectroscopy.
In effect, you do this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flame_test
Stars are hot enough to be their own "flame".
And, because we can look at the spectrum of light emitted by stars, we know what they are made of.
It's one of the embarrassing stories of science where the first person to do the work didn't get the credit- because they were a woman.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cecilia_Payne-Gaposchkin
Now, perhaps you would like to apologise to her memory for your ignorant claim that the compositions of all stars are the same.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/05/2021 04:57:45
This is a simple lie.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:25:04No, that's based on physics and observation.
Based on their wish the SMBH should eat stars and not create stars.
The physics concerned is the conservation laws.
We have no observation that the SMBH eats any star from outside.
Therefore, your physics of eating stars is a pure imagination!!!
How long are we going to wait for our scientists to understand that nothing falls in.
Please let us know if it is just one year or more than one trillion years?
Shame on all of you that you claim for falling matter without any OBSERVATION to backup this imagination!
I have already didQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:25:04Show me this, or shut up.
while what we see is that it generates new stars.
We have a clear observation for the great impact of the SMBH on the G gas clouds that orbit around it:So, we have clear observation that the SMBH generates young massive stars on eccentric rings within a few tenths of a parsec from its location.
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0810/0810.2723.pdf
"The presence of young massive stars orbiting on eccentric rings within a few tenths of a parsec of the suppermassive black hole in the Galactic centre is challenging for theories of star formation."
"The transfer of energy during closest approach allows part of the cloud to become bound to the black hole, forming an eccentric disc that quickly fragments to form stars. "
Our scientists clearly see all of those young massive stars that are created near the SMBH. They also clearly understand the great impact of the SMBH gravity on this process.
I assume that you wish to believe that after the creation of those new massive stars the SMBH eats them all.
This is your personal imagination as we have never ever seen any falling in star.
So, you can keep on with your unrealistic hope that the SMBH eats stars while we clearly see that it generates new stars.
Yes they do see!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 08:18:40Did they see anything coming out?
Did they ever see any falling star into the accretion disc?
We clearly see the molecular jet stream that is ejected outwards from the SMBH at almost 0.8c.
So, we clearly observe that matter is ejected outwards, while we have NEVER EVER seen any sort of matter that falls inwards into the accretion disc!
Well, it is clear that you don't understand the Isaac Newton shell theorem.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:25:04And the effect of that is to pull the material in- just like the skater's arms.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that "A spherically symmetric body affects external objects gravitationally as though all of its mass were concentrated at a point at its center".
It's not me who failed to understand it.
The BH pulls stuff in, just the same as the Earth pulls us down.
The big difference is that the earth is pretty much rigid, so we get to the surface and stop.
In the case of the BH, there's nothing to stop stuff falling all the way to the event horizon.
So stuff falls in.
So, let me help you.
Lets verify the impact of creating a BH at the center of the gas cloud.
So, there is an object that orbits at radius R around the center.
Let's assume that your imagination is correct and somehow all the matter up to that radius (not including R) would fall in and set a BH at the center of that gas cloud.
It is clear that based on Isaac Newton shell theorem it won't affect that orbital velocity of the object that is orbiting at radius R
Therefore, that orbital object at R won't feel any difference in the gravity force.
You may set R to any radius that you wish and the outcome would be identical. Therefore, there is no way for the object to accelerate its velocity by your imagination.
Hence, the Gas cloud can't just get acceleration in its internal orbital velocity without external gravity help.
However, even if we accept the idea that stars could be created at the center of a gas cloud, it still won't help.
Our scientists tell us that:
https://astronomy.com/news/2019/03/astronomers-spot-massive-twin-stars-nestled-close-togetherTherefore, all the stars in the Universe started their first day in groups.
"scientists suspect that nearly all stars may form in multiples before splitting apart as they age. This is because stars form in groups, with the massive clouds of dust and gas that give birth to stars – stellar nebulae – forming thousands of stars in brief period"
Only the SMBH gravity force is strong enough to form thousand stars in groups in those nearby G gas clouds in brief period.
So, a single star in a gas cloud is not an option.
Each gas cloud must generates several stars that are bonded in a group by gravity.
Therefore, the only possibility for that star creation process is by the impact of SMBH ultra external gravity force on a G gas cloud that pass nearby.
Our scientists clearly see all of those G gas clouds as they cross so close to the SMBH in their elliptical orbital cycle.
Hence, stars can Only be created in goups in a gas clouds near an ultra high gravity source as a SMBH.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/05/2021 08:59:59
The observations are then modelled. If the model can be shown to give accurate predictions then it is accepted as useful.Dear Jeffrey
In the following article it is stated:
https://beltoforion.de/en/spiral_galaxy_renderer/
"Until recently, the simulation field struggled to make spiral galaxies," he says. "It's only in the last 5 years that we've shown that you can make them."
I do remember that 10 or 7 years ago our scientists have already stated that the simulation is working.
Now we all know that it was a lie as only in the last 5 years hey hope to believe that finally it is working.
I claim that this hope is a pure nonsense.
Even with the most updated simulation our scientists can't set the perfect shape of the spiral galaxy.
At the maximum they might get something that might look like a spiral.
But the real spiral galaxy is much more complex that just a spiral shape.
The real shape is as follow:
1. A bulge at the center (up to 1KPC)
2. A bar from 1Kpc to 3KPC
3. The ring is located at 3KPC. the thickness of the ring is 3000 LY
4. From the ring up to about 12Kpc there are spiral arms.
The thicknesses of the arms are as follow:
At the base (ring) it is 3000LY.
At 8KPC (sun location) it is 1000Ly
At 12KPC (at the far end of the arm) it is 400Ly.
5. From 12Kpc all the stars are disconnected from the spiral arms and the galactic disc.
Nothing from outside the arm can move inwards!
After agree on the above, I would like to see the simulation that can set that kind of real spiral galaxy structure by simulation.
I have full confidence that our scientists won't be able to set that kind of structure by any sort of simulation!!!
If you have a simulation that can do so, then please offer it! If you can't do so, then your simulation is useless.
It proves that our scientists don't have a basic knowledge how spiral galaxy really works!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/05/2021 11:02:35
We have no observation that the SMBH eats any star from outside.Nobody said we had,
We have observations that things fall down.
You ignore this observation, while complaining about others doing so.
Why is that.
Why are you the only one allowed to ignore the biggest most widespread observation about the issue?
We clearly see the molecular jet stream that is ejected outwards from the SMBH at almost 0.8c.And we see that it's not coming out of the accretion disk.
But what you claim is that stuff i made in that accretion disk.
Again, why are you allowed to say things that are not what is observed?
Therefore, that orbital object at R won't feel any difference in the gravity force.That's nothing to do with the shell theorem anyway but...
Nobody said it would.
You have not bothered to read what I said, have you?
I simply pointed out that things which are falling in get nearer to the BH
and the nearer they are to the BH, the larger the force that the BH exerts on them.
Do you remember saying this?
So, without a significant change in that gravitational force, the gas cloud won't spin faster.And do you now understand that there is a reason for the change in gravitational force for a thing that is falling in towards the BH?
And do you understand that the shell theory has nothing to do with this?
And do you understand that it would have saved us both a lot of effort if you had just learned some science?
Therefore, the only possibility for that star creation process is by the impact of SMBH ultra external gravity force on a G gas cloud that pass nearby.No.
The only thing you accept is the involvement of a BH.
But the rest of us are clever enough to see that the gravity of the gas cloud itself will do this.
Let us know when you catch up.
But in the mean time, please don't lie about the gas jest being evidence of anything being made in the accretion disk.
That's been explained to you now.
If you repeat it you will simply be proving that you are a liar.
Post by: jeffreyH on 02/05/2021 12:45:08
The observations are then modelled. If the model can be shown to give accurate predictions then it is accepted as useful.Dear Jeffrey
In the following article it is stated:
https://beltoforion.de/en/spiral_galaxy_renderer/
"Until recently, the simulation field struggled to make spiral galaxies," he says. "It's only in the last 5 years that we've shown that you can make them."
I do remember that 10 or 7 years ago our scientists have already stated that the simulation is working.
Now we all know that it was a lie as only in the last 5 years hey hope to believe that finally it is working.
I claim that this hope is a pure nonsense.
Even with the most updated simulation our scientists can't set the perfect shape of the spiral galaxy.
At the maximum they might get something that might look like a spiral.
But the real spiral galaxy is much more complex that just a spiral shape.
The real shape is as follow:
1. A bulge at the center (up to 1KPC)
2. A bar from 1Kpc to 3KPC
3. The ring is located at 3KPC. the thickness of the ring is 3000 LY
4. From the ring up to about 12Kpc there are spiral arms.
The thicknesses of the arms are as follow:
At the base (ring) it is 3000LY.
At 8KPC (sun location) it is 1000Ly
At 12KPC (at the far end of the arm) it is 400Ly.
5. From 12Kpc all the stars are disconnected from the spiral arms and the galactic disc.
Nothing from outside the arm can move inwards!
After agree on the above, I would like to see the simulation that can set that kind of real spiral galaxy structure by simulation.
I have full confidence that our scientists won't be able to set that kind of structure by any sort of simulation!!!
If you have a simulation that can do so, then please offer it! If you can't do so, then your simulation is useless.
It proves that our scientists don't have a basic knowledge how spiral galaxy really works!!!
Dear Dave
You are not a scientist. Your ideas are pseudoscience. Stop trolling actual scientists.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/05/2021 04:35:29
Thanks for this confirmation,QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 02/05/2021 04:57:45Nobody said we had
We have no observation that the SMBH eats any star from outside.
Actually, you have already confirmed it before.
We have observations that things fall down.NO! - we have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Please remember - We only focus on the SMBH accretion disc!
I simply pointed out that things which are falling in get nearer to the BHAs you have just reconfirm - we have NEVER EVER observed any sort of things which are falling into the SMBH' accretion disc!
and the nearer they are to the BH, the larger the force that the BH exerts on them.
We clearly observe things that get nearer the SMBH (For example: S2 Star or G2 Gas cloud) but those things are orbiting around the SMBH and not just falling in.
They might have an high eccentricity (as we can see in the following example):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elliptic_orbit#/media/File:Animation_of_Orbital_eccentricity.gif
As the orbital object comes closer to the main object it gets higher acceleration and higher gravity force:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion#/media/File:Kepler-second-law.gif
However, it is a normal orbital activity.
Therefore, they aren't falling in but orbiting around with high eccentricity!!!
Hence, the statement that "things which are falling in get nearer to the BH" is a simple lie as nothing falls near or into the SMBH accretion disc!
And do you now understand that there is a reason for the change in gravitational force for a thing that is falling in towards the BH?Again - Please stop telling us about "thing that is falling in towards the BH" as nothing falls in towards the BH.
Dear DaveDear jeffreyH
You are not a scientist. Your ideas are pseudoscience. Stop trolling actual scientists.
Do you claim that the following statement of: "thing that is falling in towards the BH" is correct? Or do you mean that only scientist has the permission for trolling real observation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/05/2021 08:41:07
Please remember - We only focus on the SMBH accretion disc!Then we know nothing, because we can barely see it.
Do you understand that the point of science is to find "general" rules for the universe?
"Things fall down" is a pretty good example.
It is true in every single instance where we can check it.
If you have to make up a special rule like "things fall down, except near black holes where they fall up" then that's sort of OK, but you do need evidence.
And , because we can't really see what's happening near BH because of the distance, you don't have that evidence.
Until you can show a picture of, or some evidence for, things falling out of the accretion disk of a BH nobody who understands the basics of science will believe that it happens.
As you have just reconfirm - we have NEVER EVER observed any sort of things which are falling into the SMBH' accretion disc!No.
But as any five year old will tell you, things fall down.
Again - Please stop telling us about "thing that is falling in towards the BH" as nothing falls in towards the BH.Light does.
That's the defining characteristic of a BH.
So we know you are wrong.
Why do you keep trying to pretend things don't fall in?
Therefore, they aren't falling in but orbiting around with high eccentricity!!!You do know that a thing in orbit is falling, don't you?
So what you are saying is that they are not falling because they are falling.
Again, why do you post such nonsense?
Post by: jeffreyH on 07/05/2021 13:40:16
Your failure to accept correction is now becoming a real issue. You are simply using up the time of other members, where they are constantly having to correct you.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/05/2021 20:46:42
No!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:35:29You do know that a thing in orbit is falling, don't you?
Therefore, they aren't falling in but orbiting around with high eccentricity!!!
So what you are saying is that they are not falling because they are falling.
This is a simple lie as you do not offer the full picture of the orbital cycle.
You have stated:
I simply pointed out that things which are falling in get nearer to the BHHowever, things that orbit at a circular orbit cycle don't get nearer the BH over time.
For example things that orbit at high eccentricity ( Let's say higher than zero ) at one section of the orbital cycle they get nearer to the BH (so you can claim that they fall inwards to the BH) but at the other section they get further away from the BH (so technically I can claim that they fall outwards).
So let's agree on the following:
We must monitor the radius of those "things" or orbital objects after one full circular orbit.
If the radius is decreasing - then we have to agree that those things are falling inwards to the BH over time.
If the radius is increasing - then we have to agree that those things are falling outwards from the BH over time.
If the radius is constant - then we have to agree that those things aren't falling inwards or outwards!
So please. If you would continue to claim that orbital objects with high eccentricity are falling inwards in one section of the orbital cycle, while you would ignore the fact that those objects are falling outwards at the other section of the orbital cycle - then you would be consider as a liar.
Please remember that half of the true is still lie!
It is not expected that you would lie in the name of the science!
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:35:29How can you use light as an example for orbital things that falls inwards?
Again - Please stop telling us about "thing that is falling in towards the BH" as nothing falls in towards the BH.
Light does.
That's the defining characteristic of a BH.
You have just stated that:
Do you understand that the point of science is to find "general" rules for the universe?However, we discuss on things that orbit around a BH/SMBH.
"Things fall down" is a pretty good example.
It is true in every single instance where we can check it.
So, do you claim that light should orbit around a BH?
If this isn't the case, then how can you use light as "general" rules for orbital objects?
So, do you lie again?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:35:29This is incorrect.
Please remember - We only focus on the SMBH accretion disc!
Then we know nothing, because we can barely see it.
Missing observation is a clear observation!
As we don't see any matter that falls into the SMBH accretion disc, then it is clear evidence that nothing falls in.
Do you understand that the point of science is to find "general" rules for the universe?Well, I assume that you would claim that as things falls inwards to our planet, then things should also falls inwards to the SMBH accretion disc.
"Things fall down" is a pretty good example.
It is true in every single instance where we can check it.
However, in this case, you compare the activity at our planet to the SMBH.
Is it correct to do so?
Let's verify it:
There is an accretion disc around a SMBH. In that accretion disc the plasma is orbiting at almost the speed of light while the temp is almost 10^9c.
Where is the accretion disc of our planet? Do you see any plasma at high temp that orbits at the speed of light?
So, you can't just compare apple to truck. You have to compare apple to apple.
Therefore, your idea of "general rules for the universe" for totally different objects is a simple nonsense.
You have no "general rules for the universe" that acts as the SMBH accretion disc.
Therefore, your "general rules for the universe" for the SMBH accretion disc is a clear fatal mistake!
Dear Dave, if your nutty conclusion were true then there wouldn't be an accretion disc at all. Since all the matter would be fleeing the event horizon.Sorry, you don't understand how the SMBH really works and the real impact of its accretion disc.
Your failure to accept correction is now becoming a real issue.Why do we need a correction?
The observations are very clear!
We have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter or things or star that falls inwards to the SMBH' accretion disc.
Our scientists claim that based on the current technology we can read a credit card that is located at the moon.
However, even if we could improve it to the infinity (and read that credit card at a distance of 13 BLY away) we still won't find any matter that falls inwards to that SMBH' accretion disc. Not in our galaxy and not in any other galaxy (out of the millions over billions) in the entire Universe.
So, why is it so difficult for our scientists to accept the simple fact that things do not fall into the SMBH accretion disc?
Why they force the Universe to work according to their understanding of "general rules for the universe" while our universe isn't willing to work according to those rules?
So, who is the real trolling?
The one that accept the OBSERVATION as is or those scientists that wish to add a correction for this clear observation?
Post by: Origin on 07/05/2021 23:37:12
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2021 00:13:43
Why do we need a correction?Because your ideas are silly.
They require things to fall up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2021 00:16:15
Why do we need a correction?Or out.
The observations are very clear!
We have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter or things or star that falls inwards
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2021 00:17:29
Where is the accretion disc of our planet?One suggestion is that we call it the Moon.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/05/2021 08:15:56
Is it?Where is the accretion disc of our planet?One suggestion is that we call it the Moon.
Do you estimate that the moon orbits at almost the speed of light around the Earth and its temp is almost 10^9c?
Even if we ignore those functions, don't you know that the moon is actually drifting outwards over time.
So, the Moon is actually falling outwards.
Therefore, if you use the moon as a general rules for the accretion disc, it proves that the matter in the accretion disc must drift outwards over time (or falling outwards if you wish).
Because your ideas are silly. They require things to fall up.We all know that the Moon in you example is falling up over time.
So, my idea isn't as silly as you claim
Dave, you are being so dishonest here.Why?
Why is it dishonest to accept the observations as is?
There are millions over billions accretion discs in the Universe.
We have a supper advanced technology today. Based on this technology we could clearly see many SMBH accretion discs including that famous M87 SMBH accretion disc picture.
Unfortunately for you and for all the 10,000 BBT scientists with all of the billions opportunities that exists in the entire universe we have never ever seen any star/Planet/Moon/Asteroid/Atom or even a tinny particle that falls into any SMBH' accretion disc from outside.
However, while we can't see any matter that falls in, we clearly see all the matter that is ejected outwards.
We see the Molecular jets stream as they are ejected upwards/downwards from many SMBH at almost 0.8c including the one in the Milky way.
We clearly see all of those hydrogen clouds that are streaming away from the center of the Milky Way:
https://phys.org/news/2018-01-swarm-hydrogen-clouds-center-galaxy.html
"A team of astronomers has discovered what appears to be a grand exodus of more than 100 hydrogen clouds streaming away from the center of the Milky Way and heading into intergalactic space."
We also clearly see that each galaxy generates new stars.
The milky way generates 10 stars per year while the Baby Boom galaxy generates about 4,000 new stars per year.
We also see that the aria near the SMBH is fully loaded with Hydrogen.
Therefore, we have to ask ourselves what is the source of all of that Hydrogen in the center of the spiral galaxy?
How could it be that we see so many Gas clouds that are ejected outwards, while we don't see even one Atom falls in?
How so many gas clouds could be ejected from the center of the galaxy and there is still many more to generate so many new stars every year?
How could it be that even after 12 Billion years the aria around the SMBH at the center of the galaxy is still fully loaded with Hydrogen?
How could it be that there is still plenty of hydrogen at the center of the galaxy to form 4000 new stars per year (at that baby boom galaxy?)
How could it be that the SMBH is so massive while there are so many stars and gas cloud around it?
If this is not good enough for you then let me remind you that the galaxy is crossing the space at almost 600 Km sec.
Did you know that for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside?
So, the galaxy must collide with millions over billions stars as it cross the space.
Where are all of those stars?
Why none of them penetrate into our galaxy and collide with one of the existing stars in the spiral arms?
Why we do not see any star from outside that falls into the galactic disc?
How could it be that the ring in the galaxy is so thick (about 3,000 LY) while the edge of the spiral arm is so thin (less than 400 LY)
How the Bar had been formed and how it really functions?
Why at the center of the galaxy there is a bulge?
Why the galactic disc starts from the Ring and not from the SMBH itself?
There are many more questions.
Do you claim that our scientists have real answers for all of those questions?
They actually claim that they have succeeded to modeling the spiral galaxy.
Is it real?
Did they get in their modeling the real shape of the spiral galaxy (Bulge, Bar, Ring, spiral arms?
Did they get in their modeling the correct thickness at any location in the galaxy including the correct thickness of the Bulge, Bar, Ring, spiral arm?
You know and all the 10,000 scientists know that the answer is clearly NO
So our scientists have totally failed to model the real shape of spiral galaxy.
Hence, any scientist that claims that we have succeeded to model the spiral galaxy by 100% is a LIAR!!!
That by itself proves that our scientists don't have a basic clue how spiral galaxy really works.
Even so, those scientists try to let us know how it works.
So, who is the real dishonest here?
Is it me that sets the clear observations in front of your eyes (especially the no observation), or is it our 10,000 BBT scientists that totally ignore all of those observations that they don't like and totally failed to understand how to fit the observations to their wrong understanding?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2021 12:37:29
Why is it dishonest to accept the observations as is?Saying that things fall up is dishonest or insane.
Which are you?
Do you estimate that the moon orbits at almost the speed of light around the Earth and its temp is almost 10^9c?No, but I am also not stupid enough to mistake the Earth for a supermassive black hole.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/05/2021 17:00:37
Saying that things fall up is dishonest or insane.Why do you call this matter as "things" and not "orbital things" or orbital objects?
Which are you?
Do you claim that around the SMBH there are "things" that are just waiting in for their time to be eaten by the SMBH?
Can you please offer some examples of those "things"?
If you confirm that those things are orbital things then my reply to your message is as follow:
Saying that orbital things fall into the SMBH accretion disc and in that process increase their orbital velocity to almost the speed of light and increase their temp to 10^9c is dishonest.
Well, you are the one which offered the moon as an example for an accretion disc.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:15:56No, but I am also not stupid enough to mistake the Earth for a supermassive black hole.
Do you estimate that the moon orbits at almost the speed of light around the Earth and its temp is almost 10^9c?
If you don't like this mistake, then please feel free to offer other example.
You are the one that claimed for: "general" rules for the universe
Do you understand that the point of science is to find "general" rules for the universe?You also claimed that:
because we can't really see what's happening near BH because of the distance,So, please offer better example for your "general rules for the universe" that "orbital things" should fall in over time and in that process increase their orbital velocity and their self temp.
Post by: Origin on 08/05/2021 19:31:28
Dave, you are being so dishonest here.
Why?Because, for instance, we are discussing accretion disks, which by definition are disks of material that accumulate around and then fall into a central gravity well. You dishonestly bring up a stable circular orbit as a reason for material in accretion disks not falling into the central gravity well. These are obviously not the same thing and you know it, or should, based on your opinion that you are a genius.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2021 20:10:07
Why do you call this matter as "things" and not "orbital things" or orbital objects?Because I mean all things, obviously.
Do you claim that around the SMBH there are "things" that are just waiting in for their time to be eaten by the SMBH?No
Can you please offer some examples of those "things"?I dropped a screwdriver the other day, and it fell to the floor.
It is currently raining; the rain falls down.
Well, you are the one which offered the moon as an example for an accretion disc.No. I said the moon may once have been an accretion disk. In fact, it probably wasn't- but that's beside the point.
But that is not the same as saying it's at a billion degrees, is it?
For you to imply that it is tells us that you are dishonest or stupid.
Which is it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/05/2021 21:18:07
Because, for instance, we are discussing accretion disks, which by definition are disks of material that accumulate around and then fall into a central gravity well.Definition of whom?
Did our scientists ever observed any sort of matter as it falls all the way into the SMBH accretion disc, increasing its orbital velocity to almost the speed of light and increasing its temp to 10^9 once it get o the accretion disc?
Yes or No - please!
As the answer is clearly no, why do they call it accretion disc?
You dishonestly bring up a stable circular orbit as a reason for material in accretion disks not falling into the central gravity well.NO!
If you can offer one real observation for matter that falls all the way into the accretion disc, I would fully accept your understanding that the accretion disc is really accreting the matter from outside.
However, currently we only see matter that is ejected outwards from the center of the galaxy, while we have never observed any sort of matter that falls inwards into the disc.
Therefore, as we only really see and observe matter as it moves outwards, while we have NEVER EVER saw any matter that falls inwards all the way into the accretion disc - then this disc MUST be called excretion disc and not accretion disc.
Hence, Dishonest means that our scientists call it accretion disc while they have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter that falls from outside into the accretion disc.
Any person that call the SMBH Disc as accretion disc is clearly dishonest!
These are obviously not the same thing and you know it, or should, based on your opinion that you are a genius.I do not consider myself as a genius. I'm electronic engineer with master in communication. I have quite deep knowledge in science. I do believe that any person which would place the real observations in front of his eyes would get to the same conclusions as I did.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:00:37So, you can't offer even one real example to support your nonsense about those "general" rules for the universe" that should help the matter to fall all the way into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Well, you are the one which offered the moon as an example for an accretion disc.
No. I said the moon may once have been an accretion disk. In fact, it probably wasn't- but that's beside the point.
All you can do is to offer a screwdriver:
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:00:37Would you kindly offer better example to support your imagination that matter can falls into that SMBH accretion disc and by doing so it also increase its orbital velocity to almost the speed of light and the self temp to 10^9.
Can you please offer some examples of those "things"?
I dropped a screwdriver the other day, and it fell to the floor.
As long as you (and all the other 10,000 BBT) can't do so, then this disc must be called Excretion disc.
Starting from this moment, any person that calls this disc as accretion disc is dishonest by my Definition.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2021 21:20:23
I do not consider myself as a genius.Then why do you think you are right and everyone else in the world is wrong?
So, you can't offer even one real example to support your nonsense about those "general" rules for the universe"I offered two examples of the general observation that things fall down.
You haven't produced a single example of them not doing.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/05/2021 21:21:13
Starting from this moment, any person that calls this disc as accretion disc is dishonest by my Definition.That's a stupid definition.
Post by: Origin on 08/05/2021 21:26:09
Definition of whom?Not surprisingly, more dishonesty. Go to google, type in, "what is an accretion disk". You will find the whom is everyone, except for an occasional crank or moron.
If you can offer one real observation for matter that falls all the way into the accretion disc, I would fully accept your understanding that the accretion disc is really accreting the matter from outside.Arguing with a crank is pointless. A crank argues from a position that is not logical or evidenced based so logic and evidence cannot convince them of anything.
Post by: Origin on 08/05/2021 21:34:54
I'm electronic engineer......I have quite deep knowledge in science.I don't believe the first part and the second part is false. I don't believe that someone who has an electrical engineering degree could be so clueless, unless you have some form of dementia or have had some sort of brain injury, in which case I am sorry that happened to you. Your knowledge of science is atrocious.
Post by: evan_au on 09/05/2021 04:22:44
Quote from: Dave Lev
we have never ever seen any star/Planet/Moon/Asteroid/Atom or even a tinny particle that falls into any SMBH' accretion disc from outside.Does this count? https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2021 10:30:43
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/05/2021 20:24:18
Or this.Thanks for this great article.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165
It actually fully confirms my understanding about the SMBH accretion disc activity.
In this article it is stated clearly that the matter at the outer disc orbits at about 0.1c and this matter is clearly ejected outwards:
" UFOs appear to be a common component of luminous AGNs (Tombesi et al. 2010, 2011; Gofford et al. 2013). With typical velocities of v ∼ 0.1c, these highly ionized winds imply significant feedback on to the surrounding interstellar gas, offering a likely explanation of the M–σ relation (Ferrarese & Merritt 2000; Gebhardt et al. 2000), by simultaneously constraining the growth of an SMBH and star formation in the central bulge of its host galaxy (King 2003, 2005; King & Pounds 2015)."
Please remember that the meaning of UFO is ultrafast outflows!
So, we have clear indication that the matter from the outermost accretion ring is ejected outwards at ultrafast velocity.
It is also stated that this matter/gas is used for "star formation in the central bulge ".
So, now we understand the clear activity of the outermost ring of the accretion disc - which is UFO or ultrafast outflows!
However, this article also discuss about the innermost ring.
In this side, the matter orbits at 0.3c
it is stated:
" The redshifted absorption arises in a column of highly ionized matter close to the black hole, with a line-of-sight velocity, v ∼ 0.3c, inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc. "
It is also stated a very important message:
"Here we report the detection of a short-lived, ultrafast inflow during the same observation."
Hence, let's understand the data:
At the outermost ring - The matter orbits at 0.1c and our scientists clearly observe stable ultrafast outflow.
At the innermost ring - The matter orbits at 0.3c and our scientists observe a short-lived ultrafast inflow.
Actually, the clearly claim that the matter in the outermost ring is ejected outwards and that matter is used to form new stars (remember 10 stars per year in the milky way and 4000 stars in the baby boom galaxy).
Therefore, they don't observe any sort of matter that falls from outside into the outermost ring.
That observation fully supports my understanding that no matter from outside falls into the SMBH accretion disc.
However, we still need to ask the following question:
If the matter from the innermost is falling inwards, while the matter from the outermost ring is ejected outwards, how could it be that the accretion disc is still full with matter/plasma?
I actually have already offered the answer for that question.
New particle pair is created by the SMBH near the innermost ring.
While one particle falls inwards (into the SMBH) the other one is drifted outwards.
As the creation of new particle pair is not a stable process we see that kind of short-lived ultrafast inflow.
Therefore, in this process the SMBH increases its mass with the inflow of one particle from the new created pair, while the other particle is drifted outwards.
That particle starts it orbital velocity at .3c at the innermost ring. As it gets to the outermost ring its velocity is reduced to 0.1c.
At that point it is ejected outwards with many others nearby particles/atoms as ultrafast outflow.
Those new created partials/atoms will be used to form new stars at the central bulge!
So many thanks for that great article which finely fully confirms my understanding that the accretion disc is actually excretion disc.
Thanks for this article.Quote from: Dave Levwe have never ever seen any star/Planet/Moon/Asteroid/Atom or even a tinny particle that falls into any SMBH' accretion disc from outside.Does this count? https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
However, it is not relevant for our discussion.
In this article they discuss about a BH and not about a SMBH.
They also don't give any relevant data about the matter from the star "which then wraps itself around the black hole"
How do they know if the matter from the star is drifting inwards into the BH or the matter from the BH is actually drifting outwards into that star?
They also don't give any information about that BH.
What is the size of the BH and the nearby star?
How do they know that the BH "sucks in its matter"?
Sorry, that article is useless without giving us full information about the direction of the matter.
Is it Inflow - redshift or outflow - blueshift?
They don't tell us about the velocities at different rings and where this BH is located.
Just a pure nonsense!
Nice try...
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/05/2021 22:02:03
It actually fully confirms my understanding about the SMBH accretion disc activity.No, it doesn't.
It confirms the presence of "An ultrafast inflow "
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/05/2021 05:38:24
Shame on you!It actually fully confirms my understanding about the SMBH accretion disc activity.No, it doesn't.
It confirms the presence of "An ultrafast inflow "
You don't let the observation to confuse you.
You wish to believe that matter from outside falls into the accretion disc, while that article which you have offered fully confirms that matter from the outermost accretion ring is ejected outwards at ultrafast outflow. Actually starting 2001 our scientists already observe that outflow from the same accretion disc:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8150586
"We report two new XMM–Newton observations of PG1211+143 in 2007 December, again finding evidence for the fast outflow of highly ionized gas first detected in 2001. "
So, from 2001 the whole science community already KNEW that "highly ionized gas" is ejected from the accretion disc at a fast outflow.
That observation that was already in front of their eyes all those year doesn't convinced them (or you) that they have a fatal mistake in their statement that the accretion disc accertes matter from outside.
You have even stated several times that we have never observed any ejected matter from the accretion disc.
So, while all of this long time all the 10,000 BBT scientists knew that matter from the accertion disc is ejected outwards, they have continue to look for an observation that could confirm their wrong imagination that matter falls in from outside.
In the articale that you have offered (Published: 03 September 2018)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165
They start the article with the highlight of the outflow:
"ABSTRACT
Blueshifted absorption lines in the X-ray spectra of an active galactic nucleus (AGN) show that ultrafast outflows with typical velocities v ∼ 0.1c are a common feature of these luminous objects."
They clearly highlight that this Blueshifted ultrafast outflows is quite common.
So, they see that matter from the outermost accretion ring is ejected outwards in many other galaxies.
However, when it comes to the inflow it is stated clearly that it comes from the innermost ring:
"The redshifted absorption arises in a column of highly ionized matter close to the black hole, with a line-of-sight velocity, v ∼ 0.3c, inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc. "
They also claim that this inflow is "inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc".
This statement is one of the most important messages in this article.
Why the matter at the accretion disc doesn't fall directly in?
Why they see that the matter that falls in is inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc?
I have an answer for that:
The creation of the new particle pair is created very close to the event horizon of the SMBH.
It could be at any location at that specific radius.
So, it could be above or below the plane circular of the accretion disc.
Therefore, they see the inflow from that innermost radius (which is close to the event horizon) at any location above or below the plane circular of the accretion disc.
Conclusion:
Those articles prove that our scientists knew from 2001 that matter from the accretion disc at many galaxies is actually ejected outwards from the outermost accretion ring/disc at ultrafast outflow.
Therefore all of those 20 years (from 2001) they have kept this data uncovered and continue to claim that the accretion disc must get its matter from outside.
Therefore, they have totally confused all of us including Mr. Origin which had stated:
Not surprisingly, more dishonesty. Go to google, type in, "what is an accretion disk". You will find the whom is everyone, except for an occasional crank or moron.This isn't just "dishonesty". This is a pure lie!
So, any scientist which knew about this observation that matter from the accretion disc is actually ejected outwards and hide this information is LIER by definition.
Therefore, I claim that the science community (including all the 10,000 BBT scientists) which knew for the last 20 year that matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards at UFO are liars. ONLY those that knew about it!
As you Mr BC continue to ignore this key information then you are also part of those liars!
Shame on you and all of them!
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/05/2021 08:28:52
You are now claiming that cars go backwards because that's the direction which the exhaust fumes go.Shame on you!It actually fully confirms my understanding about the SMBH accretion disc activity.No, it doesn't.
It confirms the presence of "An ultrafast inflow "
You don't let the observation to confuse you.
You wish to believe that matter from outside falls into the accretion disc, while that article which you have offered fully confirms that matter from the outermost accretion ring is ejected outwards at ultrafast outflow. Actually starting 2001 our scientists already observe that outflow from the same accretion disc:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8150586
"We report two new XMM–Newton observations of PG1211+143 in 2007 December, again finding evidence for the fast outflow of highly ionized gas first detected in 2001. "
So, from 2001 the whole science community already KNEW that "highly ionized gas" is ejected from the accretion disc at a fast outflow.
That observation that was already in front of their eyes all those year doesn't convinced them (or you) that they have a fatal mistake in their statement that the accretion disc accertes matter from outside.
You have even stated several times that we have never observed any ejected matter from the accretion disc.
So, while all of this long time all the 10,000 BBT scientists knew that matter from the accertion disc is ejected outwards, they have continue to look for an observation that could confirm their wrong imagination that matter falls in from outside.
In the articale that you have offered (Published: 03 September 2018)
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165
They start the article with the highlight of the outflow:
"ABSTRACT
Blueshifted absorption lines in the X-ray spectra of an active galactic nucleus (AGN) show that ultrafast outflows with typical velocities v ∼ 0.1c are a common feature of these luminous objects."
They clearly highlight that this Blueshifted ultrafast outflows is quite common.
So, they see that matter from the outermost accretion ring is ejected outwards in many other galaxies.
However, when it comes to the inflow it is stated clearly that it comes from the innermost ring:
"The redshifted absorption arises in a column of highly ionized matter close to the black hole, with a line-of-sight velocity, v ∼ 0.3c, inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc. "
They also claim that this inflow is "inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc".
This statement is one of the most important messages in this article.
Why the matter at the accretion disc doesn't fall directly in?
Why they see that the matter that falls in is inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc?
I have an answer for that:
The creation of the new particle pair is created very close to the event horizon of the SMBH.
It could be at any location at that specific radius.
So, it could be above or below the plane circular of the accretion disc.
Therefore, they see the inflow from that innermost radius (which is close to the event horizon) at any location above or below the plane circular of the accretion disc.
Conclusion:
Those articles prove that our scientists knew from 2001 that matter from the accretion disc at many galaxies is actually ejected outwards from the outermost accretion ring/disc at ultrafast outflow.
Therefore all of those 20 years (from 2001) they have kept this data uncovered and continue to claim that the accretion disc must get its matter from outside.
Therefore, they have totally confused all of us including Mr. Origin which had stated:Not surprisingly, more dishonesty. Go to google, type in, "what is an accretion disk". You will find the whom is everyone, except for an occasional crank or moron.This isn't just "dishonesty". This is a pure lie!
So, any scientist which knew about this observation that matter from the accretion disc is actually ejected outwards and hide this information is LIER by definition.
Therefore, I claim that the science community (including all the 10,000 BBT scientists) which knew for the last 20 year that matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards at UFO are liars. ONLY those that knew about it!
As you Mr BC continue to ignore this key information then you are also part of those liars!
Shame on you and all of them!
Stuff falls into BH which is why the paper talks about "An ultrafast inflow ".
Some small fraction gets flung out.
You are trying to pretend that the first bit doesn't happen.
Is that because you didn't understand it, or are you lying?
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/05/2021 15:14:01
Stuff falls into BH which is why the paper talks about "An ultrafast inflow ".This is a clear lie!
Don't you agree that in the article it is stated that the Ultrafast inflow comes ONLY from the innermost accretion ring (as at this ring the orbital velocity is 0.3c) while the matter from the outermost ring is ejected outwards as Ultrafast Outflow (at that ring the orbital velocity is only 0.1c).
It is also clearly stated that the UFO that had been ejected outwards is used to form new stars at the central bulge.
If all the above is correct, then how can you continue to lie that matter falls into the accretion disc from outside???
Is that because you didn't understand it, or are you lying?Sorry, you should understand the meaning of those observations while there is no indication/observation for any sort of matter from outside that falls into the accretion disc.
Don't you have some minimal obligation to all of those real observations?
How can you claim that I lie while my message is clearly based only on real observation.
How can you continue to lie in the name of the BBT "science"?
Do you really believe that as a scientist you have the power to ignore all those observations that fully contradicts your incorrect theory and force that Accretion disc to "eat imagination matter" from outside?
Shame on you!
Post by: Origin on 10/05/2021 16:17:28
Don't you agree that in the article it is stated that the Ultrafast inflow comes ONLY from the innermost accretion ring (as at this ring the orbital velocity is 0.3c) while the matter from the outermost ring is ejected outwards as Ultrafast Outflow (at that ring the orbital velocity is only 0.1c).No, the article does not say that. It is like you don't read what is printed, you read what you want to be printed.
You are in such denial that it is not possible to have anything resembling a reasonable discussion. Your ideas are not correct, ignoring reality does not make reality bend to your desire.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/05/2021 17:19:49
As you reject the clear message from that article, then what do you understand?Don't you agree that in the article it is stated that the Ultrafast inflow comes ONLY from the innermost accretion ring (as at this ring the orbital velocity is 0.3c) while the matter from the outermost ring is ejected outwards as Ultrafast Outflow (at that ring the orbital velocity is only 0.1c).No, the article does not say that. It is like you don't read what is printed, you read what you want to be printed.
You are in such denial that it is not possible to have anything resembling a reasonable discussion. Your ideas are not correct, ignoring reality does not make reality bend to your desire.
If you understand that matter from outside is falling into the accretion disc as ultrafast inflow, then would you kindly highlight that message from the article.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/05/2021 19:26:27
As you reject the clear message from that article, then what do you understand?That's a big question from the man who didn't understand the title.
Anyway...
" causing near free-fall of gas towards the black hole. "
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/05/2021 02:25:31
Sorry, the gas that falls towards the Black hole is coming from the accretion disc itself.As you reject the clear message from that article, then what do you understand?That's a big question from the man who didn't understand the title.
Anyway...
" causing near free-fall of gas towards the black hole. "
You have just copy few words from the full explanation which is as follow:
"The redshifted absorption arises in a column of highly ionized matter close to the black hole, with a line-of-sight velocity, v ∼ 0.3c, inconsistent with the standard picture of a plane circular accretion disc. This may represent the first direct evidence for chaotic accretion in an AGN, where accretion discs are generally misaligned to the black hole spin. For sufficient inclinations, the Lense–Thirring effect can break the discs into discrete rings, which then precess, collide, and shock, causing near free-fall of gas towards the black hole. The observed accretion rate for the reported infall is comparable to the hard X-ray luminosity in PG1211+143, suggesting that direct infall may be a significant contributor to inner disc accretion."
It is stated clearly that the accretion disc could be break to discrete rings that collide with each other:
"This may represent the first direct evidence for chaotic accretion in an AGN, where accretion discs are generally misaligned to the black hole spin. For sufficient inclinations, the Lense–Thirring effect can break the discs into discrete rings, which then precess, collide, and shock, causing near free-fall of gas towards the black hole"
The impact of that internal collisions between the rings could "causing near free-fall of gas towards the black hole"
So, the whole idea is that the in falling gas is coming from the accretion disc itself!
Therefore, this ultrafast inflow doesn't represent a matter that falls from outside into the accretion disc, but from the accretion disc into the SMBH.
It is even specifically highlighted that the in falling matter is coming from the inner side of the accretion disc:
" suggesting that direct infall may be a significant contributor to inner disc accretion."
If this is not enough, we also need to focus on the velocities of that gas which is close to the BH:
"The redshifted absorption arises in a column of highly ionized matter close to the black hole, with a line-of-sight velocity, v ∼ 0.3c"
So, the 0.3c is the velocity of the highly ionized gas/matter in the accretion disc which is close to the BH.
That 0.3c represents the innermost ring velocity as the outflow is coming from the outermost accretion ring that its velocity is 0.1c:
"Blueshifted absorption lines in the X-ray spectra of an active galactic nucleus (AGN) show that ultrafast outflows with typical velocities v ∼ 0.1c "
Hence:
The inflow of gas into the SMBH is coming from the innermost accretion ring while the outflow is coming from the outermost accretion ring.
Actually we have discussed before about that kind of discrete rings in the accretion disc.
Therefore, there is no observation for matter that falls from outside into the accretion disc!
On the contrary, we have clear observation of gas and matter that are ejected outwards as UFO from the outermost accretion disc!
Is it finally clear to you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/05/2021 08:46:18
Sorry, the gas that falls towards the Black hole is coming from the accretion disc itself.That's obviously absurd.
Where did the BH come from?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/05/2021 08:48:16
It is even specifically highlighted that the in falling matter is coming from the inner side of the accretion disc:Do you realise that "infall" means stuff is falling in?
" suggesting that direct infall may be a significant contributor to inner disc accretion."
It's falling from teh disk into the hole.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/05/2021 21:09:06
That is correctIt is even specifically highlighted that the in falling matter is coming from the inner side of the accretion disc:Do you realise that "infall" means stuff is falling in?
" suggesting that direct infall may be a significant contributor to inner disc accretion."
It's falling from teh disk into the hole.
The matter is falling from the innermost side of the accretion disc into the SMBH.
However, on the other side of the disc which is the outermost, the matter is ejected outwards at that ultrafast outflow.
It seems to me that all you care is "inflow"
You don't care about the outflow from the accretion disc as it contradicts the BBT.
So, it is quite clear to me that you would continue to hold the flag of the Inflow and ignore the outflow as you don't care about the real observation/science.
You only care about the BBT and any observation that contradicts the BBT should be ignored from your side.
Therefore, it is clear that I waste my time on "scientist" that has no willing to accept any observation that contradicts the BBT.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/05/2021 21:21:53
Now you realise stuff does fall down...
Where did the BH come from?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/05/2021 06:14:41
OK.I have realized it from the first moment that you have offered that article.
Now you realise stuff does fall down...
However, in that same article it is also stated that matter from the outer side is ejected outwards as UFO (Ultra fast outflow.
However, it seems that you have very selected ability to read and understand ONLY the meaning of UFI (inflow). Unfortunately, when it comes to the UFO you just can't read it.
So, let me try to help you in this reading:
In the article that you have offered (Published: 03 September 2018)If you still have difficulties to understand it, please do not hesitate to ask.
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165
They start the article with the highlight of the outflow:
"ABSTRACT
Blueshifted absorption lines in the X-ray spectra of an active galactic nucleus (AGN) show that ultrafast outflows with typical velocities v ∼ 0.1c are a common feature of these luminous objects."
They clearly highlight that this Blueshifted ultrafast outflows is quite common.
So, they see that matter from the outermost accretion ring is ejected outwards in many other galaxies.
My job is to help you in this difficult reading process..
I highly advice you to take your time and read it at least 100 times before you give up.
If finally you understand that the meaning of the UFO is Ultra Fast Outflow from the outer side of the accretion disc than just confirmed this message.
If you still have some difficulties, please advice and we will do whatever is needed to help
Where did the BH come from?It is very difficult for you to understand the basic meaning of UFO so how can we already jump to so difficult question?
Please let's verify first that the UFI Inflow/UFO outflow activates at the accretion disc is clear to you.
Let me know if you if you finally understand that the matter from the inner side of the accretion disc is falling into the SMBH as UFI while at the same time the matter from the outer side of the same disc is ejected outwards as UFO.
Good Luck
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2021 08:38:52
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/05/2021 11:32:53
In Dave Lev world, if you demolish a building, and some of the dust is blown higher than the roof, the building falls up.Sorry, if you would have to demolish a building then would never do so as you ignore all the observations.
So, how can you demolish something that you can't see although it is there in front of your eyes?
In your imagination world any observation that contradicts the BBT theory has no meaning and should be ignored.
You clearly have some basic knowledge in English and you clearly know the meaning of UFO.
Unfortunately for all of us, that UFO observation contradicts the BBT theory.
Therefore, you and all the other BBT scientists totally ignore it.
Starting of 2001 we observe the UFO (and only UFO) in this galaxy.
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8150586
"We report two new XMM–Newton observations of PG1211+143 in 2007 December, again finding evidence for the fast outflow of highly ionized gas first detected in 2001. "
However, as expected our scientists totally ignore that outflow as they wanted to find inflow. Therefore they have totally ignored that outflow and continue to look for inflow..
Finally only in 2018 they have observed some kind of inflow at a galaxy which is located ONE BILLION LY Away.
Just think how many galaxies exist in that one Billion LY radius.
Can we assume that at least one billion galaxies are their?
So out of all those billion galaxies you have finally found one single galaxy with "INFLOW"
BRAVO for all of you!!!
Now you have observed "inflow" at the Ultra far away galaxy.
However, this inflow is from the innermost accretion disc into the SMBH and not from outside into the accretion disc.
At the same time our scientists still clearly see the outflow of matter from the outermost accretion ring into the Central bulge.
But who cares.
You have an inflow and that's all you need.
Actually our scientists clearly see that kind of outflow at almost any available galaxy including our MW galaxy.
They observe those 100 gas clouds as they are ejected outwards from the core of the Milky way.
They also see all of those molecular jet stream as they are boosted outwards from the galaxy.
They see that activity at any galaxy.
But, they have neglected all of those observations.
They wanted inflow and they have got the "golden inflow" at that far away galaxy!
So, now you and the whole science community can finally celebrate your "inflow" success.
So, just before you start your last winning dance, do you confirm that our scientists still see the outflow from that far away accretion disc?
If you accept the clear observation that the accretion disc at that galaxy still ejects the UFO and you hide his info from your eyes and mind, then for me you are a LAIR.
Not just you. Any scientist that read those articles and clearly understand the meaning of the UFO, and ignore that observation can't call himself as scientist.
Science must be based on real observation.
You can't ignore the clear UFO from Billions accretion discs and based the whole theory on one inflow at that far away galaxy (while even in this observation there is no evidence for matter that falls into the accretion disc -Only from the inner side of the accretion disc to the SMBH).
If you were really scientist that are looking for real science you have to ask yourselves:
How could it be that in the same accretion disc you see UFI that falls into the SMBH and UFO that ejected outwards from the same accretion disc?
However, as expected you don't care about real science.
You all only care about the lovely BBT imagination!
Therefore, you and all those 10,000 BBT scientists carry the name of science for nothing!
Shame on you all of you!
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2021 12:19:32
Unfortunately for all of us, that UFO observation contradicts the BBT theory.Not if you understand it.
Please see my comment about dust and demolition.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2021 12:20:51
So out of all those billion galaxies you have finally found one single galaxy with "INFLOW"That is one more bit of data than you have found.
You have ZERO evidence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/05/2021 15:19:54
Your understanding is clearly based on BBTQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:32:53Not if you understand it.
Unfortunately for all of us, that UFO observation contradicts the BBT theory.
So what do you understand from the following:
https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/8150586What is the meaning of: "again finding evidence for the fast outflow of highly ionized gas "?
"We report two new XMM–Newton observations of PG1211+143 in 2007 December, again finding evidence for the fast outflow of highly ionized gas first detected in 2001. "
What do you understand from:
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165Where those "ultrafast outflows" comes from?
Over the past 15 yr, observations with a new generation of X-ray observatories (Jansen 2001; Mitsuda 2007) have revealed ultrafast outflows (UFOs), probably launched from regions of the disc accreting"
Some more:
1. It is stated:
"UFOs appear to be a common component of luminous AGNs "
So what is the meaning of "common component of luminous AGNs"?
2. It is stated:
To further explore the properties of this powerful UFO"
What is the meaning of powerful UFO?
Do you mean that based on your understanding it has no power?
3. It is stated:
" While all previous UFO detections report a single velocity,"
So, what is the meaning of "all previous UFO DETECTIONS?"
Do you understand that we have never detected that UFO?
4.It is stated:
"For that reason, all current UFO discoveries essentially rest on the detection of blueshifted Lyman"
What is the meaning of Blueshift? Is it an inflow from outside into the accretion disc, or outflow outwards from the accretion disc?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2021 15:48:41
Your understanding is clearly based on BBTYes.
My understanding is based in well supported science.
What is the meaning of: "again finding evidence for the fast outflow of highly ionized gas "?It's very obvious what it means.
Why are you asking?
Is it because you don't understand that- like the collapsing building- the stuff coming up is a consequence of the much larger amount of stuff going down?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/05/2021 17:16:00
Yes.Thanks for this honest answer.
My understanding is based in well supported science.
Now we all know that you really don't care about the observations.
You and all your 10,000 BBT scientists wish to force the Universe to work according your BBT nonsense.
As you already started with honest answer, would you kindly offer also honest answer for the following:
Please read again the following messages and let me know if we really see an outflow from the accretion disc of this galaxy?
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165If the answer is yes, do we see an inflow from outside the galaxy into the accretion disc or we only see an inflow from the accretion disc into the SMBH.
Over the past 15 yr, observations with a new generation of X-ray observatories (Jansen 2001; Mitsuda 2007) have revealed ultrafast outflows (UFOs), probably launched from regions of the disc accreting"
Where those "ultrafast outflows" comes from?
Some more:
1. It is stated:
"UFOs appear to be a common component of luminous AGNs "
So what is the meaning of "common component of luminous AGNs"?
2. It is stated:
To further explore the properties of this powerful UFO"
What is the meaning of powerful UFO?
Do you mean that based on your understanding it has no power?
3. It is stated:
" While all previous UFO detections report a single velocity,"
So, what is the meaning of "all previous UFO DETECTIONS?"
Do you understand that we have never detected that UFO?
4.It is stated:
"For that reason, all current UFO discoveries essentially rest on the detection of blueshifted Lyman"
What is the meaning of Blueshift? Is it an inflow from outside into the accretion disc, or outflow outwards from the accretion disc?
So, please offer honest answer to the following:
Do you confirm that:
1. We clearly see an outflow from the accretion disc
2. We have NEVER EVER see any inflow from the outside into the accretion disc (I would like to remind you that you have already confirmed that issue)
Yes or no please!
Don't waste my time for nothing...
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2021 17:30:18
We have NEVER EVER see any inflow from the outside into the accretion disc (I would like to remind you that you have already confirmed that issue)Being a scientist, I will change my opinion when presented with evidence.
So this twaddle" (I would like to remind you that you have already confirmed that issue)" is irrelevant, isn't it?
Having looked at the paper I can confirm that I was mistaken.
There is direct evidence of stuff falling into the BH.
You can not see through a black hole.
The article refers to radiation that is red shifted and to radiation which is blue shifted.
That confirms that some material is moving away from us and some is moving towards us.
So some is falling in and some is coming out.
What you still have to show is any support for your physically impossible idea that material is being made in the accretion disk.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2021 17:30:51
Don't waste my time for nothing...The one wasting time here is you.
You are welcome to stop.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/05/2021 18:11:28
Is it because you don't understand that- like the collapsing building- the stuff coming up is a consequence of the much larger amount of stuff going down?If something collapse as a building it is expected to see it quite clearly even if stuff is coming up in this process.
However, when it comes to the accretion disc we only observe the outflow from this disc, while we have NEVER EVER seen any matter that falls from outside into the accretion disc.
Only if you are totally blinded with that BBT theory you would assume that this clear outflow is an outcome of inflow which you have never ever observed!!!
Having looked at the paper I can confirm that I was mistaken.You keep on with the observation that stuff falls into the BH from the accretion disc while you totally ignore the observation that we have NEVER EVER observed any matter that falls into the accretion disc.
There is direct evidence of stuff falling into the BH.
You can not see through a black hole.If we can see a matter from the accretion disc that falls into the BH there is no limitation why we can't see a matter from outside that falls into the accretion disc.
The article refers to radiation that is red shifted and to radiation which is blue shifted.Our scientists clearly specify what is what.
That confirms that some material is moving away from us and some is moving towards us.
It is stated that the redshirt is from the accretion into the BH while the Blueshift is from the accretion outwards.
So some is falling in and some is coming out.Yes, some matter from the inwards side of the accretion disc is falling into the SMBH and some matter from the same accretion disc is coming out from the outer side of the disc.
What you still have to show is any support for your physically impossible idea that material is being made in the accretion disk.If we clearly see that the accretion disc supply matter to the SMBH and at the same time it also ejected matter outwards, then the ONLY one option for that activity is as follow:
New matter must be created at the accretion disc in order to supply matter to the SMBH and also eject some matter outwards at the same time
It is absolutely difficult for you to accept or understand this simple observation as you totally blinded with the BBT imagination.
Please try to take out that BBT imagination from your mind and you would easily understand the real meaning of the OBSERVATION.
If you can't do it, then I can't help you anymore.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/05/2021 18:39:50
It is stated that the redshirt is from the accretion into the BH while the Blueshift is from the accretion outwards.That's what I said.
Please try to keep up.
If something collapse as a building it is expected to see it quite clearly even if stuff is coming up in this process.No.
That's not what is expected. You normally can't see anything much of the structure because of the dust.
Why did you say that?
Did you not realise that you did not know what you were talking about?
New matter must be created at the accretion disc in order to supply matter to the SMBH and also eject some matter outwards at the same timeNo.
Because more falls in than comes out.
If you can't do it, then I can't help you anymore.You ae not helping anyone, or anything.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/05/2021 17:52:16
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:11:28That's what I said.
It is stated that the redshirt is from the accretion into the BH while the Blueshift is from the accretion outwards.
Let's verify that we fully agree on the Observations:
1. In the section between the accretion disc to the SMBH:
In this section matter from the inner side of the accretion disc is falling into the SMBH as Ultra fast Inflow.
In this section that matter from the accretion disc is falling into the SMBH as Ultra fast Inflow.
We have first observe this UFI in 2018
There is no observation of matter that ejected upwards from the SMBH into the accretion disc.
2. In the section between the accretion disc all the way outwards to the center of the Bulge
In this section that matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards to the center of the Bulge as Ultra fast outflow.
We observe this UFO for more than 20 Year.
There is no observation of matter that falls from the center of the Bulge into the accretion disc.
3. In the section between the center of the Bulge outwards
We clearly see gas clouds that are ejected outwards from the Bulge. I have offered the article about the 100 gas clouds that are moving away from the SMBH and also the the Molecular jet steam.
Do you confirm and agree with the above observations?
In this section that matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards to the center of the Bulge as Ultra fast outflow.
We observe this UFO for more than 20 Year.
There is no observation of matter that falls from the center of the Bulge into the accretion disc.
So, you compare the outflow from the accretion disc as a dust that comes out due to a collapse.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:11:28No.
If something collapse as a building it is expected to see it quite clearly even if stuff is coming up in this process.
That's not what is expected. You normally can't see anything much of the structure because of the dust.
However, we have NEVER EVER see any collapse while we see a constant flow for more than 20 years of that dust.
If something collapses it is expected that the dust outflow would decrease over time till it stop.
However, the outflow from the accretion disc is very stable for all of this long time.
Therefore, I would compare it to smoke and not to dust.
If you have a fire, than the smoke would come out as long as the fire is working.
Hence, that outflow of matter is comparable to the smoke from the fire in the accretion disc.
Therefore, there is no need for matter to fall the accretion disc as it disc generates the smoke (which is actually new matter in the fire that takes place at that accretion disc.
Because more falls in than comes out.This is a pure LIE
How can you lie and say something that contradicts the observation s badly?
We have NEVER EVER observed any matter as Star, Gas cloud or even atom that falls from outside into the accretion disc.
So why do you lie on something so important?
You may wish that something falls, but unfortunately for you and for all the BBT scientists the accretion disc doesn't want to eat any matter from outside. For the moment that we have the technology to observe the accretion disc, we have NEVER even seen any matter that falls in.
We ONLY see a constant and stable outflow.
So please - do not lie about "more falls" while we have never observed even one atom as it falls.
Please answer the following:
What is needed for you to understand that nothing really falls into the accretion disc?
What kind of evidence or observation would convince you that the accretion disc itself generates all the matter that falls into the SMBH as UFI and in the same time it also generates all the matter that it ejects outwards as UFO?
Post by: Origin on 13/05/2021 18:03:26
Please answer the following:A traumatic brain injury, possibly?
What is needed for you to understand that nothing really falls into the accretion disc?
What kind of evidence or observation would convince you that the accretion disc itself generates all the matter that falls into the SMBH as UFI and in the same time it also generates all the matter that it ejects outwards as UFO?I think, for me at least, to completely rewrite some of the basic pillars of physics it would take more than the hand waving of some uneducated guy on the internet.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2021 18:06:24
We don't see most of the stuff that falls in because, essentially, it's just "dirt".
It's dust, hydrogen and a few other bits.
And it doesn't emit light, so we don't see it.
What we do see is a small amount of matter that is heated up by the energy released from the falling stuff.
What is needed for you to understand that nothing really falls into the accretion disc?Evidence, and a plausible explanation which doesn't break the observed (and also the calculated) laws of physics.
What kind of evidence or observation would convince you that the accretion disc itself generates all the matter that falls into the SMBH as UFI and in the same time it also generates all the matter that it ejects outwards as UFO?Scientific evidence.
So, for example, I need a lot more than just you claiming it does.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/05/2021 19:16:25
You don't get it, do you?No
We don't see most of the stuff that falls in because, essentially, it's just "dirt".
It's dust, hydrogen and a few other bits.
And it doesn't emit light, so we don't see it.
We clearly see the outflow from the accretion disc.
Therefore, in the same token if there was an inflow from outside into the accretion disc - We had to see it.
Please be aware that the inflow into the accretion disc must be much higher than the outflow as we clearly see that some matter falls from the accretion disc into the SMBH.
Therefore, If we don't see any matter that falls into the accretion disc, then nothing really falls
There is no better science evidence than OBSERVATION.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:52:16Scientific evidence.
What kind of evidence or observation would convince you that the accretion disc itself generates all the matter that falls into the SMBH as UFI and in the same time it also generates all the matter that it ejects outwards as UFO?
So, for example, I need a lot more than just you claiming it does.
For the last 20 - 50 years we OBSERVE stable outflow from the accretion disc.
We have never ever seen any sort of matter that is falling in the other way - from outside into the accretion disc.
Therefore, based on science evidence --- matter does not fall into the accretion disc from outside!!!
Never & Ever
We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:52:16Evidence, and a plausible explanation which doesn't break the observed (and also the calculated) laws of physics.
What is needed for you to understand that nothing really falls into the accretion disc?
The law of physics must be based on observation.
If we see a contradiction between any law of science to the observation - then we must change the law of science and not the observation.
The observation is the Ultimate evidence for our Universe.
There is no way to bypass the observation!
You have no authority to ignore or to bypass it even if you call yourself "scientist"
Any scientist that is banding the observation can't be considered as a scientist!
Sorry - your science is based on lie.
Hence, as you and the whole BBT science community claim that matter from outside falls into the accretion disc without even a single observation of a single atom to backup your imagination, then you and all of those scientists lie to real observation and lie to real science!
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2021 19:32:22
We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.No, we do not.
Why post that tosh?
The law of physics must be based on observation.They are.
And that is perfectly consistent with the fact that we do not see what you describe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/05/2021 19:36:48
You lie!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:16:25No, we do not.
We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.
Why post that tosh?
We have NEVER EVER observed any matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside!
Shame on you!
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2021 19:52:27
We have NEVER EVER observed any matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside!
There are two problems with that.
First of all, yes we have seen it.*
Secondly, I didn't say we had.
But thee is a big difference between
" we have no evidence that apples are on the far side of the moon"
and
"We have evidence that no apples are on the far side of the moon"
If you have never seen the far side of the moon then the first statement is true, and the second statement is false.
It's also the same if you swap "apples" for "rocks".
So, when you say
We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.you are lying.
We don't have any "clear evidence" at all about BH, they are too far away.
How could we say for sure that nothing - not a single atom- falls in?
Obviously, we couldn't be sure.
So this
quote author=Dave Lev link=topic=80881.msg639571#msg639571 date=1620929785]We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.[/quote]
is nonsense.
We don't have that evidence, and we couldn't have it.
So, are you going to stop this sort of trolling ,
You lie!or are you going to carry on looking stupid?
...
Shame on you!
*
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/05/2021 20:36:59
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:36:48You lie again
We have NEVER EVER observed any matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside!
There are two problems with that.
First of all, yes we have seen it.*
We have never observed matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside!
You Lie.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:16:25you are lying.
We have already got the clear evidence observation that nothing falls into the accretion disc.
We don't have any "clear evidence" at all about BH, they are too far away.
How could we say for sure that nothing - not a single atom- falls in?
Obviously, we couldn't be sure.
We should be sure by 100% that nothing falls in.
The evidence for that is there in front of our eyes.
It is called the UFO.
That UFO is the ultra fast outflow from the accretion disc
Our scientists claim that this UFO is ejected from the accretion disc at almost 0.1c.
Now let's make a simple calculation:
We already know that the inner side of the accretion disc is very close to the event horizon.
We also know the outer side of the ring is about twice the size of the inner ring.
when we look at the radius of a S stars their minimal orbital radius (Rs) is still bigger by at least 10,000 than the outer radius of the accretion ring (Racc-out).
Rs = 10,000 Racc-out
The gravity force formula is reference to 1/R^2
So, if the gravity on an atom at the outer accretion ring is Gr1 than the gravity on the same atom at the S star radius is
Gr1 / 10^8
So, as the atom at the outer side of the accretion disc is ejected outwards at 0.1c while the gravity force there is Gr1, how can you believe that the same atom as it gets to the radius of Rs and the gravity force there is reduced by 10^8 would fall back to the accretion disc?
Please don't forget that we clearly observe a constant UFO for the last 20 years or more.
So, if something is ejected outwards from the accretion disc at that ultra high velocity against the ultra high gravity force of the SMBH, how can you believe that it should fall back after it ejected high above where its gravity force is reduced by 10^8 and against that constant outflow that is called UFO?
That by itself shows that you don't have a basic clue how the accretion disc really works!
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2021 20:44:02
We should be sure by 100% that nothing falls in.Not a single atom?
or are you going to carry on looking stupid?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2021 20:48:35
how can you believe that it should fall back after it ejected high above where its gravity force is reduced by 10^8 and against that constant outflow that is called UFO?I didn't.
I said that the dull boring stuff that isn't glowing falls in.
I didn't say that the tiny energetic amount that is thrown out goes in.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/05/2021 20:54:51
Yes, not even a single atom would fall back against that UFO!We should be sure by 100% that nothing falls in.Not a single atom?or are you going to carry on looking stupid?
We also clearly see all of those 100 Hydrogen gas clouds that are ejected from the MW galaxy.
So, nothing falls back into the accretion disc.
As you don't understand it then you don't understand how the galaxy really works!
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/05/2021 21:40:19
Yes, not even a single atom would fall back against that UFO!LOL
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2021 04:39:26
Who represents the real "LOL"?Yes, not even a single atom would fall back against that UFO!LOL
Is it our science community that at least for the last 20-50 years clearly observe a constant outflow UFO from any SMBH' accretion disc that they could monitor in the entire Universe?
Or is it me that highlight the shocking evidence that in all of that time they have never ever observed any sort of object that falls/accreted into the accretion disc?
So how could they call it accretion disc while they ONLY observe that matter is ejected outwards from this disc and there is no evidence for any sort of matter that is accreted inwards into this disc?
Sorry - Any scientist that calls that disc as accretion disc instead of excretion disc represents the real LOL and lies all together.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2021 05:50:02
I think, for me at least, to completely rewrite some of the basic pillars of physics it would take more than the hand waving of some uneducated guy on the internet.Our basic pillars of physics are based on imagination!!!
Matter does not accrete or fall into the SMBH accretion disc from outside.
NEVER & EVER!
We have a solid evidence/observation for that!
Any uneducated guy on the internet can find that shocking evidence.
Therefore, the SMBH accretion disc is actually an excretion disc!
It is a task for those people that are called "scientists" to accept that clear observation as the real basic pillar of physics.
If they do so, they will clearly understand that the BBT is nonsense.
If they would insist to hold the BBT and continue to ignore this clear observation of the basic pillar of physics then they can't be called "scientists" any more!
It's the correct time for the science community to offer me (as uneducated guy on the internet that found this shocking evidence/observation) a reward for his great effort and contribution to real pillars of physics!
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2021 08:40:40
Our basic pillars of physics are based on imagination!!!No, they are generally based on observation.
A few of them, such as the conservation laws, can also be derived mathematically.
So we know they are right.
And, since your idea doesn't follow them, we know you are wrong.
The fact that you have failed to understand the observations regarding BH doesn't chance that.
So how could they call it accretion disc while they ONLY observe that matter is ejected outwards from this disc and there is no evidence for any sort of matter that is accreted inwards into this disc?LOL
The fact that the disk is there is proof that material gathered were the disk is.
Otherwise you would need to explain how it got there (and how the BH got there- which you fail to do).
Your claim is like saying "houses must exist because bricks breed"- just because you didn't see the truck deliver the bricks.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2021 11:48:17
This is a clear LIE!!!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:50:02No, they are generally based on observation.
Our basic pillars of physics are based on imagination!!!
We all agree that we ONLY OBSERVE UFO from any galaxy that we can monitor.
You have already confirmed that any matter that was ejected outwards as a UFO won't fall back:
I didn't say that the tiny energetic amount that is thrown out goes in.So, you consider that UFO as a "tiny energetic amount that is thrown out".
You also confirm that we have NEVER EVER Observe any sort of matter that is falling into the accretion disc.
However, you try to offer an explanation for that:
I said that the dull boring stuff that isn't glowing falls in.So, you think that the matter that falls in isn't glowing, while the matter that ejected outwards as a UFO is glowing.
This concept is nonsense due to the following:
1. Our scientists told us that any matter that falls in must come with fireworks and flares.
2. You personally told us that the ultra high temp of the plasma at the accretion disc is due to the ultra high heat of the matter as it falls in.
3. So, there is no way for a matter to fall in without ultra high glowing.
4. We have today supper advanced technology that allows us to read a credit card at the surface of the moon without any need for it to glow.
5. You claim that the UFO is just a tinny friction compare to the real falling matter. So, it is absolutely ridicules that we can see that tinny UFO, while we have never ever seen the huge amount of matter that should fall into the Billion accretion disc in the entire Universe.
6. I have already set the gravity calculation for you:
We should be sure by 100% that nothing falls in.So, it is absolutely unrealistic to believe that orbital matter in the accretion disc that is very close to the SMBH and under ULTRA high gravity force, would be ejected outwards as UFO, while other orbital matter that is located far away from the SMBH and have significantly less gravity force (less by 10 ^-8) would fall in.
The evidence for that is there in front of our eyes.
It is called the UFO.
That UFO is the ultra fast outflow from the accretion disc
Our scientists claim that this UFO is ejected from the accretion disc at almost 0.1c.
Now let's make a simple calculation:
We already know that the inner side of the accretion disc is very close to the event horizon.
We also know the outer side of the ring is about twice the size of the inner ring.
when we look at the radius of a S stars their minimal orbital radius (Rs) is still bigger by at least 10,000 than the outer radius of the accretion ring (Racc-out).
Rs = 10,000 Racc-out
The gravity force formula is reference to 1/R^2
So, if the gravity on an atom at the outer accretion ring is Gr1 than the gravity on the same atom at the S star radius is
Gr1 / 10^8
So, as the atom at the outer side of the accretion disc is ejected outwards at 0.1c while the gravity force there is Gr1, how can you believe that the same atom as it gets to the radius of Rs and the gravity force there is reduced by 10^8 would fall back to the accretion disc?
Please don't forget that we clearly observe a constant UFO for the last 20 years or more.
So, if something is ejected outwards from the accretion disc at that ultra high velocity against the ultra high gravity force of the SMBH, how can you believe that it should fall back after it ejected high above where its gravity force is reduced by 10^8 and against that constant outflow that is called UFO?
That by itself shows that you don't have a basic clue how the accretion disc really works!
This is just a pure imagination!
7. We clearly see all of those 100 gas cloud and the molecular jets stream that are ejected from the galaxy.
If after all of that you rejects all observations and continue to hold your imagination that matter must fall into the accretion disc, then you are based your science on a pure imagination.
LOLNO!!!
The fact that the disk is there is proof that material gathered were the disk is.
The fact that the disk is there while the UFI represents clear observation of matter that inflow from the accretion disc to the SMBH and the UFO represents the other clear observation of matter that outflow from the accretion disc to the Central bulge proves that the accretion disc MUST generate new matter by itself!!!
Actually the ultra high temp of the plasma which is 10^9c meets the requested criteria temp for the pair particle process.
You know that and all the science community know that!
This temp wouldn't get so high on just a falling matter.
Actually, in our planet, the heat of a falling object is achieving by a collision of that matter with the atmosphere.
There is no atmosphere around the SMBH.
So, even if something falls in it can't get that kind of ultra high temp
If you would insist that is should, then you can't claim that it won't glow.
So please stop contradict yourself again and again just to protect that BBT imagination of matter that falls in while we can't see it at all as it doesn't glow.
If you would continue to claim that matter must fall into the accretion disc without any observation to support this imagination - then this is pure lie.
A few of them, such as the conservation laws, can also be derived mathematically.Any law of science must be based on clear observation.
So we know they are right.
We all know that without a falling matter and in order for the accretion disc to support the UFO and the UFI it must generate new matter.
Therefore, it is your obligation is to adjust your law of science for that activity. As your current conservation laws and mathematics prevent it, it's the time to update the mathematics and the law for that kind of activity.
Please remember - the OBSERVATION is above any law and any mathematics.
There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.
We must adjust our mathematics to meet the real observation!!!
If you can't do so, please step away and let other scientists to take care on our real observable Universe, while you can continue with your wrong mathematics and wrong law of science.
Post by: Origin on 14/05/2021 12:14:09
If you can't do so, please step away and let other scientists to take care on our real observable UniverseBut that leave only you dave. You said all the scientist are wrong. Your wiki education has allowed you to acquire a vast amount of
Your ranting about magical mass formation and anti-gravity are absurd. This is 34 pages of complete drivel on your part, what a waste of time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/05/2021 13:41:05
This is a clear LIE!!!Yes.
We all agree that we ONLY OBSERVE UFO from any galaxy that we can monitor.
What you wrote there is a lie.
We can observe stuff falling into BH
It's good to see that you realise you are lying, and put in a warning.
It would be better if you just stopped posting.
1. Our scientists told us that any matter that falls in must come with fireworks and flares.And when they "light up" that's the edge of the accretion disk.
We have today supper advanced technology that allows us to read a credit card at the surface of the moon without any need for it to glow.No we don't, but even allowing for the absurd exaggeration, the telescopes only let us see the moon because the Sun shines on it.
BH don't shine much.
So, it is absolutely ridicules that we can see that tinny UFO, while we have never ever seen the huge amount of matterIn a forest at night it is not ridiculous to say that we can see a torch, but not the trees.
You, on the other hand, seem to think that the torch must be bigger than the trees, because it's the only thing we can see.
Any law of science must be based on clear observation.We observe that things fall down, and that energy is conserved.
You, on the other hand are inventing "laws" that don't agree with these simple, obvious observations.
There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.Please show where this maths is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
If you can't do so, please step away and let other scientists to take care on our real observable Universe, while you can continue with your wrong mathematics and wrong law of science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/05/2021 20:10:25
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:48:17Yes.
This is a clear LIE!!!
We all agree that we ONLY OBSERVE UFO from any galaxy that we can monitor.
What you wrote there is a lie.
We can observe stuff falling into BH[/quote]
How long are you going to keep on with that nonsense?
We discuss about the accretion disc and you keep on with the BH.
I have already told you that we do see the UFI matter as it falls into the SMBH from the inner side of the accretion disc.
However, we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the accretion disc from outside!
On the contrary, we clearly observe the UFO as it is ejected outwards from that disc.
So, we clearly see at the same time the UFI as it falls from the accretion disc into the SMBH and the UFO as it is ejected from the accretion disc outwards.
As I have stated several times - we have no observation for any matter as it falls into the accretion disc and we will never have!
What a nonsense!!!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:48:17And when they "light up" that's the edge of the accretion disk.
1. Our scientists told us that any matter that falls in must come with fireworks and flares.
If a star was really falling inwards from outside into the direction of the accretion disc it should fall at ultra high velocity and high acceleration due to the mighty SMBH gravity.
It is expected that this star should be broken to its atoms long before it gets closer to the accretion disc.
So, we have to see the impact of that falling star.
In any case, due to its falling acceleration, it should reduce its distance to the SMBH at ultra high velocity. There is no way for it to suddenly stop at the accretion disc edge and just then start to orbit at a constant radius..
If it falls, it must fall all the way into the SMBH without any temporary stop at the accretion disc.
So, your idea that star (S2 for example) that is orbiting high above the accretion disc at relatively low velocity would fall in at ultra high acceleration and as it gets to the accretion disc edge it would suddenly stop from falling inwards and then it would "light up" and start to orbit around the SMBH at 0.1c is just imagination
Sorry, there is no science in this imagination!!!
Our scientists claim that they can read a credit card at the surface of the moon.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:48:17No we don't, but even allowing for the absurd exaggeration, the telescopes only let us see the moon because the Sun shines on it.
We have today supper advanced technology that allows us to read a credit card at the surface of the moon without any need for it to glow.
For more than 20 years they clearly observe the UFO from the accretion disc that is located at a distance of ONE BILLION LY away which is ejected outwards. How do you dare to claim that our technology isn't good enough with all of that supper advanced technology? Is it just because we can't see that falling matter which you and the whole science community are so willing to see?
Don't you understand that as we don't observe any matter as it falls in from outside into the accretion disc (and we have never did), then there is a good chance that matter doesn't fall from outside into that disc?
Did you ever consider this possibility, or your mind is so twisted that as you don't see something that you wish to see you just think that your ability to see is defected?
Is it a normal approach for you and for our scientists?
Don't you accept "no" as an answer from the galaxy?
Why don't you write a complain against all of those nutty accretion discs in the entire universe that somehow refuse to eat any matter from outside although your Math is telling you that they should do so?
You are the master of knowledge & Math, so please go ahead and force them to eat!
In a forest at night it is not ridiculous to say that we can see a torch, but not the trees.I have better example for you.
You are in the desert.
There is no even one drop of water over there.
But you and all the other scientists don't give up. You are looking for the great living whale in the deep sand of that desert.
Good Luck for you.
You would never ever find even one atom as it falls into the accretion disc from outside as you don't have a basic clue how the accretion disc really works.
But you can hope. It is free of charge for all of you.
Please show where this maths is wrong.As your math contradicts the real observation, then this math is useless.
We have an obligation to the observation and not to this or that kind of formula.
So if that math convinced you that matter from outside should fall into the accretion disc, it's better for you to ignore it!
We observe that things fall down, and that energy is conserved.We have never & ever observed any kind of matter as it falls into the SMBH accretion disc and I can tell you that you would never see!
This disc is different.
Therefore, if you or any other "scientist" would dare to claim again that matter falls into that accretion disc without a clear backup observation of matter as it falls into the accretion disc - then all of you would be considered as LIARS.
Sorry - It is forbidden to lie even if you do so in the name of the BBT "science"!
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/05/2021 11:58:54
However, we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the accretion disc from outside!Yes we have.
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Stop pretending we haven't.
(Also, don't try to pretend that the picture shows material coming out of the BH- you will just look silly.)
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/05/2021 11:59:53
It is forbidden to lieThen stop lying.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/05/2021 13:07:46
NO!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:10:25Yes we have.
However, we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the accretion disc from outside!
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
You didn't
First we discuss about a SMBH' accretion disc.
In this article they discuss about a BH:
" a team of astronomers from the Netherlands Institute for Space Research (SRON) and Radboud University in the Netherlands has successfully detected such a spaghettified star in spectral absorption lines around the poles of a distant black hole."
Second, they do not discuss at all about an accretion disc:
"The authors of the current study, however, claim that the material they were looking at wasn't part of the accretion disk. "
So, they didn't see a SMBH and they didn't see its accretion disc then what did they really observe?
"The astronomers observed the spectral absorption lines when looking at the black hole's rotational pole"
"Absorption lines are unusually dark lines detected in the otherwise continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a source, in this case a black hole.
Hence, they have observed an Absorption line which had been emitted from the black hole's rotational pole.
However, while our scientists claim clearly that this Absorption line which had been emitted from the pole of a far away BH isn't part of the accretion disc, you try to offer it as an observation for a matter that falls into the SMBH accretion disc. Why is it?
Sorry, this article isn't relevant to our discussion.
There is no observation in that article for any sort of matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
It is quite interesting how our scientists twist the data.
In the title of the article it is stated:
"Astronomers observe as a giant black hole sucks in a spaghettified star."
Wow!
What an important observation.
However, when you start to read the article you notice that there is no falling star, no matter that falls into the accretion disc and not even a giant BH.
It is all about an Absorption line which had been emitted from the black hole's rotational pole.
So, our scientists just continue to lie.
As all the BBT scientists wish to see a falling star into the SMBH accretion disc, then even if they only see absorption line which had been emitted from the black hole's rotational pole then this observation is good enough for them to lie and come out with this kind of title which is totally not connected to the real observation.
Then stop lying.Who is the real liar?
As I have already stated:
If you or any other "scientist" would dare to claim again that matter falls into the SMBH' accretion disc without a clear backup observation - then all of you would be considered as LIARS.
Shame on you, all of you!
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/05/2021 13:48:30
Who is the real liar?The one who says
we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the accretion disc from outside!after being shown the picture of stuff falling into the accretion disk.
There's no plausible mechanism to distinguish a SMBH from any other BH.
Stuff falls into both.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/05/2021 14:25:03
There's no plausible mechanism to distinguish a SMBH from any other BH.What a nonsense!
The SMBH might be 1,000,000 times bigger than a BH.
It is located at the center of any spiral galaxy.
So, don't lie and tell us that we can't distinguish a SMBH from a BH.
I do recall that you have offered a picture of the M87 SMBH' accretion disc.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:10:25after being shown the picture of stuff falling into the accretion disk.
we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the accretion disc from outside!
In that image we don't see any sort of stuff as it falls into the accretion disc.
So, why do you lie again and again?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/05/2021 14:29:20
So, don't lie and tell us that we can't distinguish a SMBH from a BH.You and i can tell.
A hydrogen atom falling in can't.
So the distinction does not make a difference to the physics, does it?
In that image we don't see any sort of stuff as it falls into the accretion disc.Yes. and I explained why.
Do you understand that stuff in space usually has to be very hot to be visible?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/05/2021 15:48:26
Yes. and I explained why.Sorry, you have totally failed to offer any observation of any sort of star or matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside.
Your explanation why we can't see it is useless.
So, as you & our science community don't have any observation to support the imagination of matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside, it's the time for all of you to accept the simple idea that this specific disc can set a constant flow of matter as the UFI & the UFO at the same time forever and ever without eating any matter from outside!
Post by: Origin on 15/05/2021 17:31:28
So, as you & our science community don't have any observation to support the imagination of matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside, it's the time for all of you to accept the simple idea that this specific disc can set a constant flow of matter as the UFI & the UFO at the same time forever and ever without eating any matter from outside!It such an epic battle I can't guess which is bigger. Is your arrogance or ignorance? I think it may be a tie! It is so exciting...
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/05/2021 17:59:42
Your explanation why we can't see it is useless.Only for you.
For the grown ups, the fact that you can't see a gas cloud in space unless it's very hot is a sensible answer.
But you are ignoring reality - as usual.
it's the time for all of you to accept the simple idea that this specific disc can set a constant flow of matter as the UFI & the UFO at the same time forever and ever without eating any matter from outside!No.
It is not time to ignore the rules of physics.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/05/2021 20:37:45
Only for you.You and all the other grownups BBT scientists ignore the VERY clear observation that Matter doesn't fall into the accretion disc from outside.
For the grown ups, the fact that you can't see a gas cloud in space unless it's very hot is a sensible answer.
But you are ignoring reality - as usual.
You have just offered an article to support your imagination but I have proved that it is just lies over lies.
I hope that at least by now all of those "grownups" including you understand that we have no observation to support the imagination of matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside.
It is just a hope for all of you
So, you try to convince yourself with the following pathetic answer that matter should fall in:
"For the grown ups, the fact that you can't see a gas cloud in space unless it's very hot is a sensible answer."
At least you confirm that we can't see any falling gas.
In any case, you fully aware that we observe that galaxy at a distance of one billion years away for more than 20 year
We clearly see the UFI (inflow from the accertion into the SMBH) and we also clearly see that constant outflow that is called UFO (Outflow from the accertion disc into the central bulge).
That UFO was there all the time (starting the first observation in 2001).
Just in 2018 we have discover the UFI.
So, the portion of the UFO which was there in all of those last 20 years must be significantly higher than the UFI.
But you don't care about it!
As a "grown ups" you don't let this significant UFO observation and the missing falling matter to confuse you as you do understand the real meaning of this observation.
You do understand that as the accretion disc is constantly ejected matter outside as UFO and inside as UFI then without eating from outside, it means that it must generate new matter.
That by itself kills the BBT and shows that those grown up people have no basic clue how the Universe really works.
That might be a fatal problem for all of those BBT grown ups.
Therefore, your mission is to protect the BBT under any sort of observation or no observation.
You have no intention to kill the BBT just because the SMBH' accretion disc refuse to eat his food.
Therefore, you claim that the SMBH' accretion disc eats an invisible food from outside.
What a great idea!
So please would you kindly answer the following:
1. If the matter falls in from outside in the direction of the SMBH' accretion disc, why it does not continue to fall all the way into the SMBH?
Why it suddenly stop at the accretion disc?
The disc is not rigid. It is very soft. So why the falling matter that comes at ultra high falling acceleration can't just cross it and continue its momentum all the way into the SMBH?
Can you please show the physics that force the falling matter to stop at that specific accretion disc radius?
2. Why the accretion disc is there? What is its benefit and why it is so hot over there?
Let's assume that at some SMBH all the matter in the accretion disc had been consumed. So, why the matter from the next falling star would know that it should stop exactly at this radius while there was no matter over there? Why it would be heated to 10^9c exactly at this radius while when the matter was above this radius it was cold as ice?
3. After the temporary stop at the accretion disc edge why not all the matter continue to fall into the accretion disc?
As I have proved, the UFO is significantly higher than the UFI. So how could it be that most of the falling matter is ejected backwards or actually upwards as a UFO?
4. Why do you calim that the UFO acts as a dust of a falling bulding that goes up while we don't see any falling building and there is no collision impact with the accretion disc as it isn't solid or rigid disc?
5. Why are you so sure that we won't be able to see the falling matter even if it is cold?
Why it can't be heated as it falls in? Why just at the edge of the accretion disc it goes from zero to 10^9c?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/05/2021 21:55:03
You and all the other grownups BBT scientists ignore the VERY clear observation that Matter doesn't fall into the accretion disc from outside.Please show that such an observation has been made.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/05/2021 10:15:33
Dear BCYou and all the other grownups BBT scientists ignore the VERY clear observation that Matter doesn't fall into the accretion disc from outside.Please show that such an observation has been made.
How long are you going to keep on with your lies?
1. You have stated that we have an observation for matter that falls into the accretion disc and I have proved that it is a lie. We have never ever observed any sort of matter that falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc
2. You have stated that the inflow (UFI) in the following article:
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/481/2/1832/5090165Means - an inflow from outside into the accretion disc:
No, it doesn't.I have proved that this is one more lie as this inflow is actually from the accretion disc into the SMBH.
It confirms the presence of "An ultrafast inflow "
3. You have stated that this UFI represents the main portion that is ejected from the accretion disc, while the UFO is just a minor energy.
That is another lie.
For more than 20 years our scientists ONLY observe the UFO. Just in 2018 they have verified that UFI.
So it means the UFO (matter that is ejected upwards into the Bulge from the accretion disc) is the most significant portion of the total matter that is ejected outwards from the SMBH' accretion disc. If you would monitor all the observations that we have made in all the last 20 years you would find that the UFO was always there while the UFI had been discover only in one observation in 2018. That UFI was just a single small gas cloud. So it is very clear that the portion of the UFO is more than 99% with reference to that minor gas cloud that is called UFI.
4. You have stated that the matter that falls into the accretion disc is invisible. You have compared it to the building that falls while the UFO is just the Dust that goes up.
However, you totally ignore the simple understanding that the accretion disc isn't a rigid disc. So if that Star or Building is falling in at ultra high acceleration, there is no way to hold it at the edge of that ultra thin & soft accretion disc.
Actually, 99.9...9% of the stars and gas clouds that orbit around the SMBH don't orbit exactly at the accretion disc plane. So, the chance for a falling star to collide with that disc is virtually ZERO. If something would fall in from outside, it should fall all the way into the SMBH. Therefore, your example of a building that collides with the accretion disc is a pure lie.
Also your statement that the UFO is equivalent to a dust is also lie as the UFO represents more than 99% from the matter that is ejected from the accretion disc.
5. If you think that a full mass of building would fall in and without even a possibility to collide with that thin & sot disc it would suddenly stop from falling and 99% of its matter would be ejected backwards & outwards (as that UFO) then this is one more lie.
You actually ignore all the key questions that I have asked:
So please would you kindly answer the following:That proves that you don't care about real science.
1. If the matter falls in from outside in the direction of the SMBH' accretion disc, why it does not continue to fall all the way into the SMBH?
Why it suddenly stop at the accretion disc?
The disc is not rigid. It is very soft. So why the falling matter that comes at ultra high falling acceleration can't just cross it and continue its momentum all the way into the SMBH?
Can you please show the physics that force the falling matter to stop at that specific accretion disc radius?
2. Why the accretion disc is there? What is its benefit and why it is so hot over there?
Let's assume that at some SMBH all the matter in the accretion disc had been consumed. So, why the matter from the next falling star would know that it should stop exactly at this radius while there was no matter over there? Why it would be heated to 10^9c exactly at this radius while when the matter was above this radius it was cold as ice?
3. After the temporary stop at the accretion disc edge why not all the matter continue to fall into the accretion disc?
As I have proved, the UFO is significantly higher than the UFI. So how could it be that most of the falling matter is ejected backwards or actually upwards as a UFO?
4. Why do you calim that the UFO acts as a dust of a falling bulding that goes up while we don't see any falling building and there is no collision impact with the accretion disc as it isn't solid or rigid disc?
5. Why are you so sure that we won't be able to see the falling matter even if it is cold?
Why it can't be heated as it falls in? Why just at the edge of the accretion disc it goes from zero to 10^9c?
You want to convince yourself that matter should fall in from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc while we have never ever observed any matter that falls in.
I have an advice for you:
Why don't you call it the Dark invisible falling matter.
You and all the other grown ups scientists are so good in all of those imaginations that are called "Dark".
You already have the dark matter and the dark energy. So why don't you add one more dark to your imagination list?
Let's call it the dark invisible falling matter.
However I request to get a reward for this idea.
In any case, with regards to your request:
Please show that such an observation has been made.Sorry, I don't have to offer any observation.
The missing observation of that Dark invisible falling matter is good enough for me to kill your lovely BBT imagination
It is you and all your grownups BBT scientists that should offer the observation to support your imagination.
After all Einstein and Fred Hoyle were 100% correct.
New matter is constantly generated at the SMBH' accretion disc in order to support a steady state Universe.
However, they didn't know exactly where the new matter creation activity takes place. Now we all know exactly the correct location.
The ultra high temp of 10^9c at that SMBH' accretion disc is high enough to support the pair process activity.
However, it is very clear that you aren't going to accept it as you don't care about real science.
You and all the other grownups only care about your BBT imagination and you would do whatever it takes to kill any other idea even if it is based on real observation.
So keep on with your lovely BBT imagination as you don't have a basic clue how the spiral galaxy really works.
What is the real functionality of the accretion disc. Bulge, Bar, ring. How the spiral arms had been formed and why the base of the arm is 3000 LY thick while the far end arm is only 400 LY.
Actually only on this issue by itself we should kill the imagination that is called dense wave.
In any case, how long can you hold a wrong theory?
One generation or many more?.
At some pint of time you would understand the BBT is wrong!
At that time maybe one reader would remember my thread and only then I would get rewards for my great discovery.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/05/2021 10:50:39
Sorry, I don't have to offer any observation.So, you are saying that the whole of physics is wrong, but you don't have to offer any evidence.
The missing observation of that Dark invisible falling matter is good enough for me to kill your lovely BBT imaginationSo, because we don't see something which nobody would expect to see, you think we are wrong.
Why are you on a science page?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/05/2021 10:54:05
We have never ever observed any sort of matter that falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion discWe have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni#2015_outburst
Please don't waste time saying this hole isn't big enough until you have answered this
You and i can tell.
A hydrogen atom falling in can't.
So the distinction does not make a difference to the physics, does it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/05/2021 13:29:37
Wow!!!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:15:33We have.
We have never ever observed any sort of matter that falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni#2015_outburst
Please don't waste time saying this hole isn't big enough until you have answered this
What a great article.
If you were standing next to me I would probably give you a big huge.
This article is the one that I was looking for many years.
It is stated:
"A worldwide observing campaign was commenced and on 17 June ESA's INTEGRAL Gamma-ray observatory started monitoring the outburst."
"This outburst was the first since 1989. Other outbursts occurred in 1938 and 1956, "
" The outburst was unusual in that physical processes in the inner accretion disk were detectable in optical photometry from small telescopes"
So, our scientists have discovered an Outburst at the inner accretion disc.
Now comes the great message:
"A detailed analysis of the INTEGRAL data revealed the existence of so-called pair plasma near the black hole. This plasma consists of electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positrons."
So, they have "revealed the existence of so-called pair plasma near the black hole" at the inner side of the accretion disc.
That pair plasma is a direct indication of the new pair particle creation which I have already informed in my explanation.
It is even stated:
"This plasma consists of electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positrons"
So, our scientists have clearly observed the new particle pair activity of electron and its antimatter -positron, near the black hole at the inner side of the accretion disc. Exactly as I was expecting!!!
Wow!!!
I can't ask for better clear observation that fully supports the understanding of new particle pair creation that is taking place at the inner side of the accretion disc.
Manny thanks to you BC!!!
If one day, I would get rewards for this discover, you have to share this rewards with me!!!
We are partners!
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/05/2021 13:35:41
The accretion disk is hot.
That was never in dispute.
But you claim it is heated by magic, and I say it is heated by the energy released as things fall in.
You are still at odds with the laws of physics.
Post by: jeffreyH on 16/05/2021 20:25:50
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-seen-a-star-spaghettified-by-a-black-hole
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/05/2021 21:00:08
Dear DaveHe will probably pretend that it is evidence that he is right.
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-seen-a-star-spaghettified-by-a-black-hole
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/05/2021 22:55:54
Dear DaveDear Jeffrey
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-seen-a-star-spaghettified-by-a-black-hole
This article is based on the same identical observation that was detected in April 2019 which had just been offered by BC
In this article it is stated:
1. Just such an event was detected in April 2019, picked up by the Zwicky Transient Facility
2. "The inner edge of the accretion disk closest to the black hole is the hottest part of the disk and therefore emits the most energetic radiation, the X-rays. That we can detect X-rays at all means that we are staring down the pole of the supermassive black hole"
3. "What we could be seeing is absorption lines caused by such streams, where the different orbital motions and projected velocities of these different streams cause the variation of the width of the lines.
In the other article it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni#2015_outburst
1. In April 2019, astronomers announced that jets of particles shooting from the black hole were wobbling back and forth on the order of a few minutes, something that had never before been seen in the particle jets streaming from a black hole. "
2. The outburst was unusual in that physical processes in the inner accretion disk were detectable in optical photometry from small telescopes; previously, these variations were thought to be only detectable with space-based X-ray telescopes
Therefore:
Exactly at the same date (April 2019) they observe almost the same stream
In Jeffry article it is stated : "absorption lines caused by such streams"
In BC article it is stated: "something that had never before been seen in the particle jets streaming from a black hole"
In one article it is called: absorption lines on the other it is: "bright outburst of energy."
So, they didn't observe any sort of falling star or matter.
All they clearly SEE and OBSERVE was some kind of a stream energy that was ejected at the inner side of the BH and was detected by X-Ray detectors.
However, now comes the fun section of the imagination (in both articles):
So although none of them claim for any observation of any sort of falling star or matter, they try to set an imagination connection between this stream of energy at the inner side of the BH to a falling star or matter:
In Jeffery article
"The variation and the width of these absorption lines were weird too. The observed configuration seemed to suggest multiple strands of material, like a ball of string."
So they think that the stream "SUGGEST" some Multiple stands of material.
OK. Very nice but what is the meaning of that suggested message?
They continue the explanation:
"This, in turn, suggested that there was something wrapped around the black hole at an unusual angle.."
Very Nice again.
So what does it mean?.
They think that : "something wrapped around the black hole".
So, far so good.
That "something" could clearly be the matter that the SMBH had just generated at the inner side of the accretion disc as explained by the BC article.
Hence, even in Jeffery article we see that the stream of energy is an indication for something that could be created by the inner side of the SMBH and still wrapped around the BH.
Please remember the inner side of the disc as it is a supper important message in both articles
Therefore, in both articles, this something which is detected at the inner side of the BH is 100% supports the idea of new created matter that had been created at the inner side of the BH and still wrapped around it.
However, now comes the imagination section: "such as the spaghettified filaments of a tidally disrupted star, perhaps, flung out away from the bulk of the stellar debris."
So, they now offer their imagination for this something: "tidal disrupted star"
Do they see any star? NO!
Do they see any falling matter? NO.
However, they have set some imagination connection between this "something" that was wrapped around the BH to a tidal disrupted star.
What a brilliant idea if you wish to prove your imagination!.
However, that message wasn't strong enough for them. Therefore in the title the took it one further step and use the following BOOMING message: "Astronomers Witnessed a Star Being Violently 'Spaghettified' by a Black Hole"
Wow!
How do they dare to offer such a lie?
On the other hand at BC article the imagination is softer: "The outbursts were probably caused by material piling up in a disk around the black hole until a tipping point was reached"
So, they don't call it "tidal disrupted star" or falling star but they call it: "material piling up in a disk around the black hole"
So, instead of falling star the reader might get the impression of falling matter.
Is it real?
WHY they don't give us the information about their observation as is?
Why they have to envelope that clear stream of energy that they have discovered at the inner side of a BH by this kind of falling star while they don't see any falling star or any falling matter
How something that is wrapped around the inner side of the BH accretion disc had been converted to falling star or falling matter without any observation for that?
Do you really believe that this stream of energy at the INNER side of the accretion disc is a clear observation for falling star?
How a falling star could get directly into the inner accretion disc and stop there?
Why both of them LIE to us?
Sorry - this doesn't represent real science.
They are all liars!!!
They lie in the name of science.
I assume that they lie in order to be the first one that deliver the image of the first missing falling star observation.
Shame on them!
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/05/2021 01:26:38
we are staring down the pole of the supermassive black hole
What you do in your private life is not our concern. Put your pole away!
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/05/2021 04:25:38
we are staring down the pole of the supermassive black hole
What you do in your private life is not our concern. Put your pole away!
Is it a message to me or to those scientists that wrote the article?
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-seen-a-star-spaghettified-by-a-black-hole
"The inner edge of the accretion disk closest to the black hole is the hottest part of the disk and therefore emits the most energetic radiation, the X-rays. That we can detect X-rays at all means that we are staring down the pole of the supermassive black hole – otherwise, it would be obscured by the outer regions of the accretion disk."
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/05/2021 04:52:48
You seem remarkable excited about a confirmation of the obvious.
The accretion disk is hot.
That was never in dispute.
But you claim it is heated by magic, and I say it is heated by the energy released as things fall in.
Well the accretion ring temp is 10^9c.
Do you really think that it could be heated so high just by things that fall in?
On Earth, the falling matter collides with the atmosphere and therefore it get hotter.
Do you consider that there is an atmosphere around the SMBH or its accretion disc?
Even if we set there an imaginary atmosphere, what might be the impact of that collision?
We know that a fusion activity created heat of about 10^6 c
However, in that thin and soft accretion disc there is 10^9c which is much higher even from fusion activity.
Therefore, the "pair plasma near the black hole" activity is the ONLY activity that could justify that high temp at the accretion disc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni#2015_outburst
"A detailed analysis of the INTEGRAL data revealed the existence of so-called pair plasma near the black hole. This plasma consists of electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positrons"
That pair plasma means the creation of new partials as: "electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positron". So, our scientists fully confirm the activity of that pair plasma near the accretion disc!
Only that kind of new particle creation can justify that ultra high temp of 10^9c.
Therefore, your following message is clearly incorrect!
I say it is heated by the energy released as things fall in.Please also be aware that it is stated:
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-seen-a-star-spaghettified-by-a-black-hole
"The inner edge of the accretion disk closest to the black hole is the hottest part of the disk
So, that is a clear indication for the pair creation at that inner side of the SMBH accretion disc.
Actually, as they claim that "The inner edge of the accretion disk closest to the black hole is the hottest part of the disk" we can understand that the outer edge of the accretion disk is the coldest part of the disk.
That shows that the pair particles are created at the inner side and get the maximal temp due to this process.
Over time, those new particles are drifted outwards and get colder.
If we could verify the real temp of the SMBH' accretion disc inner side and the outer side, we could technically calculate how long it takes for a particle to drift from the inner edge of the accretion disc to the outer edge of the disc.
As it get there it is ejected outwards and sets the constant Ultra Fast Outflow (UFO) that we observe for the last 20 years . Please be aware that we have discussed about the UFO at the other article.
Hence: New matter is created at the inner side of the accretion disc at ultra high temp. It is drifted outwards over time. As it gets to the outer edge of the accretion disc it gets cooler and then it is ejected outwards as a constant UFO at 0.1c.
This is a clear indication that the pair activity is a constant and stable.
Based on this new matter creation activity each galaxy gets new matter which is used for the new star formation activity.
Don't forget that the baby boom galaxy generates 4000 stars per year.
Its accretion disc works very hard to generate so much new matter.
Our galaxy generates only 10 stars per year.
So, our SMBH' accretion disc is quite active with it's new matter creation, but not at the level of that baby boom galaxy.
You are still at odds with the laws of physics.Sorry - I don't need to deal with your wrong understanding of laws of physics.
We have a solid observation of pair plasma activity that takes place at the inner side of the accretion disc.
Now it is your job to adjust your laws to that observation.
Unless, you are going to complain about that nutty SMBH that dare to break down your laws of physics by its pair plasma activity.
Post by: jeffreyH on 17/05/2021 06:35:04
we are staring down the pole of the supermassive black hole
What you do in your private life is not our concern. Put your pole away!
Is it a message to me or to those scientists that wrote the article?
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-have-seen-a-star-spaghettified-by-a-black-hole
"The inner edge of the accretion disk closest to the black hole is the hottest part of the disk and therefore emits the most energetic radiation, the X-rays. That we can detect X-rays at all means that we are staring down the pole of the supermassive black hole – otherwise, it would be obscured by the outer regions of the accretion disk."
It is pointless actually answering you Dave. You stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la not listening" like a little girl.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/05/2021 08:48:03
Do you really think that it could be heated so high just by things that fall in?It's not a matter of what I think, is it?
You can calculate the temperatures involved.
And grown ups have done it.
But you sit there in your uneducated mess and say you don't think it is possible,
Why not lean some science.
Now it is your job to adjust your laws to that observation.There's nothing to adjust.
It's hot.
At high enough temperatures you get pair production (it's not the only mechanism).
I already pointed this out earlier in your rant when you were getting things wrong about the early universe- you were saying ew are not here because pair production is impossible.
I was pointing out that we are here.
The fact that you refuse to believe it isn't important, it just makes you look stupid.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/05/2021 04:57:01
It is pointless actually answering you Dave. You stick your fingers in your ears and sing "la la la not listening" like a little girl.Dear Jeffrey
I would like to remind you that we discuss on a falling matter into the SMBH' accretion disc and not about my personality.
You and BC have offered articles to support the imagination that we do have observation for that. I have clearly proved that in none of them there is any observation for a falling matter. So they all clearly LIEI
Unfortunately, instead of comforting my reply you all prefer to contort my personality.
This is the looser strategy of kids. How can you try to position yourselves as grownup at this poor strategy?
As "grownups" would you kindly answer my questions or accept my message?
Thanks BCQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:52:48It's not a matter of what I think, is it?
Do you really think that it could be heated so high just by things that fall in?
You can calculate the temperatures involved.
And grown ups have done it.
At least I have got a reply to one question.
So, would you kindly show us the Grownups calculation for the 10^9c at the Milky Way accretion disc due to falling matter (by real article)?
As we already focus on the knowledge and wisdom of those grownups do they know that 99.99..9% of the orbital objects aren't aliened with the accretion disc galactic plane..
So please would you kindly ask those Grownups the following:
1. What is the chance for a random falling star to collide with that thin and soft SMBH' accretion disc?
2. If a falling star miss the accretion disc, why it would have to stop exactly at the accretion disc radius instead of continuing its momentum to fall directly into the SMBH??
2. Even if one of a trillion falling star would finally collide with that thin and soft accretion disc while it falls at ultra high momentum, what should be the impact of this collision?
Please show the grownups calculation (if possible by real article) how a massive star that falls in would stop exactly at the outer edge of the accretion disc.
I assume that if your answer was just imagination or lie, then you would probably ignore my questions and move back to the winning "grownups" strategy which means to highlight again my poor knowledge or personality.
What do you prefer?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2021 08:43:31
I have clearly proved that in none of them there is any observation for a falling matter.No, you have not.
So it really is
...about my personality..
You are deluded in two related ways.
Firstly, you think the matter in the universe is created by black holes (which is impossible for a number of reasons).
Secondly you hold the delusional view that you are the only one who is right, even though the evidence shows that you understand very little.
It's your personality which stops you recognising that you are not some genius.
It's your personality which stops you accepting that many more things fall into black holes than come out.
It's your personality which stops you accepting that your idea can't work, because there would be nowhere for the "first" black hole to come from.
It's your personality which stops you accepting that stops you recognising that the conservation laws, having been mathematically proven to be true, are, in fact true.
It really is about your damaged personality.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2021 08:45:28
I assume that if your answer was just imagination or lie, then you would probably ignore my questions and move back to the winning "grownups" strategy which means to highlight again my poor knowledge or personality.Your assumption misses something.
The problem is your " poor knowledge or personality."
So that's why we highlight it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/05/2021 17:01:24
Firstly, you think the matter in the universe is created by black holes.Yes, that is based on clear OBSERVATION and therefore it is correct by 100%
(which is impossible for a number of reasons).As you ignore the observation and base your understanding on a wrong theory and wrong laws then you have fatal error.
The SMBH' accretion disc generates all the matter in the galaxy!
Every star ever atom every star in the galaxy had been created by the SMBH.
Yes, any star in the galaxy including all the stars & dwarf galaxies that are still orbit around the galaxy.
Secondly you hold the delusional view that you are the only one who is right, even though the evidence shows that you understand very little.The evidence/observation shows clearly that NOTHING falls into the SMBH' accretion disc!
In all articles that you have offered so far there is no observation/evidence for matter as it falls into that disc.
Hence, if you claim that there is an evidence/observation for matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc, then you are LIAR!
You lie in the name of the BBT imagination!
It's your personality which stops you accepting that many more things fall into black holes than come out.NOTHING falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Not even a single atom!!!
There is no need for that as all the matter at the accretion disc is created by the Mighty SMBH' electromagnetic force and its ultra high gravity.
You know that the pair process is the only explanation for the 10^9c at this disc.
Your following message is a clear LIE:
At high enough temperatures you get pair production (it's not the only mechanism).The pair process is the ONLY explanation for the10^9c ultra high temp. Without that process, there won't be high temp.
Therefore, it is not that at the accretion disc there was already 10^9 c waiting to set the pair Electron/Positron process to take care, but the pair process itself is the ultimate evidence for that high temp.
Hence, that 10^9c is an ultimate evidence/OBSERVATION for new pair process activity at the accretion disc!
For the SMBH it's a win win situation as it gets its food from the inner side of that disc and there is a clear observation for that!
It really is about your damaged personality.How can you discuss about my personality while you clearly LIE in the name of the wrong BBT imagination and ignore all valid observations!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2021 17:22:58
Yes, that is based on clear OBSERVATIONYou did not observe the creation of the universe.
You look silly if you claim you did.
Your idea is based on your flawed understanding of the actual data.
As you ignore the observation and base your understanding on a wrong theory and wrong laws then you have fatal error.You have offered no evidence that the conservation of mass an energy are flawed.
In particular you have not shown the error in the maths.
Nobody in science will take you seriously until you can do the maths.
So, once again, I suggest you learn first and criticise second.
You repeatedly ignore my sensible interpretations of the data, and you pretend that I'm the one ignoring it.
People are going to notice that.
And it does not make you look clever.
The evidence/observation shows clearly that NOTHING falls into the SMBH' accretion disc!Show me a picture of every atom in the history of the universe so we can check this.
Because you are claiming to have that "evidence/ observation".
So, where is it?
Or are you lying?
When you say you have made the observations, are you not telling the truth?
The SMBH' accretion disc generates all the matter in the galaxy!If that was true, it wouldn't help.
You would need to explain where the SMBH came from.
That's not the only problem with your idea, but it is a fatal flaw.
(So, let's be clear- we know that you are wrong).
NOTHING falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc.Shouting it repeatedly does not make it true, but it does tell us about your personality.
Without that process, there won't be high temp.A meteor hitting the Earth gets the temperature up to a few thousand degrees.
The gravitational field of a black hole is a lot bigger, so things get a lot hotter.
That's just high school physics.
Why don't you accept it?
If, on the other hand, you are saying something else generates the high temperatures, where does it get the energy from?
It can't be coming out of the BH- we know how slow that process is.
How can you discuss about my personalityYou keep ignoring reality, and calling me a liar.
I think I should discuss your personality.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/05/2021 19:46:19
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:01:24Show me a picture of every atom in the history of the universe so we can check this.
The evidence/observation shows clearly that NOTHING falls into the SMBH' accretion disc!
Because you are claiming to have that "evidence/ observation".
So, where is it?
Or are you lying?
When you say you have made the observations, are you not telling the truth?
There is no need for a picture as we have the real OBSERVATIONS to prove that the accretion disc MUST generate new matter.
Hence, the truth observations/no observations are as follow:
1. We Clearly OBSERVE for the last 20-50 year a constant and stable UFO that is ejected from the outer side of the SMBH' accretion disc to the Bulge.
2, We have one single observation (in all of those years) of the UFI that falls from the inner side of the accretion disc into the SMBH.
The truth NO observation is as follow:
3. WE have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
The no observation is important as any observation!!!
You can't just ignore it or assume that an invisible matter must fall in.
As you do so, you should be considered as a liar.
Those there OBSERVATIONS/NO OBSERVATIONS points prove that the accretion disc must generate its mass.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:01:24I will repeat it one trillion times as this is the true of "no observation"!!!
NOTHING falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Shouting it repeatedly does not make it true, but it does tell us about your personality.
As you claim again and again that the accretion disc gets its mass from outside while we have never ever observed any matter as it falls in - then you are the real LIAR!!!
You keep ignoring reality, and calling me a liar.You are the one that claims that matter falls in without any observation for that.
Therefore - you are the real liar.
Any time that you would claim that matter falls into the SMBH' accretion disc without clear observation - I will call you LIAR.
You have offered no evidence that the conservation of mass an energy are flawed.As I have already told you several times.
In particular you have not shown the error in the maths.
I only care about real observation/no observation as those proves the true matter creation at the SMBH' accretion disc.
Therefore, I don't care about your wrong law/math as they contradict the true living observation!!!
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:01:24If a meteor or especially star would fall into the direction of the SMBH, it won't stop at the accretion disc.
Without that process, there won't be high temp.
A meteor hitting the Earth gets the temperature up to a few thousand degrees.
The gravitational field of a black hole is a lot bigger, so things get a lot hotter.
That's just high school physics.
Its ultra high falling momentum must force it to cut the accretion disc as butter and fall directly at the SMBH.
You know that and anyone at low school physics knows it.
I ask you before and I ask you again.
Please reply on the following:
As we already focus on the knowledge and wisdom of those grownups do they know that 99.99..9% of the orbital objects aren't aliened with the accretion disc galactic plane..
So please would you kindly ask those Grownups the following:
1. What is the chance for a random falling star to collide with that thin and soft SMBH' accretion disc?
2. If a falling star miss the accretion disc, why it would have to stop exactly at the accretion disc radius instead of continuing its momentum to fall directly into the SMBH??
2. Even if one of a trillion falling star would finally collide with that thin and soft accretion disc while it falls at ultra high momentum, what should be the impact of this collision?
Please show the grownups calculation (if possible by real article) how a massive star that falls in would stop exactly at the outer edge of the accretion disc.
If you claim that any falling star should collide with the accretion disc (although the chance for that is less than one to one trillion) - then you are LIAR!
If you claim that a falling star would stop at the accretion disc radius, without colliding with the plasma at that disc and be heated by your imagination (without any collision) - then you are LIAR!
If you claim that even if one of a trillion falling star finally collide with that soft and thin accretion disc and stop at the accretion disc although it falling momentum is ultra high - Then you are LIAR!
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2021 19:50:31
If a meteor or especially star would fall into the direction of the SMBH, it won't stop at the accretion disc.I am pleased to see that you have finally realised that things fall into black holes.
Its ultra high falling momentum must force it to cut the accretion disc as butter and fall directly at the SMBH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2021 19:50:59
There is no need for a picture as we have the real OBSERVATIONS to prove that the accretion disc MUST generate new matter.Post a copy or a link.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/05/2021 19:56:06
I don't need any link as I have the real observation/no observation.There is no need for a picture as we have the real OBSERVATIONS to prove that the accretion disc MUST generate new matter.Post a copy or a link.
So please do you confirm that the following observations/ no observations are correct by 100%?
Hence, the truth observations/no observations are as follow:
1. We Clearly OBSERVE for the last 20-50 year a constant and stable UFO that is ejected from the outer side of the SMBH' accretion disc to the Bulge.
2, We have one single observation (in all of those years) of the UFI that falls from the inner side of the accretion disc into the SMBH.
The truth NO observation is as follow:
3. WE have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2021 19:56:49
We have one single observation (in all of those years) of the UFI that falls from the inner side of the accretion disc into the SMBH.Well, yes we have- the accretion disk is evidence of stuff falling in and forming an accretion disk.
But we wouldn't expect to see the stuff as it falls (beaus it's not hot so it's not bright enough to see).
I have explained this before.
You ignore it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2021 19:57:17
I have the real observation/no observation.Prove it.
Post by: jeffreyH on 18/05/2021 20:02:30
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/05/2021 20:13:06
Dear Dave, you are like a fish, flailing at the feet of the fisherman. The fisherman would like to throw you back in but it is nearly supper time. You will soon be falling into the black hole towards the fisherman's stomach. With the pangs of regret over your failed attempt to acquire any semblance of respect from your peers.Dear Jeffrey
We discuss about the SMBH' accretion disc
Unfortunately for our BBT scientists they have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
So, if that BBT fisherman would like to throw me back, please ask him to offer me one single real observation of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Just one - but real one.
That's all I ask.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2021 20:15:30
That's all I ask.All you ask for is something practically impossible- simply because they are small and far away.
Yet, because we haven't got a picture of something impossibly hard to see, you assume that you are free to make up all sorts of impossible nonsense and that we should believe you.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/05/2021 20:27:13
ThanksThat's all I ask.All you ask for is something practically impossible- simply because they are small and far away.
Yet, because we haven't got a picture of something impossibly hard to see, you assume that you are free to make up all sorts of impossible nonsense and that we should believe you.
Based on that answer you clearly reconfirm that our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
I don't need more than that.
The explanation why we can't see is irrelevant.
As we see the UFO and we see the UFI (although it was quite tinny) there is always a possibility that we don't see it because matter doesn't fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
So, as long as we can't see it no one can claim for sure that matter falls in!!!
Post by: jeffreyH on 18/05/2021 21:01:50
Post by: jeffreyH on 18/05/2021 21:03:58
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/05/2021 21:28:11
By that "argument, you presumably do not believe you have a brain, because it has never been seen.ThanksThat's all I ask.All you ask for is something practically impossible- simply because they are small and far away.
Yet, because we haven't got a picture of something impossibly hard to see, you assume that you are free to make up all sorts of impossible nonsense and that we should believe you.
Based on that answer you clearly reconfirm that our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
I don't need more than that.
The explanation why we can't see is irrelevant.
As we see the UFO and we see the UFI (although it was quite tinny) there is always a possibility that we don't see it because matter doesn't fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
So, as long as we can't see it no one can claim for sure that matter falls in!!!
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/05/2021 04:03:33
By that "argument, you presumably do not believe you have a brain, because it has never been seen.Theoretically if someone in the past has never ever seen his brain then there is always a possibility that he has no brain.
However, today we have an advanced technology.
Therefore, if he isn't sure about the location of his brain, he can scan his head and verify if the brain is there.
So based on the current technology any person can verify if he has brain.
In the same token, in the past our scientists could claim that matter falls into the accretion disc.
No one could prove that it works differently (especially not a person without brain).
However, at our current time we have an advance technology that is called X-ray.
Based on this advanced technology our scientists have clearly observed the UFO (outflow from the SMBH' accretion disc into the Bulge) for the last 20-50 years, while they have never observed any falling/inflow of a matter from the Bulge into the accretion disc.
Therefore, we all must reconfirm that based on the current advanced technology we clearly observe that matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards to the Bulge, while the matter from the outside never ever falls into that disc.
This is the meaning of real science!
Dear Dave, the halibut, turbot, mackerel and trout will sing your praises. Your ideas are so fishy the salmon falls at your feet. Leaping from the river to meet you.
Dear Jeffrey & BC
Let's try to convert our disagreement to agreement
Agreement -
We all fully agree on the observation which is:
Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc
Disagreement:
I claim that as Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc for the last 20-50 years then the chance that matter really falls in is ZERO..
You claim that even as Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc for the last 20-50 years the chance that matter really falls in is 100%..
As we are dealing with science & Math we have to agree that it is all about statistics and probability:
https://blog.agradeahead.com/post/the-most-important-math-formulas-to-know-in-high-school/math-formulas-high-school-statistics-probability/
The formula for the Probability is as follow:
P = number of favorable outcome / Number of outcomes
Let's look at our Universe:
1. Number of outcomes = Number of SMBH' accretion discs = Number of galaxies = 400 Billions possibilities (in the observable Universe.
However, we can't see them all
So, let's assume that we can only see up to one Billion LY away which means about one billion possibilities.
In orer to make you happy, let's agree only on one million possibilities.
2. Number of favorable outcomes
We all agree that the Number of favorable outcomes that we have observed so far is Zero.
Therefore:
Number of favorable outcomes = 0
Hence, based on statistics the probability for a matter to fall into the SMBH' accretion disc is:
P = 0 / 1,000,000 = 0
So, while I have PROVED that P = 0 you both insist that P = 1. (or 100%)
Would you kindly offer your calculation for that?
As you Jeffrey like to use a fisherman' examples:
the halibut, turbot, mackerel and trout will sing your praises.
Let me ask you the following question.
A fisherman is going every day to the same spot in the ocean for the last 20-50 years
He opens his net and wait for 18 Hours (every day- at the same spot).
In all of those years he had NEVER EVER catch any fish.
Not halibut, not turbot, not mackerel and not even salmon.
What is the chance for him to catch one of those fish tomorrow?
Post by: jeffreyH on 19/05/2021 07:03:56
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2021 08:28:49
Theoretically if someone in the past has never ever seen his brain then there is always a possibility that he has no brain.No.
Because the fact that they can think, talk, walk etc proves that they have one.
We can point out that, while nobody has seen your brain, we wouldn't expect to see it.
So the fact that nobody has seen it doesn't tell us anything.
And, in the same way, we can point out that, while nobody has seen a star fall into the accretion disk of a SMBH, we wouldn't' expect to see it.
So the fact that nobody has seen it doesn't tell us anything.
That's just common sense, isn't it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/05/2021 10:41:02
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:33No.
Theoretically if someone in the past has never ever seen his brain then there is always a possibility that he has no brain.
Because the fact that they can think, talk, walk etc proves that they have one.
We can point out that, while nobody has seen your brain, we wouldn't expect to see it.
So the fact that nobody has seen it doesn't tell us anything.
Well, it seems that you are missing the key point.
When it comes to any person in the planet, we all clearly know that each one must have a brain and this brain must be located at the head.
Therefore, I fully agree with you that if that person can think, talk, walk etc it proves that he has a brain.
However, there might be some different animals/creatures in our planet without brain in their head or even without head.
So, once we understand one animal/creature, we can understand where the brain is located in that specific family and if they have any brain.
Therefore:
We know that matter can fall on Earth or on the Moon.
Therefore, we can claim that matter should fall on any planet and any moon in the Universe.
However, the SMBH' accretion disc is totally different object from a planet, moon or even star.
It is clearly different.
Therefore it is a fatal mistake to claim that as meteor falls on Erath then Meteor/star should also fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
As Earth and moon have no accretion discs, then it is forbidden to compare between those objects to the SMBH' accretion disc and claim that they should work the same.
This is your FATAL misunderstanding!!!
The SMBH and its accretion disc are totally different objects from any moon or planet.
They are very unique objects!
And, in the same way, we can point out that, while nobody has seen a star fall into the accretion disk of a SMBH, we wouldn't' expect to see it.No.
So the fact that nobody has seen it doesn't tell us anything.
That's just common sense, isn't it?
It is your fatal error!!!
There is no sense in this kind of common sense.
You can't compare a person to Ameba.
Both eats and move but one has a brain and in the other we don't see any brain.
Therefore, it is forbidden to compare the activity on the earth/moon to the activity at the SMBH' accretion disc.
If we can find even one falling star as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc then we all should agree that matter are falling into that disc at any SMBH.
However, as we have NEVER EVER found even one star as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc then it is forbidden to hope/assume that matter really falls in!
Is it clear?
I'm still wait for your replay about the following statistic /probability calculation:
Dear Jeffrey & BC
Let's try to convert our disagreement to agreement
Agreement -
We all fully agree on the observation which is:
Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc
Disagreement:
I claim that as Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc for the last 20-50 years then the chance that matter really falls in is ZERO..
You claim that even as Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc for the last 20-50 years the chance that matter really falls in is 100%..
As we are dealing with science & Math we have to agree that it is all about statistics and probability:
https://blog.agradeahead.com/post/the-most-important-math-formulas-to-know-in-high-school/math-formulas-high-school-statistics-probability/
The formula for the Probability is as follow:
P = number of favorable outcome / Number of outcomes
Let's look at our Universe:
1. Number of outcomes = Number of SMBH' accretion discs = Number of galaxies = 400 Billions possibilities (in the observable Universe.
However, we can't see them all
So, let's assume that we can only see up to one Billion LY away which means about one billion possibilities.
In orer to make you happy, let's agree only on one million possibilities.
2. Number of favorable outcomes
We all agree that the Number of favorable outcomes that we have observed so far is Zero.
Therefore:
Number of favorable outcomes = 0
Hence, based on statistics the probability for a matter to fall into the SMBH' accretion disc is:
P = 0 / 1,000,000 = 0
So, while I have PROVED that P = 0 you both insist that P = 1. (or 100%)
Would you kindly offer your calculation for that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2021 11:08:51
You can't compare a person to Ameba.Nobody did.
Now, lets get back to the point you keep ignoring.
Would you normally expect to see someone's brain?
If you did not see it, would you assume that they did not have one?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2021 11:15:41
Would you kindly offer your calculation for that?Sure.
Plenty of people have seen you- let's say it's 10,000 just to have a number, zero of them have seen your brain.
The probability of people seeing your brain is 0/10,000.
OK there's zero chance of seeing your brain.
But that is not the same as saying that there is zero chance of you having a brain. (Because your brain is hidden by your skull)
There is, by the same argument, zero chance of seeing stuff fall into the accretion disk of a SMBH (it is hidden by simply being too small and not bright enough).
But that's not the same as saying that there is zero chance of these collisions existing, is it?.
The problem here is not that you don't understand science.
The problem is that you won't follow simple logic.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/05/2021 17:22:59
Yes you doQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:41:02Nobody did.
You can't compare a person to Ameba.
You have stated that as meteor falls on Erath, matter should fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
This is a fatal mistake.
Erath and SMBH are absolutely different from each other as Person is different from ameba.
Now, lets get back to the point you keep ignoring.As I have already told you.
Would you normally expect to see someone's brain?
If a person has brain it doesn't necessarily an indication that ameba has a brain.
Sorry dear BCQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:03:33Sure.
Would you kindly offer your calculation for that?
Plenty of people have seen you- let's say it's 10,000 just to have a number, zero of them have seen your brain.
The probability of people seeing your brain is 0/10,000.
OK there's zero chance of seeing your brain.
You didn't offer any sort of real probability calculation.
You only care about what those 10,000 scientists believe/hope.
Science isn't a religion.
We don't care about their hope.
We only care on real observation.
In any case, it seems that you have a severe problem to understand this simple example.
So, let me explain it again to you.
We all agree that a person has a brain.
We don't need those 10,000 scientists to let us know about it.
One scientist with X-ray is good enough to convince us that any person has a brain.
However, a person isn't ameba.
So, if we compare a person to the planet, then we all agree that as a any person has a Brain than the matter should fall on any planet.
That is very clear to all of us.
However, Ameba isn't a person as a SMBH isn't a planet.
So, the indication that a Person has a brain can't give an indication that also ameba should have a brain
In the same token
The indication that matter/metaor falls on a planet can't give an indication that also matter/star must fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Hence
Your fatal mistake is that you use the observation of falling matter on our planet as n indication for the real activity at the SMBH.
SMBH and Planet are very different from each other.
One has accretion disc while the other has not.
We also know that the SMBH bands the space around it.
Therefore, we actually get the black hole lensing:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scheme-of-formation-of-Einstein-ring-and-relativistic-rings-by-black-hole-lensing_fig4_318497993
"In this article, we present an overview of the new developments in problems of the plasma influence on the effects of gravitational lensing"
"Scheme of formation of Einstein ring and relativistic rings by black hole lensing."
So, there is an image of source of light that should fall at the Black hole as it is in a direct line with the observer.
Surprisingly, the light beam doesn't fall into the BH for never be seen.
That beam is actually banded or bypass the black hole without any collision with the SMBH.
So, we have clear evidence/ observation that light isn't falling into the SMBH.
Hence, if light can't fall into the SMBH due to its ultra high gravity, then there is no way for a matter to fall in.
Any matter that falls into the direction of the SMBH would be shifted away and bypass the SMBH as we see in this diagram.
This kind of activity can't take place at the moon or at the planet.
Therefore, we can't compare the activity at the planet and moon to the activity at the SMBH.
Conclusion:
As the SMBH gravity force is so high that it bands the space around it and prevents from a direct light beam to fall in, it would prevent from any sort of matter to fall in!
Therefore, although few years ago our scientists clearly observed S2 as it was almost falling directly into the SMBH, the space banding around the SMBH pushed this star away and prevent it to fall in.
So, as we have never ever observed any star or matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc it proves that NOTHING from outside can fall inwards!!!
Never & Ever.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/05/2021 18:00:59
If a person has brain it doesn't necessarily an indication that ameba has a brain.Let's be clear about this.
If anyone else had started talking about an amoeba, they would have got the spelling right.
You are the only one talking about them, and what you are saying is irrelevant.
Erath and SMBH are absolutely different from each otherThey only need to have one thing in common; they both have mass.
So things are attracted to them by gravity.
You know that meteors get hot when they hit the Earth (again; note the spelling or use a browser with a spell check function)
And it's obvious that, because it's got a much stronger gravitational field, a black hole will get hit much harder.
And that's why the debris crowding in towards a BH gets very hot.
You didn't offer any sort of real probability calculation.Yes I did.
We only care on real observation.And, since we have observed that mass is a conserved quantity, we know that you are wrong.
One scientist with X-ray is good enough to convince us that any person has a brain.A real scientist would use deductive logic and not expose the patient to x-rays.
But that isn't the point.
The point you are deliberately missing is that, if you do not expect to see something because it is hidden, then not seeing it does not tell you anything.
SMBH and Planet are very different from each other. One has accretion disc while the other has not.That's just not true, is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_system
Why do you tell such obvious lies?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/05/2021 07:34:51
Please wake up.
Don't you understand that the game is over and you have totally lost it.
Don't you understand that the gravity lensing is the ultimate golden evidence that is needed to kill once and for all your wrong imagination of matter that falls into the SMBH?
That gravity lensing would shift away photon that is moving at the speed of light directly into the center of the SMBH core.
In the same token it would shift away any laser beam, any particle (mass or massless) any atom, any molecular any asteroid any gas cloud any moon any planet any star and even any BH.
Nothing would fall in.
Therefore, after 20-50 years you have never ever found any matter that falls in and even in one Billion years from now, when we could travel at the speed of light and try our luck to fall into that SMBH with our space ship, it would shift us away..
If you still don't understand the real meaning of the gravity lensing, I would advise you to run to those 10,000 Grownups scientists and ask them about it.
In your way back please don't forget to set any law that prevent from the SMBH to generate new particle pair at its accretion disc deep in the garbage.
You can set there also your lovely BBT theory including all your dark imaginations.
As you get back I will explain you how our galaxy really works without any help form the dark matter.
Good luck!
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/05/2021 08:35:09
SMBH and Planet are very different from each other. One has accretion disc while the other has not.That's just not true, is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_system
Why do you tell such obvious lies?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/05/2021 08:38:09
That gravity lensing would shift away photon ...Gravitational lensing bends the light towards the BH, not away from it.
Now you know that lensing does the opposite of what you said, do you see how it kills your idea?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/05/2021 16:52:43
WowThat gravity lensing would shift away photon ...Gravitational lensing bends the light towards the BH, not away from it.
What a nonsense.
Is it because your knowledge in science is so poor or you just can't understand simple explanation in English if it contradicts your lovely BBT?
So is it correct that any evidence / observation that contradict the BBT can't be accepted by your BBT mind??
Did you have a chance to take an advice from the 10,000 grownups?
If it is just poor Knowledge, let me help you:
Please read again my following explanation:
We also know that the SMBH bands the space around it.
Therefore, we actually get the black hole lensing:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scheme-of-formation-of-Einstein-ring-and-relativistic-rings-by-black-hole-lensing_fig4_318497993
"In this article, we present an overview of the new developments in problems of the plasma influence on the effects of gravitational lensing"
"Scheme of formation of Einstein ring and relativistic rings by black hole lensing."
So, there is an image of source of light that should fall at the Black hole as it is in a direct line with the observer.
Surprisingly, the light beam doesn't fall into the BH for never be seen.
That beam is actually banded or bypass the black hole without any collision with the SMBH.
So, we have clear evidence/ observation that light isn't falling into the SMBH.
Hence, if light can't fall into the SMBH due to its ultra high gravity, then there is no way for a matter to fall in.
Any matter that falls into the direction of the SMBH would be shifted away and bypass the SMBH as we see in this diagram.
If you still don't understand then please look at the following clip:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File:Black_hole_lensing_web.gif
It is stated:
"The maximum amplification occurs when the background galaxy (or in the present case a bright part of it) is exactly behind the black hole".
So, instead of blocking the light from the source to the observer by the BH (that is located in a direct line between the source of light and the observer), we actually get the maximal amplification of light.
That amplification of light proves that the photons/lights don't fall towards the black hole but they moves around it.
Technically if your imagination was correct and the photons from the source were falling towards the BH, then the observer won't get any light from the source at that point.
Hence, due to the gravity lensing, the photons from the source of light bypass the BH and get to the observer at maximal amplification.
So, simple and clear.
However, it is quite clear to all of us that you would continue to claim the opposite as you don't want to accept any evidence or observation that kills the BBT.
You just don't let the evidence to confuse you..
Sorry, in this case, I can't help you any more.
Keep on with your nonsense
You have master in ignoring real science!
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/05/2021 17:43:53
That amplification of light proves that the photons/lights don't fall towards the black holeThat is the exact opposite of the truth.
You need to think about why they call it "lensing".
https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/gk4hb/gravitational_lensing/
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/05/2021 05:39:16
The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light around it.That amplification of light proves that the photons/lights don't fall towards the black holeThat is the exact opposite of the truth.
You need to think about why they call it "lensing".
https://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/gk4hb/gravitational_lensing/
We see it in your image and we see it in the one that I have offered:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scheme-of-formation-of-Einstein-ring-and-relativistic-rings-by-black-hole-lensing_fig4_318497993
I assume that the key issue in both images is the Einstein-ring.
So, any photon of light that is coming/falling in the direction of the SMBH at that ring instead of banding inwards and fall into the SMBH itself, it bands around the SMBH and continue it way.
So we all agree that the SMBH doesn't eat the photons that are falling/moving it its direction, but it actually band them around it so they can continue to move on at a different direction (To the observer).
If I understand it correctly, the key disagreement between us is that you believe that only the photons in that ring are banding around the SMBH so they can continue their way to the observer, while all the other which have lower radius are falling into the SMBH itself.
I don't agree with that.
In the image that I have offered we clearly see that even a photons of light at lower radius are banded around the SMBH and move on.
Therefore, I claim that as the Ultra gravity force of the SMBH is high enough to band the photons that are falling into a lower radius than the Einstein ring, it should actually band around it any photon even if it is in absolutely in a direct collision with it.
So, the SMBH must band around it any photon.
It won't eat even one photon from outside.
This is a key element in any lensing activity even in optical lensing.
In order to get better understanding let me offer the following image of optical lensing:
Lenses can be used to focus light:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lens#/media/File:Lens_and_wavefronts.gif
"Illustration of wavefronts after passing through a lens. Interestingly, to produce a point source reverse the direction of the waves, with the focus point acting as a point source."
So in lensing we focus the photons of light.
Not even one photon is lost.
In the same token, in order to get a gravitational lensing, we shouldn't lose any photon
Please look at the following clip:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File:Imageedit_6_2578820362.gif
It is stated:
"A remote light source passing behind a gravitational lens. There is a large point mass in the center acting as a lens. The aqua circle is how we would see the light source if there was no lens, while the white spots/circle is the light source as seen through the lens. If the light source is collinear with the earth and lens, the image is an "Einstein ring". When the source is off this line we see a double image. As it moves far away, one of the images gets fainter while the other one is almost not affected by the lens any more (thus coinciding with cyan circle)."
The key point in this message is "Einstein ring":
" If the light source is collinear with the earth and lens, the image is an "Einstein ring"
That ring at that density of light can only be achievable if all the photons of light that collide with the gravitational lens are focused into that ring. Every single photon. Nothing really falls into that gravitational lens (that in our case is a SMBH).
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/05/2021 08:16:20
Post by: jeffreyH on 21/05/2021 08:20:06
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 08:36:22
The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light around it.No
The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light TOWARDS it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 08:38:52
a lower radius than the Einstein ring,The Einstein ring is actually a cone, and has no particular radius.
When it reaches your eye, it's a point.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/05/2021 19:33:30
This is incorrecta lower radius than the Einstein ring,The Einstein ring is actually a cone, and has no particular radius.
When it reaches your eye, it's a point.
We clearly see the ring.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File:Imageedit_6_2578820362.gif
If the light source is collinear with the earth and lens, the image is an "Einstein ring"
SorryThe truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light around it.No
The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light TOWARDS it.
This is also incorrect as we see in the following image.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scheme-of-formation-of-Einstein-ring-and-relativistic-rings-by-black-hole-lensing_fig4_318497993
No, you are totally wrong.SMBH and Planet are very different from each other. One has accretion disc while the other has not.That's just not true, is it?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_system
Why do you tell such obvious lies?
In the article it is stated:
A ring system is a disc or ring orbiting an astronomical object that is composed of solid material such as dust and moonlets, and is a common component of satellite systems around giant planets. A ring system around a planet is also known as a planetary ring system.
How can you compare hot plasma at 10^9c in the accretion disc that orbits at almost the speed of light around the SMBH to that kind of cool solid material such as dust and moonlets that orbits at relatively much lower velocity?
By forcing the SMBH' accretion disc to work according to that kind of totally different ring - you break the truth!
So who is really telling pathetic lies?
Our scientists know that a temp of 10^9c can only be achievable by pair particle creation.
A falling matter can't get to that ultra high temp especially.
If there was any falling matter, it must fall all the way into the SMBH.
A falling matter can't also just stop at the SMBH' accretion disc as it is thin and soft and suddenly star to orbit there at almost the speed of light.
We also know that the orbital velocity of the inner side of the accretion disc is much faster than the outer side.
Orbital objects in a pure circular orbit (as the accretion disc) can't accelerate its orbital velocity as it falls in.
We have NEVER EVER observed any orbital object in a circular orbit that speeds up while it reduces its radius.
So, the assumption of our scientists that the matter in the accretion disc is moving from outside to inside and then fall into the SMBH is a clear lie.
This is one of the biggest lies of our scientists!
Sorry, our scientists don't have a basic clue about the real functionality of the SMBH' accretion disc and they don't want to know as by using the real knowledge they would have to kill the BBT.
That issue is totally unaccepted by our BBT scientist.
Therefore, they would continue to do whatever it takes to band and bypass any observation which contradicts the BBT.
We are fishing for truth, you are fishing for attention.The truth is based on observation and ONLY on observation. No observation is as important as any observation.
Do you reconfirm that for the last 20-50 years we observe constant and stable outflow from the outer side of the SMBH' accretion disc into the Bulge?
Do you reconfirm that for in one time (2018) we have discovered an inflow from the inner side of that disc into the SMBH?
Do you reconfirm that we have never ever found any observation of matter as is falls into the SMBH' accretion disc?
Never and ever?
So, why is it so difficult for our scientists to accept the observation as is?
Why do they twist the observation?
Why do they claim again and again that they have discovered a matter as it falls into that disc but after deep verification we have found that it was a lie?
So, how could they discuss on the name of truth while they LIE in front of our face??
How can they ignore the clear evidence that they have NEVER EVER found matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside?
Why they don't even consider a possibility that what they see is what there is?
Sorry - if you really speak on the name of truth, then our scientists have to accept the simple no observation that matter from outside had never ever discovered as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Don't try to explain why we don't see. Just accept the idea that what we see and especially what we don't see is the real truth.
Based on that simple evidence try to adjust you theory.
In our twisted science world, our scientists set the theory, set the law and try to force the Universe to work according their concept.
This isn't a truth and not even close to a truth.
500 Years ago, scientists claimed that we are the center of the Universe.
Anyone that dare yo claim the opposite had been set in jail.
They were not open to accept the observation as it was?
Even today, as long as they ignore the observations about the SMBH' accretion disc (please focus only on that disc!!!) they twist the truth
So, if our scientists wish to hold their current concept them it is their obligation to do the following:
1. Find clear observation of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc (clear observation – not just imagination).
2. Show an example of orbital object in pure circular orbits that drifts inwards and increases its orbital velocity
3. Set the temp calculation how a falling matter/matter could get to that high temp of 10^9c only by that falling activity. what should be the falling velocity and what is the object that collide with it?
4. In order to gain high falling temp. it is quite clear that it must fall in at ultra high velocity. So how any falling object at ultra high falling velocity could suddenly stop near the event horizon of that SMBH, and start its pure orbital circular at almost the speed of light. Show the calculation for that activity.
Without covering all the above obligations the concept that the accretion disc is there due to falling matter from outside is just LIE.
So, please how can you raise the flag of truth while the current theoretical concept is based on lies and imaginations that fully contradict the observations or at least ignore the observation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 19:43:40
This is incorrectThe same is true of a rainbow, but the light enters your eye from a cone of scattering drops.
We clearly see the ring.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:36:22OK so I took a copy of the picture there.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:39:16
The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light around it.
No
The truth is that the ultra high SMBH' gravity force band the photons of light TOWARDS it.
Sorry
This is also incorrect as we see in the following image.
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Scheme-of-formation-of-Einstein-ring-and-relativistic-rings-by-black-hole-lensing_fig4_318497993
And I added a couple of things to explain why you are wrong.
The green line I added is the path which the light would take without the BH.
And the arrow shows the direction in which that light is bent.
You will see that the arrow points towards the black hole because the light is bent towards the black hole.
There really isn't anything complicated here.
You were just posting obvious nonsense.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 19:48:04
How can you compare hot plasma at 10^9c in the accretion disc that orbits at almost the speed of light around the SMBH to that kind of cool solid material such as dust and moonlets that orbits at relatively much lower velocity?Because they are both disks formed by accretion,
I keep explaining why one is hot.
You keep ignoring the simple science involved.
500 Years ago, scientists claimed that we are the center of the Universe.That was the church, not science.
Anyone that dare yo claim the opposite had been set in jail.
You don't seem to understand the difference.
You have faith in your idea, but we have evidence of the truth of ours.
You are the one acting like the church here.
Don't try to explain why we don't see.Sometimes, what we don't see is what tells us the truth.
If I don't see a cat on my chair, I know there is no cat on the chair.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/05/2021 21:50:36
The green line I added is the path which the light would take without the BH.This is nonsense
And the arrow shows the direction in which that light is bent.
You will see that the arrow points towards the black hole because the light is bent towards the black hole.
There really isn't anything complicated here.
You were just posting obvious nonsense.
Based on your explanation an observer that is located at the end of that green line should get less light.
Less light means smaller/dimmer image of the BH.
However, when we look at the following clip
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File:Imageedit_6_2578820362.gif
We clearly see that this isn't the case.
So, at any given moment the light that should go to different observer gets there at full light power
Hence, the reality is that any photon that is in a direct falling direction into a SMBH is banded around that SMBH and then refocused to the observer. So, nothing falls into the SMBH itself. Not even a single photon
Because they are both disks formed by accretion,Although the SMBH' accretion disc is totally different from a dust ring around or a planet/star, none of them had been formed by accretion. .
Actually, if you monitor a dust ring around a star or planet you would verify that the ring is drifting outwards.
In that activity they are the same.
Any orbital ring must drift outwards over time
This is real science!.
So, none of them is accretion but excretion.
I keep explaining why one is hot.No.
You keep ignoring the simple science involved.
You didn't
Please set the calculation and full explanation how you get the 10^9c due to a falling matter.
So, what?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:33:30Anyone that dare yo claim the opposite had been set in jail.
500 Years ago, scientists claimed that we are the center of the Universe.
That was the church, not science.
You don't seem to understand the difference.
You behave exactly the same.
Your mission is to keep away any intention to kill your lovely theory and that was the same activity of the church in the past.
So we have changed one dictator with other dictator.
What is the big difference?
You think that you are correct and you do not wish to open yourself to any new observation that might kill the BBT?
That is exactly the same approach of the church at that time.
They have ignored the Observation in order to protect their theory and you do exactly the same.
Why is it?
Why is it so important to you to protect the BBT?
What do you gain by protecting such unrealistic theory?
You have faith in your idea, but we have evidence of the truth of ours.As long as you can't offer the following four obligations, you have no evidence for your imagination:
So, if our scientists wish to hold their current concept them it is their obligation to do the following:So, please go ahead and set your evidence!
1. Find clear observation of matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc (clear observation – not just imagination).
2. Show an example of orbital object in pure circular orbits that drifts inwards and increases its orbital velocity
3. Set the temp calculation how a falling matter/matter could get to that high temp of 10^9c only by that falling activity. what should be the falling velocity and what is the object that collide with it?
4. In order to gain high falling temp. it is quite clear that it must fall in at ultra high velocity. So how any falling object at ultra high falling velocity could suddenly stop near the event horizon of that SMBH, and start its pure orbital circular at almost the speed of light. Show the calculation for that activity.
Sorry, your imaginary "evidence" fully contradicts the real observation.
Sometimes, what we don't see is what tells us the truth.This is your biggest fatal problem.
If I don't see a cat on my chair, I know there is no cat on the chair.
If you don't see a falling matter into any SMBH' accretion disc in the entire Universe there is always a possibility that matter doesn't fall.
Why is it so difficult for you to accept that simple understanding?.
It is very clear that you insist that it must fall just because you wish to protect the BBT.
So, you all act as robots under the kingdom of the BBT dictator.
If we could erase the BBT from your mind you would probably get to the same conclusions as I did.
I assume that it is impossible mission to you to take out the BBT chain from you.
But if one day you would be free from that chain, you would fully accept the observations as they are.
If I don't see a cat on my chair, I know there is no cat on the chair.Sorry, if you don't see a cat on your chair there is always a possibility that you aren't sitting on a chair!
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 23:34:50
This is nonsenseYou are right.
Based on your explanation an observer that is located at the end of that green line should get less light.
Less light means smaller/dimmer image of the BH.
That is nonsense
why did you post it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 23:36:04
As long as you can't offer the following four obligations,There's no obligation here, and it is dishonest for you to pretend that there is.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 23:38:10
Please set the calculation and full explanation how you get the 10^9c due to a falling matter.A few thousand times lots is 10^9
That's better maths than you have used.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 23:39:25
This is your biggest fatal problem.You tell me I have many fatal problems, yet I am not dead.
This proves that you are wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/05/2021 23:40:21
there is always a possibility that matter doesn't fall.In your wold things may fall up.
In the real world, they do not.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/05/2021 05:37:31
Dear BCthere is always a possibility that matter doesn't fall.In your wold things may fall up.
In the real world, they do not.
In real world we must accept the observation as is.
In real world we observe that the orbital velocity of the plasma in the innermost SMBH' accretion disc is faster than the orbital velocity at the outermost disc.
In real world we observe that the plasma in the inner disc is hotter then the plasma in the outer disc. So, if the temp of the outer side is 10^9c, what is the real temp at the inner side?
In real world we observe that the matter in the inner disc is falling inwards into the SMBH as UFI while the matter from the outer disc is ejected outwards CONSTANTLY as UFO.
In real world we have never ever observed in the same media that matter is falling inwards and ejected backwards/ outwards at the same moment. So, while we do observe matter from the open space as it falls on our planet, we do not observe matter as it is ejected from the planet to the open space. So matter can't fall from the open space and then be ejected to the open space through the same media. NEVER and EVER.
In real world the real meaning of that constant UFO outflow from the SMBH' accretion disc to the Bulge/open space is that nothing can fall back through the same media!!!
In real world the real meaning that matter had never ever been observed as it falls into the ANY SMBH' accretion disc (out of the billions there) is that matter doesn't fall into that disc.
In real word there is only one explanation for what we do observe - New particle pair activity is in action near the event horizon of that SMBH.
In real world there is no room for dark matter or dark energy. Our scientists have never ever observed any sort of dark matter or dark energy. They even confirm that they call it dark because they simply don't know what is it. So, any scientist that discuss about the existence of dark matter or dark energy is LIAR..
In real world if you don't know than please step away and don't tell us that what you don't know is the correct knowledge. At least don't LIE to yourself.
We are living today in the in the BBT kingdom that is based on LIES and imagination
You BC are fully controlled by that dictator kingdom.
You have no freedom to think real science. You are obliged to think BBT science.
In this BBT Kingdom any observation that contradicts the BBT laws must be rejected and covered by lies.
In this BBT Kingdom any person that dares to discuss against its laws should be highlighted as a defected personality or be ejected from the kingdom.
This BBT kingdom works as any other dark dictator kingdom in our history.
They have a simple law.
Sell the same lies to your people again and again. Eventually most of them must believe you. Reject, eliminate or kill anyone that doesn't accept your lies.
Therefore, in our BBT kingdom they tell us that they have observed matter as it falls into the accretion disc and all of us must believe to those lies although we all know that it is LIE
Bravo to the BBT kingdom!!
This kingdom is based on lies. So, even if you are just believer to those lies you are part of this LIAR and dictator kingdom.
We don't want this kind of lies and dictator.
We don't want liars even if they are called as grownups or BBT scientists.
We want real science.
Let's accept the observation as is.
Let's accept Einstein wisdom as he stated that the Universe must generate constantly new matter in order to keep it steady.
No more lies. No more BBT imagination kingdom.
Please go home and take with you all the dark staff including wrong laws and all the other supportive nonsense as density wave.
We will base our knowledge ONLY on observation and by using real democracy we will find the ultimate understanding for our universe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/05/2021 10:22:43
You claim that the activities on planets and moons must be similar to the activities at the SMBH.
Hence, as matter falls from space to our planet, then it is a clear indication FOR YOU that matter must also fall from the open space into the SMBH.
In order to prove that the activity at the SMBH is identical to the activity at a planet you have offered the rings around a planet.
So as there is an accretion ring around the SMBH there is ring around a planet.
So far so good for you - as this concept supports the BBT.
However, if one activity at the planet is the same to activity at the SMBH, why other activity at the SMBH can't be the same as the activity on the planet?.
We clearly observe a constant UFO that is ejected from the SMBH to the open space.
So, as you claim that they both are same, then please show the UFO outflow from our planet or moon to the open space.
Why the SMBH is forced to work according the observations on any planet/moon while a Planet/moon has no obligation to work according the observation on the SMBH?
Hence, if you wish to force the SMBH to eat his food from outside, then I wish to force any planet/moon to eject a constant UFO to the open space.
Only if you can show that each planet and each moon in our solar system is ejecting a constant UFO to the open space as we clearly observe on the SMBH, Then I'm ready to accept your imagination that matter falls into the SMBH as we observe on earth.
Same same in one direction must be same same in the other direction!
So, please go ahead and find the constant outflow stream of that UFO from our moon / planet and then give a call.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2021 12:00:01
In real world we must accept the observation as is.That is correct.
So we accept that energy is conserved, things fall down and that light is bent towards a black hole in gravitational lensing.
And we do not accept the nonsense you talk.
In order to prove that the activity at the SMBH is identicalNobody said "identical"- that's just you telling lies to try to support your nonsense.
So, as you claim that they both are same, then please show the UFO outflow from our planet or moon to the open space.That's why helium is rare in the Earth's atmosphere.
It had enough energy to leave, and it did.
It's not as dramatic as the ultrafast stuff, but that's because the Earth's gravity is much weaker.
There are also other factors.
For the Earth, the effect of the magnetic field on charged particles is more significant. Here's some molecules getting flung around. Some of them end up leaving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aurora.
That's an observation, by the way.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/05/2021 14:04:36
Sorry.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:22:43That's why helium is rare in the Earth's atmosphere.
So, as you claim that they both are same, then please show the UFO outflow from our planet or moon to the open space.
It had enough energy to leave, and it did.
That was not my intention.
Our scientists claim that the same matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion from the open space is ejected outwards from that accretion disc as that UFO into the open space.
We OBSERVE the UFO but we have never ever observed any matter that falls into the SMBH accretion disc from outside.
Therefore, it is your obligation to show that the same matter that falls into the planet from the space is then ejected outwards as UFO from through the same media/atmosphere.
Not other kind of matter or gas, not through different media or atmosphere - just same same same.
You clearly claim that we must accept the observation as is – but you lie as you don't accept the observation as is.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:37:31That is correct.
In real world we must accept the observation as is.
So we accept that energy is conserved, things fall down and that light is bent towards a black hole in gravitational lensing.
Energy conservation is a physics law. It isn't an observation.
So, how can you highlight it is as observation?
If you really confirm that In real world we must accept the observation as is than please - let's focus ONLY on real observation.
We see the UFO as it is ejected from the SMBH but we have never seen any falling matter.
You keep on with your lies that "things fall down and that light is bent towards a black hole in gravitational lensing" while we have never ever observed any things as they fall into the SMBH from outside.
The light which you have highlighted before (in green) didn't bend into the SMBH but is was banded around the SMBH.
So, in reality you have no observation for anything (not even light) that falls into the SMBH or its accretion disc. You just hope that light and things from outside fall into the SMBH without any real observation to support this imagination..
If you wish to use the earth as an example for things that fall down, then please show the same things as they are ejected outwards from the earth to space as UFO
Exactly the same matter that falls on Earth must be ejected outwards from the earth as UFO.
Same - same
Good luck
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2021 14:14:25
It isn't an observation.Yes it is.
So, how can you highlight it is as observation?My gas bill rises in Winter.
Calorimetry works.
Now, can you show absolutely any example at all of energy not being conserved?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/05/2021 20:23:40
Sorry, law is law and observation is observation.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:04:36Yes it is.
It isn't an observation.
Unfortunately you can't see the difference as you are fully controlled by the BBT Kingdom.
We have proved today that if matter falls inwards it can't be ejected outwards
In the same token if matter is ejected outwards no matter can fall inwards.
Therefore, the assumption that matter from outside falls on the accretion disc and then rejected outwards is based on the BBT imagination.
That imagination should be ended.
If matter falls inwards, it falls to stay inwards - as we OBSERVE on Earth.
If matter is ejected outwards, then matter can't fall inwards - as we OBSERVE on the SMBH.
So please let the BBT kingdom know that the game is over and their kingdom had been destroyed.
Now you are a free man.
You are free to think as a free man.
You are free to understand that a law is a law and observation is an observation.
The SMBH generates all the new matter at the accretion disc without any help from outside.
Surprisingly, that new matter activity doesn't contradict the conservation law.
The SMBH generates Ultra High Electromagnetic force and Ultra high Gravity force.
Those SMBH' EM + Gravity forces is the base for the pair particle creation near its event horizon.
Both particles have positive mass but carry opposite charged.
As one particle falls in it increases the total SMBH mass, the other one is ejected outwards and become a new member at the inner most side of the accretion disc.
At that stage, the orbital velocity of that ejected particle is as high as the speed of light. Its temp might be significantly higher than the 10^9c. That particle would be fully controlled under the Mighty EM power at the accretion disc. By the time that it would get to the outermost of the disc it would be transformed from a neglected particle to real atom or molecular.
Most of the atoms would become Hydrogen Atoms but we should find there all the Atoms and all the molecular that we know including Gold and water.
There is no need for supernova to generate the variety of atoms and molecular in our planet or in our body.
It is already there at the outermost side of the accretion disc.
During this process the SMBH is losing some energy.
However, due to the ultra high tidal forces on that SMBH it regain the requested energy that is needed for this production.
Therefore, there is no contradiction between the conservation law to the new particle creation process.
As long as new energy is added to the SMBH by tidal forces new particles would continue to be created.
So, the SMBH increases its mass by one particle out of the two that is falling in and contribute the other particle to our Universe.
This process would keep our universe at a steady state forever and ever.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/05/2021 20:30:49
This BBT kingdom works as any other dark dictator kingdom in our history.
They have a simple law.
Sell the same lies to your people again and again. Eventually most of them must believe you. Reject, eliminate or kill anyone that doesn't accept your lies.
People are killed for not accepting the Big Bang theory? Are you serious?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/05/2021 20:37:55
People are killed for not accepting the Big Bang theory? Are you serious?Not really killed as in the old time, but ejected from the main stream community.
For some of them it is as difficult as a real kill.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2021 20:59:03
Now, can you show absolutely any example at all of energy not being conserved?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2021 21:06:07
Have you any evidence to support this fantasy of yours?People are killed for not accepting the Big Bang theory? Are you serious?Not really killed as in the old time, but ejected from the main stream community.
For some of them it is as difficult as a real kill.
Post by: charles1948 on 22/05/2021 21:09:22
Now, can you show absolutely any example at all of energy not being conserved?
Is it - a fridge magnet? it keeps clinging on to the fridge wall. Despite gravity trying to continually drag it downwards.
The magnet conserves its energy to cling on.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/05/2021 21:20:45
Is it - a fridge magnet?No.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/05/2021 21:21:26
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2021 12:12:39
Permanent magnets don't expend energy to fight gravity any more than a table does. Force isn't energy.
I hope that you agree that gravity force can set Tidal force.
Tidal force can generate conducting fluids within the interior of the SMBH.
Therefore it increases the SMBH EM field.
The EM is used to generate new particle pairs.
As one falls into the SMBH the other one is ejected outwards
More particles mean more gravity force.
More gravity force means more tidal force.
More tidal force means more EM field.
More EM field means more particle pairs and so on.
That activity fully meets the observation:
1. UFO is ejected from the outer side of the disc
2. UFI is falling into the SMBH from the inner side of the disc.
3. The plasma temp at the Inner side is higher than the outer side.
4. The orbital velocity of the Inner side is higher than the outer side.
Hence, due to tidal force we get new particle pair creation at the accretion disc.
Therefore, there is no need for any matter to fall into the SMBH or to its accretion disc from outside.
The SMBH' Accretion disc gets new created particles from inside and ejects its matter outside.
So it should be called - excretion disc instead of accretion disc!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2021 12:58:29
Now, can you show absolutely any example at all of energy not being conserved?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2021 17:43:39
Now, can you show absolutely any example at all of energy not being conserved?I have clearly explained the energy cycle that is needed for new particle creation.
Please read it again:
I hope that you agree that gravity force can set Tidal force.
Tidal force can generate conducting fluids within the interior of the SMBH.
Therefore it increases the SMBH EM field.
The EM is used to generate new particle pairs.
As one falls into the SMBH the other one is ejected outwards
More particles mean more gravity force.
More gravity force means more tidal force.
More tidal force means more EM field.
More EM field means more particle pairs and so on.
That activity fully meets the observation:
1. UFO is ejected from the outer side of the disc
2. UFI is falling into the SMBH from the inner side of the disc.
3. The plasma temp at the Inner side is higher than the outer side.
4. The orbital velocity of the Inner side is higher than the outer side.
Hence, due to tidal force we get new particle pair creation at the accretion disc.
Therefore, there is no need for any matter to fall into the SMBH or to its accretion disc from outside.
The SMBH' Accretion disc gets new created particles from inside and ejects its matter outside.
So it should be called - excretion disc instead of accretion disc!!!
Do you have any difficulty in understanding this cycle?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2021 18:27:50
I have clearly explained the energy cycle that is needed for new particle creation.Yes, but that's something you made up. It isn't an observation. You have observed matter moving about, but you have not observed it being made.
You just believe that it is.
All the things we see there are better explained by real science..
So, do you have an actual example that shows energy not being conserved?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2021 20:20:49
You are wasting our time for the same questions again and again
Would you kindly stop it.
So let me answer you for the last time (I hope):
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:43:39Yes,
I have clearly explained the energy cycle that is needed for new particle creation.
but that's something you made up.No
It isn't an observation.Yes it is.
You have observed matter moving about,
We OBSERVE the UFO as it is ejected from the outer side of the accretion disc outwards to the Bulge
We OBSERVE the UFI as it is ejected from the inner side of the accretion disc inwards to the SMBH
We do NOT OBSERVE any matter as it falls into the SMBH or its accretion disc from the Bulge.
As I have already explained, there is no possibility for matter to fall in from outside and then ejected back to the same outside.
Therefore, If we see matter falls in then nothing goes out (as we observe in our planet)
So, If we see matter that is ejected outwards then nothing really falls in (as we observe in the SMBH).
That is real Observation and real science.
I hope that you clearly confirm the above.
If no, please advise you difficulties.
but you have not observed it being made.Why do you lie
We clearly observe it and I have already offered a link:
Therefore, the "pair plasma near the black hole" activity is the ONLY activity that could justify that high temp at the accretion disc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni#2015_outburst
"A detailed analysis of the INTEGRAL data revealed the existence of so-called pair plasma near the black hole. This plasma consists of electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positrons"
That pair plasma means the creation of new partials as: "electrons and their antimatter counterparts, positron". So, our scientists fully confirm the activity of that pair plasma near the accretion disc!
However even if we could not observe it, it is clear that matter MUST be created at the disc due to the following:
We clearly observe that matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards to the (Bulge UFO), while matter from the Bulge is not falling into the accretion disc, then there is only one explanation for that:
New matter must be created at the accretion disc.
So, we don't even need to observe the pair creation to know that it should be there.
You just believe that it is.It is not an issue of my believe
It is real observation and real science
All the things we see there are better explained by real science..After all of that, do you still call the BBT as real science?
So, do you have an actual example that shows energy not being conserved?Why should I?
The New pair creation process doesn't contradict the law of conservation.
So what is your problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2021 20:37:57
It is real observation and real scienceShow us the observations of more energy and or more mass coming out of the than are going into it.
Don't waste everybody's time with guesses; provide numbers.
Because, until you can show that there really is more coming out than going in, you do not have a plausible idea.
We clearly observe it and I have already offered a link:You offered a link to your own, ill-informed opinion.
That's not going to convince anyone.
We OBSERVE the UFO as it is ejected from the outer side of the accretion disc outwards to the BulgeWe observe a wisp of fast hot gas coming out.
We don't observe the stuff that falls in to provide the power, because the stuff falling in isn't hot.
And you refuse to show any numbers for the stuff going in vs the stuff coming out because you simply have't a clue about it.
The New pair creation process doesn't contradict the law of conservation.Yes it does- the way you are using it.
It is obvious that making new stuff and or new energy is a beech of the conservation laws.
How can you not see that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/05/2021 21:23:59
Because, until you can show that there really is more coming out than going in, you do not have a plausible idea.Did we ever observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH or its accretion disc from outside?
The answer is clearly no.
So why do you waste our time with that issue?
You offered a link to your own, ill-informed opinion.What a poor memory...
You are the one that offered this like.
So, how could it be that when I reuse the link that you have offered then it's not good enough?
Shame on you.
We observe a wisp of fast hot gas coming out.We observe constant UFO for the last 20 years or more!
We don't observe the stuff that falls in to provide the power,So, you fully reconfirm that we do not observe any falling matter.
because the stuff falling in isn't hot.What a nonsense.
If matter falls it must get heated as it falls in and not just at the accretion disc.
So, it is absolutely nonsense to claim that a star at 6000c would fall in and stay cool all the way till the accretion disc.
It won't break and it won't set any fireworks. Only at the disc it would be converted to plasma at 10^9 c without any sort of fireworks.
Second - As I have told you before, there is no possibility in our universe to fall in and then fall out. This is pure imagination of those people that hold the flag of the BBT kingdom.
Third and final - I don't care why we do not see. We don't see - that is the main issue and it is good enough to know that nothing really falls into the SMBH from outside.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 20:20:49So please show where the error is in that cycle.
The New pair creation process doesn't contradict the law of conservation.
Yes it does- the way you are using it.
It is obvious that making new stuff and or new energy is a beech of the conservation laws.It is all about Tidal force.
How can you not see that?
That force generates conducting fluids within the interior of the SMBH.
Once you agree with that then you have to accept the whole new pair particle cycle.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/05/2021 22:14:06
Therefore, the "pair plasma near the black hole" activity is the ONLY activity that could justify that high temp at the accretion discThat's not my link. It's your ill-informed opinion.
Did we ever observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH or its accretion disc from outside?What's special about SM BH as opposed to ordinary ones where we do see stuff falling in?
In any event I'm getting tired of explaining why we should not see it.
We don't observe the stuff that falls in to provide the power, because the stuff falling in isn't hot.
Why can't you understand that?
We observe constant UFO for the last 20 years or more!That's a very short time in astrophysics.
So, you fully reconfirm that we do not observe any falling matter.
Because it is invisible.
If matter falls it must get heated as it falls in and not just at the accretion disc.No.
It gets hot when it hits something- like the other falling stuff i.e. the accretion disk.
So, it is absolutely nonsense to claim that a star at 6000c would fall in and stay cool all the way till the accretion disc.And that's why we have an image of a star falling into a BH.
But a lot of stuff isn't "stars".
So please show where the error is in that cycle.It breaks the conservation laws.
It also doesn't make any real sense
Tidal force can generate conducting fluids within the interior of the SMBH.
Therefore it increases the SMBH EM field.
The EM is used to generate new particle pairs.
Anything that happens- tidal or whatever, can't influence the rest of the universe.
No "message" about those tides could escape from the BH.
That's the thing about BH stuff falls in, not out.
So your "cycle" is antiscientific nonsense".
But that's beside the point.
We know it can't work because it breaks the conservation rules.
However, in this context, since you were asked to provide a single instance of something which breaks those rules, an your "explanation" makes no sense- it simply can not work- I have to ask again.
So, do you have an actual example that shows energy not being conserved?
As I have told you before, there is no possibility in our universe to fall in and then fall out. This is pure imagination of those people that hold the flag of the BBT kingdom.You are the only one saying stuff falls out of a BH.
The grown ups are saying that some stuff gets accelerated by some gravitational slingshot type of effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/05/2021 07:36:34
We don't observe the stuff that falls in to provide the power, because the stuff falling in isn't hot.Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Matter which falls in due to gravity would never ever be ejected outwards against the same gravity.
Why can't you understand that?
If an matter falls on Earth, it falls to stay on Earth.
So, let's highlight your following imagination:
1. Star at 6000c from the Bulge that falls all the way into the direction of the SMBH core at extremely ultra high falling velocity would suddenly stop near the event horizon - Imagination
2. All the matter of that star should be converted to smoothly hot plasma at 10^9 and just to be ejected back to the Bulge against the gravity force - Imagination
If that is not good enough imagination, you also wish that falling star that is losing its life and is broken to its tinny particles exactly near the event horizon would be invisible.
We shouldn't observe any sort of fireworks or supernova during this process.
We should always observe a nicely thin and smooth accretion disc with or without a falling star.
I would like to remind you again that we actually focus on a SMBH' accretion disc.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/05/2021 21:23:59And that's why we have an image of a star falling into a BH.
So, it is absolutely nonsense to claim that a star at 6000c would fall in and stay cool all the way till the accretion disc.
However, I claim that you also don't understand correctly that image of a star falling into a BH as it is actually the star itself that eats the matter that is coming outwards from the BH.
Therefore that star is normally so giant.
If you disagree than show the real data about the matter flows in that image.
You should verify that the real data/image doesn't fit to your lovely BBT nonsense.
Yes it is:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 23/05/2021 20:20:49That's not my link. It's your ill-informed opinion.
Therefore, the "pair plasma near the black hole" activity is the ONLY activity that could justify that high temp at the accretion disc
So you have offered the link and you have lied twice.We have never ever observed any sort of matter that falls from outside into the SMBH' accretion discWe have.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni#2015_outburst
Sorry - the BBT is based on lies & imagination.
We have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc as nothing falls in.
Never and ever.
You and all the other 10,000 grownups can keep on with your imagination as long as you wish.
However - The BBT contradicts real science!
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/05/2021 08:42:49
So you have offered the link and you have lied twice.No
This is what you linked to- and YOU wrote it.
Therefore, the "pair plasma near the black hole" activity is the ONLY activity that could justify that high temp at the accretion discAnd it isn't true.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 23/05/2021 18:27:50
So, do you have an actual example that shows energy not being conserved?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/05/2021 08:45:43
If an matter falls on Earth, it falls to stay on Earth.Previously, you were saying that, because the dust cloud from demolishing a building sometimes rises higher than the building, the building falls up.
Now you are saying that the dust cloud can't exist.
In the real world, things fall down. Some debris may get thrown clear.
We use this effect to launch things.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
but it only works because we are only trying to launch things that are a very small fraction of the mass of the Sun.
It is a real well known effect, and you are pretending that it is impossible.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/05/2021 12:59:40
Previously, you were saying that, because the dust cloud from demolishing a building sometimes rises higher than the building, the building falls up.What nonsense.
Even if the dust cloud rises higher than the building, eventually all the dust falls back on Earth.
So, noting actually is ejected outwards from the Earth gravity bonding.
Not even a single particle of dust.
In the real world, things fall down. Some debris may get thrown clear.NEVER and EVER.
Even if that building would be 1 Km high, all of its matter including its dust won't escape from the Earth gravity force.
In the SMBH' accretion disc we clearly see that the UFO is ejected outwards from the SMBH gravity to never return.
So, it is totally different scenario.
We use this effect to launch things.This example shows that you don't have a basic clue in orbital objects.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
but it only works because we are only trying to launch things that are a very small fraction of the mass of the Sun.
What we see is a simple outcome due to Kepler law for elliptical orbit shape.
As the orbital object gets closer to the main mass it gets extra force that boosts it outwards before it can set even one full orbital cycle. Hence, you would NEVER EVER observe any object that as it gets to the closest distance from the main object it keeps that radius (Rmin) and continue to set several pure orbital cycles at that Rmin radius.
NEVER, NEVER....NEVER and EVER.
If you wish to hold the orbital object at that Rmin for even one full pure circular cycle (at that Rmin), you must use an engine or rockets to resist the gravity from ejecting it back to space.
So, the falling in momentum due to gravity boosts that object back to space only if it is under the elliptic orbital shape (or Kepler law). There is no way to hold the object at pure circular orbits at that Rmin and just after several pure circular orbits eject it back to space.
This is a fiction.
If you don't understand that, then you don't understand real science
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/05/2021 13:20:28
NEVER and EVER.We actually use this effect.
We send a spacecraft falling towards the Sun in order to launch it into interstellar space/.
It's called "gravity assist"
And it doesn't matter if you use capital letters, it is still observed to be true.
Exactly the same orbital mechanics could launch a small fraction of the incoming material away from a BH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/05/2021 13:24:02
There is no way to hold the object at pure circular orbits at that Rmin and just after several pure circular orbits eject it back to space.Yes it is fiction.
This is a fiction.
You just made it up.
Nobody else said that the material was in a stable orbit and was launched, did they?
I said that some stuff falling in would get thrown out again.
Why did you make up that bit of fiction?
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/05/2021 19:48:27
We actually use this effect.Gravity assist is real.
We send a spacecraft falling towards the Sun in order to launch it into interstellar space/.
It's called "gravity assist"
And it doesn't matter if you use capital letters, it is still observed to be true.
However why is it so difficult to you to understand the basic as I have explained:
If you wish to hold the orbital object at that Rmin for even one full pure circular cycle (at that Rmin), you must use an engine or rockets to resist the gravity from ejecting it back to space.Is it clear to you?
So, the falling in momentum due to gravity boosts that object back to space only if it is under the elliptic orbital shape (or Kepler law). There is no way to hold the object at pure circular orbits at that Rmin and just after several pure circular orbits eject it back to space.
Exactly the same orbital mechanics could launch a small fraction of the incoming material away from a BH.As long as the orbital object is in elliptical orbital shape, then any matter that is coming / falling in the direction of the BH would be ejected outwards. Not a small fraction of the object but the whole object!
However, there is no way for that object to set even one full circular orbit at that Rmin radius (prehelion).
Do you understand that key issue?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/05/2021 20:21:59
There is no way to hold the object at pure circular orbits at that Rmin and just after several pure circular orbits eject it back to space.Yes it is fiction.
This is a fiction.
You just made it up.
Nobody else said that the material was in a stable orbit and was launched, did they?
I said that some stuff falling in would get thrown out again.
Why did you make up that bit of fiction?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/05/2021 20:41:03
Is it clear to you?What is clear is that you do not understand the orbits we should be talking about are not the ones you are describing.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_trajectory
I presume this is because, as usual, you do not know the science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/05/2021 20:49:56
Nobody else said that the material was in a stable orbit and was launched, did they?In this case, you can't get the matter at the accretion disc from a falling star.
So, if you can't hold the falling matter at a fixed orbital radius near the Event horizon, you have no accretion disc.
I said that some stuff falling in would get thrown out again.You can say whatever you wish.
There is no way to keep some matter of a falling star in and some to thrown out again.
You have only the following options (for the whole star):
1. Or it falls all the way into the SMBH (the whole star)
2. It is thrown out (the whole star)
As you have offered in the following articale:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_trajectory"In astrodynamics or celestial mechanics, a hyperbolic trajectory is the trajectory of any object around a central body with more than enough speed to escape the central object's gravitational pull. "
3. A falling star would never ever stay at the perihelion radius is in stable orbit.
Conclusion:
The matter in the accretion disc would never come from a falling star or gas cloud!
I presume this is because, as usual, you do not know the science.I presume that you are the one that doesn't know that there is no way to set any sort of matter at the accretion disc from outside.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/05/2021 21:11:19
In this case, you can't get the matter at the accretion disc from a falling star.No.
You get it from stuff that's falling in.
There is no way to keep some matter of a falling star in and some to thrown out again.Why not?
Stars are soft. You can break them up.
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/05/2021 06:06:13
What a nonsense!!!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:49:56No.
In this case, you can't get the matter at the accretion disc from a falling star.
You get it from stuff that's falling in.
You have just offered the Hyperbolic_trajectory
What is clear is that you do not understand the orbits we should be talking about are not the ones you are describing.So we know the real meaning of:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperbolic_trajectory
"In astrodynamics or celestial mechanics, a hyperbolic trajectory is the trajectory of any object around a central body with more than enough speed to escape the central object's gravitational pull. "
Therefore, this fully explain why a hyperbolic trajectory is good enough to eject that object backwards to the open space.
Therefore, there is no posibility - based on real gravity forces) to hold a falling object to set even one full circular orbit at that Rmin radius (perihelion).
Stars are soft. You can break them up.Stars are strong enough to keep all their atoms by their own gravity force.
However, even if we break it to its atoms, each atom would have to obey to the same gravity forces.
So, any atom that obeys to the hyperbolic trajectory, must be ejected outwards.
Even if all the 10,000 grownups together would try to hold a falling single atom at that Rmin radius (perihelion) it won't help!
They would all fall into the SMBH core or be ejected outwards.
Hence, there are ONLY two possibilities for any falling object (star or atom):
Falls all the way into the core of the SMBH
Or be ejected due to hyperbolic trajectory.
If you still think differently, please ask those 10,000 grownups to offer the gravity law that could help keeping any falling object/atom at that Rmin radius (perihelion) (even for just one full orbital cycle).
Good Luck.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/05/2021 08:36:38
However, even if we break it to its atoms, each atom would have to obey to the same gravity forces.Until it hit another atom, and got bounced into a different trajectory.
Obviously, it would then take a different path- which could include being flung out.
How did you not realise that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/05/2021 19:57:56
What a nonsense.However, even if we break it to its atoms, each atom would have to obey to the same gravity forces.Until it hit another atom, and got bounced into a different trajectory.
Obviously, it would then take a different path- which could include being flung out.
How did you not realise that?
Now you call the "hit" for help.
I hope that it is finally very clear to you and to all of those 10,000 grownups that without that imaginary "hit" any object that falls in has only two possibilities:
Hence, there are ONLY two possibilities for any falling object (star or atom):As those possibilities sets the BBT at the garbage, now you ask some help from the good luck/chance that is called "hit".
Falls all the way into the core of the SMBH
Or be ejected due to hyperbolic trajectory.
So you claim: "it would then take a different path- which could include being flung out."
Don't you understand that any falling matter that doesn't meet the SMBH core itself must flung out due to Hyperbolic_trajectory.
So, the flung out isn't a problem.
You need to find a creative idea how you can convince any falling matter to hold itself at that perihelion radius for at least one full orbital cycle.
Can you please specify what is the real chance of a falling star to hit something (anywhere you wish), and by some magic power its atoms would suddenly orbit there at the accretion disc
Is it 100% or 10^-10000....0?
Would you kindly set the calculation for your "hit" imagination chance?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/05/2021 20:21:23
What a nonsense.You are right again.
Now you call the "hit" for help.
That is nonsense.
Why did you write it?
Don't you understand that any falling matter that doesn't meet the SMBH core itself must flung out due to Hyperbolic_trajectory.No
It could go into an elliptical orbit.
Ir it might bump its way through the other stuff in the area in what can hardly be called an "orbit" at all.
now you ask some help from the good luck/chance that is called "hit".BH are dense, so they are small.
Stars and dust clouds are big.
So, if one falls into a BH it gets "compacted" into a smaller volume.
In the Earth's atmosphere molecules typically move about 10 nm before hitting eachother. They hit eachother roughly a billion times per second.
The gas in a star is many orders of magnitude hotter and denser so the average distance is much less.
And yet you somehow think that things hitting eachother is a matter of luck.
That's because you don't know any science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/05/2021 04:51:07
Before we discuss about the "hit" idea, do you confirm that without that hit there are ONLY two possibilities for any falling object (star or atom):
1. Falls all the way into the core of the SMBH
2. Ejected outwards due to hyperbolic trajectory.
Yes Or no please?
What is your intention by that Earth's atmosphere molecules example?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:57:56BH are dense, so they are small.
now you ask some help from the good luck/chance that is called "hit".
Stars and dust clouds are big.
So, if one falls into a BH it gets "compacted" into a smaller volume.
In the Earth's atmosphere molecules typically move about 10 nm before hitting each other. They hit each other roughly a billion times per second.
The gas in a star is many orders of magnitude hotter and denser so the average distance is much less.
Do you mean that the Atoms in a star collide with each other as the molecules in the Earth's atmosphere?
So can we assume that based on this idea the internal collisions between the atoms in a falling star should eject some of those atoms outwards from that falling star and set them exactly at the accretion disc?
Did I understand you correctly?
However, in this case there is a contradiction with your following explanation that "if star falls into a BH it gets "compacted" into a smaller volume."
If it gets compacted then the internal gravity force in that star is higher.
Hence, more internal gravity force, less chance for something to escape.
Actually, if you take a star and "compacted" into a very very smaller volume then theoretically you could get a BH.
So, how a falling star that is compacted could eject outwards some of is matter?
If your idea is correct, why the matter from that falling star is ejected exactly at the accretion disc?
Why not above or below the disc?
Why we don't see the supernova or at least fireworks as matter is ejected from that star?
Sorry, the accretion disc has a pure circular orbit.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:57:56No
Don't you understand that any falling matter that doesn't meet the SMBH core itself must flung out due to Hyperbolic_trajectory.
It could go into an elliptical orbit.
Ir it might bump its way through the other stuff in the area in what can hardly be called an "orbit" at all.
There is no elliptical accretion disc.
So, even if few atoms had been ejected from that falling star, how could it be that they would fall exactly at the accretion disc and how the Hyperbolic_trajectory that should work on any atom at that star can't flung them all outwards?
And yet you somehow think that things hitting each other is a matter of luck.Sorry – if you wish to get a specific outcome from a hit, then this Hit is always a matter of luck.
If one atom from that falling star would hit/collide with other atom in the same star or even with any sort of matter near the SMBH, what is the chance that due to that collision it would get a pure circular orbit exactly at the accretion disc?
For me it seems as a chance to smash randomly a truck into highway where all the cars there are moving at 120 Km/s and hope that this truck would move with all the other.
Is it real?
Don't you think that due to that collision you would actually destroy the ability to ride at that highway?
So, don't you agree that if a star would hit/collide with the accretion disc, it should actually break completely that accretion disc?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/05/2021 08:39:24
What is your intention by that Earth's atmosphere molecules example?It is so well documented that even you should know about it, in spite of your poor understanding of science.
Before we discuss about the "hit" idea, do you confirm that without that hit there are ONLY two possibilities for any falling object (star or atom):The answer is still no as I explained before.
1. Falls all the way into the core of the SMBH
2. Ejected outwards due to hyperbolic trajectory.
Yes Or no please?
It could go into an elliptical orbit.
Did I understand you correctly?
No; you didn't even read what I said; never mind understand it.
Sorry, the accretion disc has a pure circular orbit.Not exactly.
If one atom from that falling star would hit/collide with other atom in the same star or even with any sort of matter near the SMBH, what is the chance that due to that collision it would get a pure circular orbit exactly at the accretion disc?Pretty small, but the trajectory would be nearer to being circular.
Once you have many collisions you end up with most of the matter in a nearly circular orbit.
It's called an accretion disk.
For me it seemsFor those who understand, it seems different.
Don't you think that due to that collision you would actually destroy the ability to ride at that highway?It seems you finally worked out the mechanism of pair production.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/05/2021 15:23:43
Sorry - You didn't offer any real science law or calculation to protect the idea that a star/matter that is falling into the direction of the SMBH from outside (the Bulge), could perfectly fit itself exactly at the accretion disc.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:51:07Yes Or no please?
Before we discuss about the "hit" idea, do you confirm that without that hit there are ONLY two possibilities for any falling object (star or atom):
1. Falls all the way into the core of the SMBH
2. Ejected outwards due to hyperbolic trajectory.
The answer is still no as I explained before.
All you have offered so far is the hyperbolic trajectory which shows that if a falling star/matter miss the SMBH it must be ejected backwards & outwards into the Bulge.
Therefore, inorder to bypass that problem you have offered new idea that is called "Hit".
Now you claim that there is no need for that hit.
Please, how many times can you lie in one message?
Would you kindly reconsider your answers?
If you still wish to belive that a falling star/matter could perfectly fit itself exactly at the accertion disc without a need for "hit", then please offer the science law and calculation for that imagination.
Is it real?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:51:07Not exactly.
Sorry, the accretion disc has a pure circular orbit.
Can you please show even one SMBH' accretion disc which its shape isn't a pure circular orbit?
If you can't do so, why do you lie again and again?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/05/2021 17:18:43
Can you please show even one SMBH' accretion disc which its shape isn't a pure circular orbit?Well, one thing you and I seem to agree is that there's some sort of traffic to or from the accretion disk.
I think stuff falls in- randomly and thus introduces random perturbations which mean it will never be perfectly circular.
You, on the other hand thik stuff magically rises out of it but, again, that must perturb what's leftt.
So the disk can not be perfectly circular.
Also, of course, collisions within the disk- even if teh only collisions involve photons- will knock teh atoms out of a perfectly circular orbit.
So the one thing we know for certain is that the orbit can not be exactly circular.
Why didn't you realise that?
Is it because you don't understand science?
Sorry - You didn't offer any real science law or calculation to protect the idea that a star/matter that is falling into the direction of the SMBH from outside (the Bulge), could perfectly fit itself exactly at the accretion disc.Where else is it going to go?
Do you realise that if something falls in at an "odd" angle, the disk changes its axis a bit?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/05/2021 17:52:18
Now you claim that there is no need for that hit.No, I did not.
That's just nonsense you made up.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/05/2021 18:28:53
Well, one thing you and I seem to agree is that there's some sort of traffic to or from the accretion disk.No.
We can agree that there's some sort of traffic to or from the SMBH but not to or from the accretion disk.
For you the SMBH and its accretion disc is one.
That is your fatal problem
There is no traffic to the accretion disk. Not even a single Atom!!!
So as I have stated:
If something is falling into the direction of the SMBH it has ONLY two possibilities:
1. Falls all the way into the core of the SMBH
2. Ejected outwards due to hyperbolic trajectory.
There is no other possibility.
You know it and all the other 10,000 BBT scientists know that.
However, that idea kills the BBT.
So, you try to find some unrealistic ideas to prove this imagination.
Once you call it "Hit" and now you try your luck by "random":
think stuff falls in- randomly and thus introduces random perturbations which mean it will never be perfectly circular.So, you hope that the matter that comes from the Bulge and falls into the SMBH would miss the core of that SMBH and somehow it would set an elliptical orbit very near the SMBH. You wish that over time that orbit would be converted to more circular orbit but you do understand that it would never be perfectly circular.
You, on the other hand thik stuff magically rises out of it but, again, that must perturb what's leftt.
So the disk can not be perfectly circular.
So, you have several errors in your understanding.
1. Based on our observations ALL the SMBH' accretion discs have a PURE circular orbit.
You know that, and any scientist know that.
Therefore, as you know that a falling star/matter shouldn't set a circular orbit - you have actually killed the idea that the accretion disc is made out of falling matter!!!
2. Any falling matter that falls from the Bulge inwards and miss the SMBH, MUST be ejected all the way outwards due to your explanation of - hyperbolic trajectory.
So, there is no possibility for a falling matter that comes from the Bulge to set even a single full orbital cycle near the SMBH (even not an elliptical orbital cycle). The hyperbolic trajectory would eject any star/matter that comes inwards to the SMBH backwards to the same Bulge where it comes from!
This is the meaning of real science!
Sorry again dear BC.
You and all your 10,000 BBT scientists are wrong!
You all don't have a basic clue in orbital cycles if you wish to hold a falling matter around the SMBH (for one full orbital cycle)
It's better for you to read again the physics law and understand that your imagination is USELSS.
As matter from the Bulge can't fall and stay at the accretion disc or even near to it (at any orbital shape as you like), then there is only one solution:
The matter in the accretion disc is created by the SMBH
it meets all the criteria of pair creation due the following:
1. Orbital shape is a pure circular - Perfect fit
2. Orbital velocity at almost the speed of light - Perfect fit
3. The orbital velocity at the inwards side is higher than the outwards side which proves that the matter is drifting outwards - Perfect fit
4. Plasma temp - about 10^9c at the outwards disc and more than that at the inwards side, which proves that the matter is getting cooler as it drift outwards - Perfect fit
Hence, based on all the criteria there is a perfect fit of the new created particles with the observation.
So, why is it so difficult for all of you to accept real science?
From now on if you would claim that matter can fall into the accretion disc and stay there without clear science law or calculations I will ignore your nonsense.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/05/2021 18:33:10
Also, of course, collisions within the disk- even if teh only collisions involve photons- will knock teh atoms out of a perfectly circular orbit.No.
Due to the Ultra high gravity force and the ultra EM, the particles at the disc could collide with each other without knocked out from the disc. Actually, if we will monitor carefully the accretion disc we should find the following:
At the innermost disc there is only basic particles. As we move outwards we should notice that those particles would be converted to atoms - mainly Hydrogen atoms. So the Ultra high gravity force + ultra high EM field would convert particles into Hydrogen atoms. As we move to the outer disc we should find that there are more and more other atoms as Iron Gold and even molecular as water. Those kinds of complex atoms and molecular could only be created by collisions between the simple atoms.
Therefore, when the matter is eventually ejected outwards from the accretion disc as UFO, it has already all the atoms and molecular that are needed for any star and any planet in the Universe.
Our body comes from there!
No need for supernova for a complex atoms.
The accretion disc is doing it good enough.
All the massive gas clouds get the matter from that accretion disc.
All S stars including S2 have been created at one of those gas clouds.
Our Sun and all the planets in the solar system have been created from the matter that he accretion disc had ejected. All the solar system had been formed at the same time from the same gas cloud around the SMBH.
Any star any planet any moon had been formed as a hot gas object.
Our Earth and moon were probably 50 times bigger than their current size.
Over time they have lost all the light gas as Hydrogen to the open space.
Therefore all the solid and heavy elements moved to the center and formed a nice round ball shape object.
The idea that the Earth or the moon have been created by solid matter is NONESEBSE.
Our sun must have at least one twin brother.
They orbit around each other.
If we could trace the wobbling motion of the Sun we could identify how many brothers it has and where they are located.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/05/2021 19:12:31
Due to the Ultra high gravity force and the ultra EM, the particles at the disc could collide with each other without knocked out from the disc.Nobody said otherwise.
But they will no longer be in a perfectly circular orbit.
So this
Can you please show even one SMBH' accretion disc which its shape isn't a pure circular orbit?is silly.
The orbits will not be circular.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/05/2021 19:49:26
From now on if you would claim that matter can fall into the accretion disc and stay there without clear science law or calculations I will ignore your nonsense.
Please do, so that this pointless back-and-forth will finally come to an end.
Post by: AlexandrKushnirtshuk on 28/05/2021 21:02:10
Here are links with detailed arguments:
1) Nope
2) Nada
3) No way
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/05/2021 21:12:59
I think that diameter of the Universe is about one light minute,Nobody else does.
One light minute doesn't even get you as far as the Sun.
Even the ancient Greeks knew it was further than that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hipparchus#Orbit_of_the_Sun
We have sent spacecraft a lot further than that
Post by: Kryptid on 28/05/2021 22:17:02
I think that diameter of the Universe is about one light minute, all the "stars" (except the Sun) and "galaxies" are the objects of the Oort Cloud and reflect sunlight, and the border of the Universe is right behind the Oort Cloud.
Here are links with detailed arguments:
1) New model of the Universe.
2) The nature of light and the size of the Universe.
3) Is the phenomenon of dark matter so mysterious?
Don't try to hijack other member's threads.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/05/2021 06:49:38
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:23:43is silly.
Can you please show even one SMBH' accretion disc which its shape isn't a pure circular orbit?
The orbits will not be circular.
Dear BC
Are you sure that it is silly?
The observation proves that you are totally wrong.
In the following article about M87 accretion disc it is stated:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-ring-around-supermassive-black-hole-m87-appears-to-be-glittering
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
So, as the accertion disc has the same diameter over years it proves that it has a perfect circular orbital shape.
It is also stated:
""Actually, we see quite a lot of variation there, and not all theoretical models of accretion allow for so much wobbling. What it means is that we can start ruling out some of the models based on the observed source dynamics.
There could be any number of things causing the turbulence in the flow. The magnitude of the black hole's spin is one. The magnetic field structure in the accretion disc itself is another.
It could be driven by magnetorotational instability, or a misalignment in the black hole's spin and the accretion flow."
So, we clearly see the impact of the Ultra high SMBH Electromagnetic field on the wobbling activities at that disc.
It is also stated:
"It could also have a relationship with the formation of relativistic jets. Those are powerful streams of plasma from the inside of the accretion ring that are accelerated around the outside of a black hole's event horizon and launched into space at relativistic speeds."
So, we clearly observe that there is relationship between the activities at the accretion disc with the formation of relativistic jets. Hence, the plasma which is coming from the SMBH' event horizon, accelerated outwards and "launched into space at relativistic speeds, must be created somehow".
It is there.
We see it!
So, the new plasma that are launched into space at relativistic speeds must be created near the SMBH' event horizon.
That new plasma is created near the SMBH' event horizon by the Mighty SMBH' EM filed and gravity force.
So why is it so difficult for all of you to accept the observation as is?
It is there in front of our eyes!!!
Dear KryptidQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:28:53Please do, so that this pointless back-and-forth will finally come to an end.
From now on if you would claim that matter can fall into the accretion disc and stay there without clear science law or calculations I will ignore your nonsense.
Do you really consider the observations as "pointless back-and-forth will finally come to an end"?
Or is it just that none of you would let the observation to confuse you with your BBT imagination?
How long would you all ignore the observations?
One year? 100 years or just forever and ever?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/05/2021 06:59:21
Do you really consider the observations as "pointless back-and-forth will finally come to an end"?
Do you think Bored Chemist will ever change your mind? Do you think you will ever change Bored Chemist's mind?
That's what I mean by "pointless".
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/05/2021 08:25:28
Do you think Bored Chemist will ever change your mind? Do you think you will ever change Bored Chemist's mind?Dear Kryptid
That's what I mean by "pointless".
This forum is all about real science.
Real science is all about real observation.
So, if we clearly observe that the accretion disc is circular while BC claims that it is silly to accept that observation, then why you as a moderator don't tell him about his mistake?
I get an impression that all of you fully support BC, while he clearly ignores all observations.
Is it correct that any observation that contradicts the BBT should be set in the garbage?
How can we all ignore the clear observation that : "plasma from the inside of the accretion ring that are accelerated around the outside of a black hole's event horizon and launched into space at relativistic speeds."
Why this observation is Silly?
Why we do not wish to accept the observation as is and understand that our wish that invisible matter from the Bulge should fall into the accretion disc is just imagination?
As a moderator, why don't you support those clear observations (even if the outcome contradicts the BBT)?
Is it correct that we all should do whatever it takes to prevent from any observation to destroy the BBT?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2021 13:40:45
Real science is all about real observation.And nobody has observed what you claim is happening.
So you are not doing science.
Are you sure that it is silly?Yes.
it proves that it has a perfect circular orbital shape.No, it doesn't say that.
You made that up.
Hence, the plasma which is coming from the SMBH' event horizon, accelerated outwards and "launched into space at relativistic speeds, must be created somehow".Yes. It is created from the stuff that falls in.
Just like I have been saying all along.
Do you think you will ever change Bored Chemist's mind?In principle, he might.
But he would have to come up with evidence.
So far he has just misunderstood or misrepresented what is seen.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2021 13:41:59
So, if we clearly observe that the accretion disc is circular while BC claims that it is silly to accept that observation,I am clever enough to understand that the disk is nearly circular, but you say it must be perfectly circular- which is impossible.
So you are being silly.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/05/2021 17:49:01
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/05/2021 17:58:42
Why do you continue to ignore the observation?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:49:38No, it doesn't say that.
it proves that it has a perfect circular orbital shape.
Please read again the article:
In the following article about M87 accretion disc it is stated:It is specifically stated:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-ring-around-supermassive-black-hole-m87-appears-to-be-glittering
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
So, as the accretion disc has the same diameter over years it proves that it has a perfect circular orbital shape.
the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years.
If this is not good enough for you, please look at the (M. Wielgus, D. Pesce & the EHT Collaboration) image:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-ring-around-supermassive-black-hole-m87-appears-to-be-glittering
We clearly see purely circular orbits of the M87 accretion disc over the years:
2009 - pure circular
2011 - Pure circular
2012 - pure circular
2013 - pure circular
2019 - pure circular
They even measure the diameter (40μas)
Therefore
The observations are very clear. The accretion disc is purely circular.
If you reject those clear observations than you are just LIAR!
I can fully understand that you do not wish to accept the meaning of those observations; however you have to accept the observations as they are real.
You don't lie just to me or to those readers in this forum, but you lie to real science and especially to yourself.
How can we continue the discussion while we all see that you lie again and again?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/05/2021 18:04:44
Why do you continue to ignore the observation?You need to read it.
Please read again the article:
Show me where the word "perfectly " occurs in this
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
Post by: Kryptid on 29/05/2021 20:48:46
How can we continue the discussion while we all see that you lie again and again?
The only one who appears to "see" that is you.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/05/2021 04:53:42
Show me where the word "perfectly " occurs in thisIn the article there is a clear statement that it is: "maintaining the same diameter over years.
We use the word "Diameter" only for a pure circular orbit.
So, when they have stated that it is maintaining the same diameter over years they actually claim that it is also maintaining the same radius over years.
We also see it very clear in the images over the years.
As you don't like the word "perfect":
Even if we eliminat the word "perfect" from the "perfect circular orbital shape", we still get a "circular orbital shape".
However, based on your imagination of falling matter from the bulge, you have clearly stated that it can't have a circular orbital shape.
How do you dare to claim for an "elliptical orbit" under those observations and clear data?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 26/05/2021 19:57:56No
Don't you understand that any falling matter that doesn't meet the SMBH core itself must flung out due to Hyperbolic_trajectory.
It could go into an elliptical orbit.
Ir it might bump its way through the other stuff in the area in what can hardly be called an "orbit" at all.
Sorry, you know that a falling matter can't technically sets any sort of circular orbital shape (or even almost circular orbital shape) near the event horizon of the SMBH.
You know that, all the 10,000 BBT scientists know that, all the moderators on this forum know that and even any person with basic knowledge should know that.
Unfortunately for all of you, the observation proves that the circular orbital shape can't be created by any sort of falling matter from the Bulge.
Therefore, based on the clear observation we all know that the plasma at the accretion disc can't come from any sort of falling star or falling gas cloud.
It's time for all of you to accept the simple idea that as we don't observe any falling matter and as we will never observe any falling matter, while outwards from the disc we ONLY observe matter that is ejected from the accretion disc to the Bulge as a constant UFO that we see for the last 20-50 years--- then you all must agree that somehow the plasma at that accretion disc MUST come from inside!
I know that it is very difficult for all of you to accept this simple observation as it kills the BBT for good, but it's time for all of you to accept the observation as is.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2021 11:09:16
As you don't like the word "perfect":It's not that I don't like the word.
The problem is that you say the article tells you that the orbit is a perfect circle.
And the article does not, in any way, say that.
Nor is it actually possible.
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/05/2021 15:08:01
Quote
2.Keep it friendly
Do not use insulting, aggressive, or provocative language.
If you feel another forum user is using insulting language, seek to calm things down, or if that fails, report the matter to the moderators. Under no circumstances should you seek to trade insults, or make accusatory remarks to that, or any other, forum user.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/05/2021 17:28:49
Well, it is stated: "maintaining the same diameter over years"As you don't like the word "perfect":It's not that I don't like the word.
The problem is that you say the article tells you that the orbit is a perfect circle.
And the article does not, in any way, say that.
Nor is it actually possible.
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are an idiot, and not worth listening to.
So, it is all about the real meaning of the word "Diameter".
Please be aware that they didn't claim even for average diameter. Just "diameter".
So, let me help you:
https://www.learningstreet.co.uk/articles/what-is-the-diameter-learn-all-about-the-diameter/
What is the diameter?
The diameter is the length of the line through the centre of a circle.
The diameter is always twice the length of the radius of a circle.
Please let's read it again:
The diameter is always twice the length of the radius of a circle.
If this is still not good enough for you than there is an example:
Here is an example practice question:
What is the diameter of the circle below?
Answer:
Children should be able to work out the answer as they know that the diameter is the radius x 2 (r²).
6 x 2 = 12cm
Diameter = 12cm.
So diameter is all about circular shape and especially about PERFECT circular shape.
Why is it so difficult to you to understand something that any child at age of 6 should know?
As I have stated, our scientists don't claim even for average diameter.
So, it proves that the accretion disc orbital shape is even more circular than the orbital shape of the moon around our planet.
it just proves that we observe a perfect circular orbital shape in the accretion disc.
Therefore, there is no possibility to have an elliptical shape while they clearly discuss on diameter.
Therefore, as you need an elliptical shape to support your imagination for invisible star/gas cloud/matter from the Bulge to fall into the accretion disc, then this imagination should be set in the garbage.
If you still don't understand the real meaning of diameter - then I can't help you any more.
You and all the other 10,000 scientists are more than welcome to keep on with your nonsense as none of you really wish to understand the meaning of "diameter".
I wonder how it could be that you all consider yourself as scientists while you don't wish to accept and understand the observation as is.
You all support each other in that nonsense that is called BBT while not even one of you really care that the accretion disc has doesn't reflect the elliptical orbital shape that is needed for your imagination of falling matter..
You just think that if you tell any individual that all the 10,000 scientists consider that matter falls in then he must accept your nonsense just because he is one and you are 10,000.
So, I don't care about what all of you together in a row say.
I care about real science and real observation while all of you only care about the BBT.
You have one mission: To fit any observation to the BBT.
If it can't fit, you just ignore it or kill it.
Sorry - as the SMBH' accretion disc observation proves clearly that it has a perfect circular orbital cycle (or for sure not an elliptical cycle that is needed for any matter that falls from the Bulge), then it proves that matter from outside can't fall from the Bulge into that accretion disc. Therefore - we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls in from the Bulge!!!
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/05/2021 17:32:48
So it is clear that you are an idiot, and not worth listening to.
2.Keep it friendlyThanks
Do appreciate this message!
Post by: Kryptid on 30/05/2021 17:40:08
Thanks
Do appreciate this message!
That was meant for you as well. Constantly calling Bored Chemist a liar is not "keeping it friendly".
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2021 17:51:21
As I have stated, our scientists don't claim even for average diameter.They don't need to. Because it's clear that they must mean that , because it is impossible for it to be perfectly circular.
So, it proves that the accretion disc orbital shape is even more circular than the orbital shape of the moon around our planet.No. That's just a claim you made.
It is unsupported by evidence.
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/05/2021 18:12:23
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:28:49I fully agree with you that based on the BBT it is impossible for it to be perfectly circular.
As I have stated, our scientists don't claim even for average diameter.
They don't need to. Because it's clear that they must mean that , because it is impossible for it to be perfectly circular.
But only based on BBT.
Why is it impossible to you to understand that there might be an error in the BBT?
Do you really have the power to force the accretion disc to work according your understanding which is a BBT understanding?
Do you understand that it is very possible to have a prefect circular shape if the matter is created at the accretion ring?
Sorry - our scientists use the word "diameter" as they observe a perfect circular shape.
You are the one that are not willing to accept this observation.
If they would use the word "radius" would you then accept that it is a perfect circular?
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.Sorry - if based on our scientists they clearly observe diameter and the real meaning of diameter is a perfect circular, then it is a perfect circular.
Anyone that claims that the accretion disc is elliptical while our scientists clearly observe the diameter of its perfect circular shape - is a lie by definition.
Don't take it personally; I just think that no one can lie in order to twist the real meaning of the observation.
So, if you still believe that the accretion disc is elliptical - please offer real observation to support this wish/imagination.
Please set any other observation to prove your wish or accept the observations as is.
Don't twist the observation just because it doesn't meet your BBT understanding as this would be consider as a lie!.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2021 18:36:30
Sorry - if based on our scientists they clearly observe diameter and the real meaning of diameter is a perfect circular, then it is a perfect circular.This is nonsense.
The definition of the metre is based on the "circumference" of the Earth, but that doesn't mean that they thought it was circular.
And, as I pointed out, it can not be perfectly circular.
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/05/2021 20:28:37
Dear KryptidThanks
Do appreciate this message!
That was meant for you as well. Constantly calling Bored Chemist a liar is not "keeping it friendly".
As you can see there is a severe conflict between me to BC.
In the article it is stated that the M87 SMBH' accretion disc is "maintaining the same diameter over years."
As I have already explained Diameter is all about circle shape (or actually - perfect circular shape)
Well, it is stated: "maintaining the same diameter over years"Also in the image of that article we clearly observe perfect circular orbits of that accretion disc over the years.
So, it is all about the real meaning of the word "Diameter".
Please be aware that they didn't claim even for average diameter. Just "diameter".
So, let me help you:
https://www.learningstreet.co.uk/articles/what-is-the-diameter-learn-all-about-the-diameter/
What is the diameter?
The diameter is the length of the line through the centre of a circle.
The diameter is always twice the length of the radius of a circle.
Please let's read it again:
The diameter is always twice the length of the radius of a circle.
If this is still not good enough for you than there is an example:
Here is an example practice question:
What is the diameter of the circle below?
Answer:
Children should be able to work out the answer as they know that the diameter is the radius x 2 (r²).
6 x 2 = 12cm
Diameter = 12cm.
So diameter is all about circular shape and especially about PERFECT circular shape.
If this is not good enough for you, please look at the (M. Wielgus, D. Pesce & the EHT Collaboration) image:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-ring-around-supermassive-black-hole-m87-appears-to-be-glittering
We clearly see purely circular orbits of the M87 accretion disc over the years:
2009 - pure circular
2011 - Pure circular
2012 - pure circular
2013 - pure circular
2019 - pure circular
They even measure the diameter (40μas)
Therefore
The observations are very clear. The accretion disc is purely circular.
However, BC doesn't want to accept those observation s and data
He claims that the orbital shape of the accretion disc is elliptical without offering any image or any data to support that imagination.
Therefore, would you kindly let us know what do you understand from those images/observations and the key message about: "maintaining the same diameter over years."?
Do you understand that M87 accretion disc is elliptical or circular?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/05/2021 20:35:32
As I have already explained Diameter is all about circle shape (or actually - perfect circular shape)And, citing the evidence of the definition of the metre, I have pointed out that this is wrong.
But, rather than accept that "circular" does not always mean absolutely perfectly circular, you repeat this nonsense
2009 - pure circular
2011 - Pure circular
2012 - pure circular
2013 - pure circular
2019 - pure circular
None of the papers says it is perfectly circular.
On the other hand, I have proved why it can not possibly be circular.
Well, one thing you and I seem to agree is that there's some sort of traffic to or from the accretion disk.
I think stuff falls in- randomly and thus introduces random perturbations which mean it will never be perfectly circular.
You, on the other hand thik stuff magically rises out of it but, again, that must perturb what's leftt.
So the disk can not be perfectly circular.
Also, of course, collisions within the disk- even if teh only collisions involve photons- will knock teh atoms out of a perfectly circular orbit.
So the one thing we know for certain is that the orbit can not be exactly circular.
And yet you ignore this and say
He claims that the orbital shape of the accretion disc is elliptical without offering any image or any data to support that imagination.
Just for a start, I didn't say it was elliptical, did I?
I said
It could go into an elliptical orbit.
Ir it might bump its way through the other stuff in the area in what can hardly be called an "orbit" at all.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.
Post by: jeffreyH on 30/05/2021 23:07:51
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/05/2021 05:20:59
Dear Dave, your arguments are circular. Perfectly circular, and they go round and round and round again. Don't you get dizzy?Dear Jeffrey
I don't get dizzy with regards to the SMBH' accretion disc as the shape of this disc is the ultimate evidence that the BBT is wrong.
Based on the current mainstream approach, the matter at the accretion disc is falling from outside (from the Bulge as a falling star or falling gas cloud)
BC had clearly explained that in order for matter to fall in, it must set an elliptical orbit.
However, we don't observe any sort of elliptical orbital shape at the accretion disc.
We clearly observe a circular shape of that disc over the last 10 years:
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-ring-around-supermassive-black-hole-m87-appears-to-be-glittering
We clearly see purely circular orbits of the M87 accretion disc over the years:
2009 - pure circular
2011 - Pure circular
2012 - pure circular
2013 - pure circular
2017 - pure circular
They even measure the diameter (40μas)
I have one more key evidence to support my claim:
Please look again at the same images of the disc over the years.
What do we really see:
2009 - Very Narrow ring
2011 - Very Narrow ring
2012 - Wide ring
2013 - Midsize ring
2017 - Wide ring
As there is quite significant change in the size of the accretion ring, it proves that as matter is ejected from the ring, than matter must also come into that ring.
However, we also observe that the outer ring size is almost constant during all the observations, about 40μas (except some decrease in 2011), while the big change is mainly in the inner ring.
As the main change is in the inner ring, it proves that matter must come from the inner side of the ring.
We clearly see it between the years 2013 to 2017.
So, as we clearly observe a significant change in the inner side of the disc. while we do not observe any sort of elliptical shape of the outer ring to prove the idea of falling matter, then we all must agree that matter must come from the inner side of that ring.
This is clear observation.
So based on those observations as the matter must come from inside the ring (actually from the SMBH direction) - it proves that the SMBH itself generates new matter near its event horizon that is ejected into the inner side of the accretion disc.
So, I have only those observations of the accretion disc shape and changes over the years in order to support my claim that the SMBH generates new matter that is ejected into the inner side of the accretion disc and from this disc to the bulge by the constant flow of the UFO observation for the last 20-50 years.
While you don't have any observation to support the imagination of falling matter into that disc:
There is no indication for ANY SORT of falling Star/gas cloud or any sort of matter.
No fireworks or supernova as it falls and break.
No elliptical shape as it gets to the accretion disc.
No UFI from the Bulge inwards to the accretion disc.
Just Nothing!
However, you all support the idea that invisible matter must fall from the bugle into the accretion disc.
So, who wins?
Is it you just because that you all including the 10,000 scientists claim that matter must fall from outside without any sort of observation or evidence for that?
Or is it me based on the solid observations to support my claim?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
I don't get dizzy with regards to the SMBH' accretion disc as the shape of this disc is the ultimate evidence that the BBT is wrong.In reality, there is nothing in the BBT which says anything about the shape of accretion disks round supermassive black holes.
BC had clearly explained that in order for matter to fall in, it must set an elliptical orbit.No, I did not. I already told you that.
Here's what I said.
I said
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
It could go into an elliptical orbit.
Ir it might bump its way through the other stuff in the area in what can hardly be called an "orbit" at all.
2009 - Very Narrow ringYou just proved my point, and destroyed your own.
2011 - Very Narrow ring
2012 - Wide ring
2013 - Midsize ring
2017 - Wide ring
If the orbit can change size, then the matter in it can not be following a circular path.
Or is it me based on the solid observations to support my claim?You do not have any evidence.
All you have are misunderstandings and false deductions.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/05/2021 17:45:24
It could go into an elliptical orbit.I wonder why our scientists waste their time and money in order to observe the Universe while it is so useless.
Ir it might bump its way through the other stuff in the area in what can hardly be called an "orbit" at all.
Why do we need those observations?
If they observe elliptical or pure circular orbital shape at the SMBH' accretion disc - then you can fit an invisible falling star into that disc orbital shape.
If we observe that the main change in that accretion disc is from the inner ring size, while the outer side is almost constant - then it is Ok as you have stated that it is OK.
So, any falling star from outside, won't set any negative impact at the outer side of the disc. It would directly penetrate into the inner side of the disc and increase it so smoothly without any sort of interruption in the disc shape - You say that it is Ok and then we all agree that it is OK by 100%.
Even if one day our scientists would observe a pure square orbital shape, it's quite easy for you to fit a falling star into that unique orbital shape. All you need to say that it is OK.
So, our scientists would tell you the shape and you would set the fit.
You actually don't need to set any calculation.
You are the master of knowledge and your word is good enough.
If you say that it is Ok then it IS Ok.
You say that there is invisible falling star - then this is 100% correct
You say that there is falling invisible UFI from the Bulge into the disc that is moving in the opposite direction of the Visible UFO - then this is 100% correct
You say that any star at any orbital plane must fall exactly at the accretion disc plane - then this is 100% correct.
We all know that the SMBH' magnetic poles are located vertically to the accretion disc
Therefore, I wonder how the falling star that only effected by gravity force are perfectly adjusted by the magnetic poles of the SMBH. How could it be that all the stars falls directly at the disc plane that is vertically to the SMBH' magnetic polls while the chance for any star at the bulge to orbit exactly at that plane is virtually zero.
However, Now I know that I shouldn't worry about any observation.
Whatever you say is correct - is correct by 100%.
So, no one in this planet should argue about any issue that we observe.
We only need to get your approval that this is correct and it will be correct by 100%.
At last - now I finally understand how real science really works
You say that it is OK – and you get the full support from the 10,000 scientists including our all moderators in this forum.
So who an I to disagree?
You won!
Thanks for your great support.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.
Post by: McQueen on 01/06/2021 06:58:51
How can we continue the discussion while we all see that you lie again and again?
Dave Levy: As far as I can make out, this argument has evolved over a subject that should not have been questioned at all. You had raised some very pertinent queries on how conflicting arguments about the age and size of the Universe had been voiced with such confidence. Surely there is nothing wrong in that and for these questions to be answered by ridicule and disparagement makes absolutely no sense. One or two of those who have baited you ( I am specifically referring to Bored Chemist; whose sole reason in life seems to be to inflame and anger posters) don’t have any other response. As to his IQ and personality level think about how he has made 23,000 plus such posts. His brain must be absolutely addled from not being able to follow a clear argument. But for everyone to have followed the same line of ridiculing the post seems inappropriate.
Another, very pertinent point that you had raised were your comments about the CMBR. How can there be no mention in the CMBR about the present radiation that these unimaginably massive clouds of Hydrogen gas must surely be radiating. After all these massive clouds of hydrogen are very active, our Galaxies planets and stars had their genesis in these clouds. How is it possible that the CMBR has been postulated without taking into consideration the present. How can the CMBR be referred to as very faint relic radiation that permeates the wholel Universe, without taking into consideration the present?
On the other hand a forum such as Naked Scientists, is the only place where it is possible to discuss such ideas at all or to even get any kind of an answer, even though in the present case the discussion has gone nowhere, because the questions you had raised cannot be answered. The question can and should, however, be discussed.
The main thing with any forum is that most of the regulars, and this includes most of the moderators, are totally committed to a belief in established science, no matter how weird illogical or plain ridiculous it is. With such a philosophy in place what can you expect but entrenched and violent opposition: even if what you were after was just an explanation as to why theories about the Big Bang were so chaotic.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/06/2021 10:46:28
His brain must be absolutely addled from not being able to follow a clear argument.Neither you not Dave was able to offer one.
That's the problem
Things still don't fall up out of BH in breech of the conservation laws.
If you think that Dave Levy put forward a clear argument as to how the laws were broken, in spite of being proven to be true, please quote it.
That's going to work a whole lot better than being stupidly wrong about my IQ and motivation.
Another, very pertinent point that you had raised were your comments about the CMBR. How can there be no mention in the CMBR about the present radiation that these unimaginably massive clouds of Hydrogen gas must surely be radiating.You think that's a serious point?
Those hot dense clouds emitted a lot of radiation. And that meant they cooled down.
Since they have cooled down, they no longer emit (much) radiation.
The stuff they now emit is called starlight or sunlight- and it's from a differed process.
They don't get included in"background radiation" discussions because they are the foreground, to which the other staff is the background.
Did you really not realise that?
On the other hand a forum such as Naked Scientists, is the only place where it is possible to discuss such ideasYou have made it clear that you do not want a discussion; you want to soapbox without anyone contradicting you.
Did you notice that your thread got locked?
no matter how weird illogical or plain ridiculous it is.You keep saying that established science is wrong, but when i asked you to cite evidence for that- and to show your calculations- you decided to rant about my motivation.
Did you rethink that was going to convince people that you were right?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/06/2021 15:07:58
The main thing with any forum is that most of the regulars, and this includes most of the moderators, are totally committed to a belief in established science, no matter how weird illogical or plain ridiculous it is.
In my experience, those who think that established theories of science are "illogical or plain ridiculous" usually think so because they have one or more misconceptions about them. Evolution, relativity and the Big Bang theory are some good examples of theories that have a myriad of misconceptions floating around about them.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/06/2021 15:31:02
The main thing with any forum is that most of the regulars, and this includes most of the moderators, are totally committed to a belief in established science, no matter how weird illogical or plain ridiculous it is. With such a philosophy in place what can you expect but entrenched and violent opposition: even if what you were after was just an explanation as to why theories about the Big Bang were so chaotic.Thanks McQueen
Do appreciate your support.
In my experience, those who think that established theories of science are "illogical or plain ridiculous" usually think so because they have one or more misconceptions about them. Evolution, relativity and the Big Bang theory are some good examples of theories that have a myriad of misconceptions floating around about them.
In my experience, our scientists don't care about observation. They ONLY care about the BBT.
So, let's highlight the observations as they are::
1. NOTHING really falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside. Not any star, any gas cloud or even any atom as it falls from the bulge into the accretion disc.
NEVER & EVER.
2. We observe a constant outflow from the M87 SMBH' accretion disc to the Bulge that is called UFO.
3. Only once we have observed some sort of inflow from the inner side of the accretion into the SMBH itself.
That's all
I hope that you know that, all the moderators know that and even all the 10,000 Scientists know that.
However, even as our scientists have never ever observed any matter as it falls in, you continue to hold the imagination that somehow matter falls in.
You all support each other in that imagination.
Therefore, I have stated that you have won.
However, I have found new article that could help me to show that the plasma in the accretion disc is generated by the BH/SMBH EM field.
Please look at the image of "Cygnus X-1 system. A stellar-mass black hole orbits with a companion star located 7,200 light years from Earth" in following article:
https://www.eastmojo.com/news/2021/02/22/1st-black-hole-spotted-in-1964-much-bigger-than-earlier-thought-says-study/
Our scientists observe accretion disc that is directly vertically to the ejected jets stream. We already know that the jet stream is a direct indication of the BH' magnetic poles.
So, we have to agree that the accretion disc is vertically to the BH's magnetic poles. Hence, the matter in the accretion disc must fully align with the BH magnetic poles.
This MUST be correct to any sort of accretion disc, Including M87 disc.
However, the chance for any falling star to fall directly into the accretion disc that must be vertically to the poles is just not realistic.
Therefore, as the matter in the accretion disc is located exactly at that located due to magnetic field it proves that the magnetic field sets the plasma over their.
As the magnetic field can't technically set any falling star exactly at the locating which is vertically to the poles, it proves that new matter that is created by that EM is created at the accretion disc.
In the article it is also stated:
"Research says the Cygnus X-1 contains the most massive stellar-mass black hole ever detected. It is also known to have 21 times the sun’s mass, which makes it 50 percent bigger than researchers previously believed it to be."
So, how can we believe that the BH is eating the matter from that ultra big star that its size is 21 times the Sun's mass?
If the BH is eating that star, then in the past it should be bigger.
So, how big it could be?
30 Times the size of a sun or 100 or 1000 times?
How a star could be so massive in our galaxy?
Sorry, you have a fatal mistake!
As that star is so massive it proves that the star is eating the matter that is ejected from the accretion disc and not the other way.
Actually, this twin system is located just 7,200 light years from Earth.
So, we can easily discover the matter flow.
We can observe if the matter flows from the accretion disc to the giant star as UFO or the other way as UFI.
I know by 100% that the matter flows IS - From the accretion disc to that star (UFO).
So please, go ahead and verify the flow.
If we will observe the UFO then the BBT should be set in the garbage.
If we observe the UFI, then my theory would be set in the garbage.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/06/2021 15:38:10
In my experience, our scientists don't care about observation. They ONLY care about the BBT.Not seeing something is not an observation in circumstances where you would not expect to see it.
So, let's highlight the observations as they are::
1. NOTHING really falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside.
Not seeing a black cat in a coal cellar is not evidence that the cat is not there.
So, until you learn what "observation" means, you should probably keep quiet about it.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/06/2021 10:12:01
This is nonsense!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:31:02Not seeing something is not an observation in circumstances where you would not expect to see it.
In my experience, our scientists don't care about observation. They ONLY care about the BBT.
So, let's highlight the observations as they are::
1. NOTHING really falls into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside.
We all agree that we have never ever observed any falling star.
However, based on your imagination, which is fully supported by all the 10,000 scientists and moderators - matter must fall in.
Unfortunately, you have ignored all the observations, evidences and explanation why matter from outside can't fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
This time I demand to get answers.
So, in order to close this discussion - I will present all the key arguments - One by one - to prove that matter from outside (bulge) don't fall into that accretion disc.
NEVER & EVER!!!
1. SMBH' Magnetic Filed
We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe are 100% aligned with the magnetic field (or actually they are vertically to the magnetic poles) of the SMBH. Therefore, the orbital disc plane of the accretion disc MUST be 100% vertically to the SMBH' poles.
However, as we look at the stars at the bulge around the SMBH (as all of those S stars including S2) we observe that none their orbital plane is identical to the accretion disc plane.
So, how could it be that a falling star would shift its orbital plane in order to meet the exact orbital plane of the SMBH' accretion disc.
So, please go ahead and answer the above question.
But this time please offer real answer and not your usual imaginations.
You are requested to explain how a falling star that its current orbital plane isn't vertically aligned with the SMBH' magnetic poles would shift its plane directly to that one (and ONLY that specific plane)
If you can't offer a valid answer which must be based on the impact of the magnetic field, then please don't answer at all.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 13:52:30
This is nonsense!Yes it is.
Please stop posting it.
Unfortunately, you have ignored all the observations, evidences and explanation why matter from outside can't fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.No, there is none. It's just stuff you made up.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 13:55:47
We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universeThat's simply not true.
We have not observed all teh black holes in teh universe so we are not able to say that we have observed their magnetic fields.
You are posting nonsense.
So, how could it be that a falling star would shift its orbital plane in order to meet the exact orbital plane of the SMBH' accretion disc.You have this the wrong way round.
The accretion disk is aligned with the mater that fell in- not the other way round.
So there is nothing to explain.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/06/2021 16:57:19
As usual, you continue to reject real observation and real science.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:12:01That's simply not true.
We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe
We have not observed all the black holes in the universe so we are not able to say that we have observed their magnetic fields.
You know that any accertion disc that we could observe is 100% aligned vertically to its SMBH magnetic poles.
We see it clearly in the Milky way.
We see it in any observation. Just few examples:
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/shows-astrophysical-jet-and-accretion-disk-around-the-black-hole_fig3_330184698
https://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/AGN-jet-Pearson-Education-Inc.-Upper-Saddle-River-New-Jersey.jpg
https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2013-1/figures/1
"although various mechanisms have been proved to explain the jets acceleration and collimation, since the famous work of Blandford & Payne (1982) an electromagnetic origin of jet seems to be favoured "
I can offer you many more articles and images about the relationship between the electromagnetic jet stream to the accretion disc.
in all the 100% observations we get exactly the same message:
We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe are 100% aligned with the magnetic field (or actually they are vertically to the magnetic poles) of the SMBH. Therefore, the orbital disc plane of the accretion disc MUST be 100% vertically to the SMBH' poles.
Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed a magnetic jet stream that isn't vertically to the accretion disc.
Never and ever!
However, as expected - you ignore any observation which contradicts your imagination.
You actually don't care about observation and therefore, you don't care about real science.
Hence:
If you think differently - then please show the evidence or observation to support your wrong understanding (one is good enough).
However, if you know science - then you should know that my message is correct by 100%.
Therefore, as you reject the real observation - then you are LIAR!
Please, show the evidence/observation to protect your statement or be considered as LIAR!
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
However, as expected - you ignore any observation which contradicts your imagination.No actual observation contradicts the BBT.
All this stuff about BH is irrelevant to that question since the BBT doesn't even mention BH.
You know that any accertion disc that we could observe is 100% aligned vertically to its SMBH magnetic poles.Nobody ever said that it would not be.
It's just that there reason isn't what you are claiming.
The stuff falls in but, because it would be massively improbable that its path exactly hit the BH in the middle, every atom that falls in carries angular momentum.
When they interact with the accretion disk they change the rotation by a tiny amount.
The angular momentum of the disk as a whole is the sum of all those contributions and it is aligned with the direction in which matter fell into it.
Since the falling matter creates the disk, the disk has to be in the plane of the falling matter.(though, if other matter from another source also falls in the plane of the disk will change.
The magnetic field is there because of the rotating disk.
So it is always going to be perpendicular to the disk- much like the Earth's field is perpendicular to its plane of rotation.
None of this is anything other than bog-standard high school physics.
be considered as LIAR!Only you suffer from that delusion.
Anyone else reading this knows that you are the one getting everything wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:38:10
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:38:18
We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universeThat's still a childishly stupid assertion.
We have not observed the entire universe.
Post by: charles1948 on 04/06/2021 22:28:52
And a new "Modified Steady-State Theory ", MSST, will be the latest thing in cosmology.
Anyone want to bet?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/06/2021 23:19:19
Therefore, as you reject the real observation - then you are LIAR!
Please, show the evidence/observation to protect your statement or be considered as LIAR!
Didn't I tell you to cool it with that?
I predict that by 2050, the BBT will be old-hat , and dismissed with disdain as a "childishly stupid idea".
And a new "Modified Steady-State Theory ", MSST, will be the latest thing in cosmology.
What brings you to that conclusion?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 23:51:41
Anyone want to bet?You could ask Olber if he would like to put a pound on it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olbers'_paradox
If, in 2050 it still goes dark at night, his argument will still show that the steady state is wrong.
Post by: charles1948 on 05/06/2021 00:15:01
Thus - in 1900 the Universe was generally regarded as being in a Steady State. Which is why, as you know, Einstein introduced his "Cosmological Constant". To keep the Universe steady. Neither expanding nor contracting
Then in the 1920's evidence from Slipher and Hubbard appeared to show that the Universe isn't steady. So the view swung to it being not steady, but expanding.
Then evidence emerged to throw doubts on the expansion, as it seems to be going on in an inexplicable way - ie much too fast.
This will probably lead scientific opinion to swing back to the view that it isn't expanding after all, but is in a Steady State. I suggested in my previous post that the swing would occur by 2050, but it may be earlier, perhaps by 2030.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 00:27:53
My conclusion arises from this observation - that scientific theories tend to go in swings.Did you notice how old Olber's observations are?
Post by: Origin on 05/06/2021 00:55:30
My conclusion arises from this observation - that scientific theories tend to go in swings.Yeah, that is pretty much a crappy throw away statement backed up by nothing.
For about 100,000 years+ man thought Gods were responsible for the stars and the cosmos. The general assumption is that we were the center of a tiny universe and that stars were points of light and not suns. Then about 400 years ago it was discovered that we were not the center of the universe. For the next 300 years it was thought that the universe was basically the stars that we can see (IOW the milky way). It was also assumed that the universe was in steady state during that time. Einstein came along and made the Theory of General Relativity and found that his field equations indicated that the universe was not steady state, which he figured was wrong, so he put in a constant to 'make' it steady state. About 10 years later Hubble found that the 'Nebulas' that astronomers had cataloged were actually other galaxies, which GREATLY INCREASED the size of the universe as we understood it. He also found that the the galaxies were receding from us which indicated that the universe was expanding. This led the the BBT. More recently, about 20 years ago, we discovered that the universes rate of expansion is increasing.
I don't see this flip flopping or swings that you are alluding to here, do you?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/06/2021 01:00:18
Then evidence emerged to throw doubts on the expansion, as it seems to be going on in an inexplicable way - ie much too fast.
The expansion happening faster than expected is not the same as "throwing doubts on the expansion".
This will probably lead scientific opinion to swing back to the view that it isn't expanding after all
Why? Nobody would point to a balloon that is expanding faster than expected and try to use that as evidence that the balloon isn't expanding at all.
Post by: charles1948 on 05/06/2021 01:06:57
My conclusion arises from this observation - that scientific theories tend to go in swings.Did you notice how old Olber's observations are?
Yes , I have BC. I've read many books on Olber's paradox, about why the sky is dark at night.
The books offered varying explanations - mostly involving the expansion of the Universe, the agglomeration of stars into structures such as galaxies, leaving gaps in the sky, and so on.
The most appealing theory, it seemed to me, was that the apparent darkness is due purely to the inadequacy of our human eyes. Which are adapted to operate best during the day-time.
Whereas, if we had eyes adapted to operate at at night, like owls, the night sky might not look dark at all.
Rather it might form a very bright sky background, lit up by the stars, which would shed plenty of light to illuminate the mice and voles on the ground, which the owls are hunting.
So to an owl, the question "why is the night-sky dark" would be meaningless.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 01:10:23
Whereas, if we had eyes adapted to operate at at night, like owls, the night sky might not look dark at all.Are you actually a moron, or do you realise that the point remains that it is darker at night than during the day?
Even a plant has good enough "sight" to recognise that; better eyes just make it more obvious.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 01:14:21
Yes , I have BC. I've read many books on Olber's paradoxAbout 0:50 to :58
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/06/2021 07:18:56
Dear BCQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:12:01That's still a childishly stupid assertion.
We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe
We have not observed the entire universe.
Our understanding can ONLY be based on real observation.
Real science is all about OBSERVATION!
For more than 20 years we clearly observe M87 SMBH' accretion disc.
During all of those years we clearly see this accretion disc and it doesn't change its orbital plane.
Our scientists also claim that they see the Jet stream as it is emerging from the M87 accretion disc:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.12942/lrr-2013-1/figures/1
"The example of M87
The first evidence of jet like feature emanating from the nuclei of galaxy goes to back to optical jet of giant elliptical galaxy M87"
In figure 1.6 it is we clearly see the model of jet formation from accretion disks.
In that image we clearly see the accretion disc - in Red, the central source or SMBH - in orange, the magnetic field lines of the jet – in green and the magnetic flux surface of the jet is blue.
It is even stated: the three component system – "central object, accretion disc jet – is coupled by magnetic field."
So we have a clear evidence & observation that:
We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe are 100% aligned with the magnetic field (or actually they are vertically to the magnetic poles) of the SMBH. Therefore, the orbital disc plane of the accretion disc MUST be 100% vertically to the SMBH' poles.So, how can you use in one hand specific observation in M87 (UFO/UFI) as an example for your understanding while on the other hand you completely ignore other observation that the orbital accretion disc plane is vertically to the magnetic poles which contradicts your understanding.
Sorry - when we use M87 or the Milky Way observation to prove our understanding we can't ignore the magnetic jet stream from those galaxies and claim that:
We have not observed the entire universe.We don't need to observe the entire universe.
We clearly observe the magnetic jet stream that is emerging vertically to the SMBH accretion disc in M87, Milky Way and many more (hundreds or thousands ) galaxies.
So, we have solid observation that my following message is 100% correct:
"We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe are 100% aligned with the magnetic field (or actually they are vertically to the magnetic poles) of the SMBH. Therefore, the orbital disc plane of the accretion disc MUST be 100% vertically to the SMBH' poles."
You have failed to offer even one observation to support your imagination.
I hope that by now we all agree that the accretion disc plane must be 100% vertically to the magnetic poles.
The stuff falls in but, because it would be massively improbable that its path exactly hit the BH in the middle, every atom that falls in carries angular momentum.Thanks
When they interact with the accretion disk they change the rotation by a tiny amount.
The angular momentum of the disk as a whole is the sum of all those contributions and it is aligned with the direction in which matter fell into it.
Since the falling matter creates the disk, the disk has to be in the plane of the falling matter.(though, if other matter from another source also falls in the plane of the disk will change.
In this reply you fully confirm my explanation that any falling star or falling matter should change the orbital plane of the accretion disc.
However, as we observe in the last 20 years the M87 accretion disc - we have NEVER EVER seen any change in its plane.
I would like to remind you that during those years we clearly observe significant changes in the total matter in that disc (due to the changes in the ring radius).
So in some years (in 2011 for example) we clearly observed a very thin ring, while in other years we observe that the ring is very wide and full with new matter.
Therefore, it is clear indication that the accretion disc is losing matter and getting new matter almost every year.
However, surprisingly for you, all of those years the orbital accretion disc was stable as a rock.
It didn't change at all.
So, what is the chance that during all of those years any invisible falling stars or gas cloud would fall exactly at the accretion disc plane?
When we look at the bulge we see that each star and each gas cloud has its own unique orbital plane.
So from statistical point of view to hope that all the stars would fall exactly at the current orbital accretion plane is imagination.
Actually, as in 2011 the M87 accretion disc was almost empty. So if that accretion disc was really getting matter from outside, then it had to adjust its plane to the next falling star.
As we clearly observe that the accretion disc plane is constant over the years (not just in M87, but also in all those galaxies that we can observe in the last 50 years - including the Milky way) it proves that all the accretion discs that we have observed so far don't change their orbital plane due to falling matter..
Therefore, to claim that maybe some other invisible SMBH' accretion discs change their plane but we still didn't see then – it is just nonsense or lies.
When Hubble set its law, he didn't observe all the 100% of the far away galaxies.
He could only observe few of them.
But as all of those few observed galaxies behave the same, then he claimed that any far away galaxy behave as those few galaxies that he observed.
In the same token when Newton had set his formula for gravity he didn't observe all the 100% orbital systems in the entire Universe.
The Solar system was good enough for him.
In the same token, any law and any understanding is actually based on relatively very few observations.
Why our scientists at that time didn't claim that Hubble has to observe all the 100% galaxies in the entire Universe in order to set his law? Why no one claimed that maybe some other far away galaxies should have blue shifted radiation instead of red shifted?
Sorry - we don't need to observe the 100% accretion discs in the entire Universe. We have to accept the current observations as an indication for all the other missing observations.
Hence - we must accept the current observation as is!.
If we only can observe 10 SMBH' accretion discs in the entire Universe and in all of them the magnetic jet stream is vertically to the accretion disc while none of them change the orbital plane of that disc (due to the invisible falling matter) - then it is good enough to accept this observation as clear evidence for the entire SMBH' accretion discs in the Universe.
In the same token, as have NEVER & EVER observed any falling matter into that accretion disc and as we have NEVER & EVER observed any change in the orbital plane, then it proves that matter DOESN"T fall from outside into that disc.
NEVER & Ever.
The size of the M87 accretion disc in 2011 also proves that the magnetic get stream is based on the SMBH and not on the accretion discs.
As in 2011 the accretion disc was almost empty, then it can't generate enough magnetic field to boost the jet stream at almost the speed of light.
This is imagination.
We clearly observe that the jet stream is a constant flow above and below the disc plane.
In the milky way we observe that this jet is moving at almost 0.8c and up to 27,000 Ly above and below the disc.
Sorry - that kind of energy could only be achievable by the SMBH magnetic.
If you think that a very thin of accretion disc (as we observe in M87 by 2011) can set so powerful magnetic jet stream - then you are dreaming.
Therefore - ONLY the SMBH itself can set so powerful magnetic jet stream.
This SMBH' Ultra strong magnetic filed sets the plane of its accretion disc.
So, we can clearly claim that the accretion disc is there due to the ULTRA SMBH' Electromagnetic power.
Therefore - Any scientist that claims that matter falls directly into that accretion disc that is there due to the ULTRA SMBH' Electromagnetic power without a solid observation to backup this imagination - is LIAR by definition.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:57:19Dear Kryptid
Therefore, as you reject the real observation - then you are LIAR!
Please, show the evidence/observation to protect your statement or be considered as LIAR!
Didn't I tell you to cool it with that?
How can we accept lies in science?
Don't you agree that we must base our understanding ONLY on real observations?
Don't you agree that we have never and ever observed any matter as it falls into the accretion disc?
Don't you agree that we have never and ever observed any change in the orbital plane of any observable accretion discs over the years?
So why is it so difficult for those people that carry the title of "scientist" to accept the observations as they are?
Why I can't call them all liars while we clearly observe that they twist the observation to meet their imagination and they don't have even one observation to support their imagination?
Sorry. No one is allowed to lie even if he does so in the name of science.
So, they could claim that based on their theory matter should fall in - but in the same token they must highlight the evidence that so far we have NEVER and EVER observed any matter as it falls in.
It is not personally against BC.
It is against the whole science community that lies to all of us including to BC
Any article that claims for falling matter into the accretion disc (without backup this statement ith real observation) - lies by definition.
I would expect that you and any other moderator in this forum to request from our scientists to backup their understanding by real observation.
If they can't do so, they can't claim for any sort of imagination!
Therefore, would you kindly support my statement that it is a lie to claim that?
1. The magnetic jet stream isn't vertically to the accretion disc.
2. The disc changes its orbital plane over the years due to falling matter
3. Invisible matter falls into the accretion disc
Actually, we observe an accretion disc just in front of our eyes:
However, I have found new article that could help me to show that the plasma in the accretion disc is generated by the BH/SMBH EM field.So, why can't we verify if the BH is eating that Giant star or this star is eating the matter that is ejected from the accretion disc?
Please look at the image of "Cygnus X-1 system. A stellar-mass black hole orbits with a companion star located 7,200 light years from Earth" in following article:
https://www.eastmojo.com/news/2021/02/22/1st-black-hole-spotted-in-1964-much-bigger-than-earlier-thought-says-study/
Our scientists observe accretion disc that is directly vertically to the ejected jets stream. We already know that the jet stream is a direct indication of the BH' magnetic poles.
So, we have to agree that the accretion disc is vertically to the BH's magnetic poles. Hence, the matter in the accretion disc must fully align with the BH magnetic poles.
This MUST be correct to any sort of accretion disc, Including M87 disc.
However, the chance for any falling star to fall directly into the accretion disc that must be vertically to the poles is just not realistic.
Therefore, as the matter in the accretion disc is located exactly at that located due to magnetic field it proves that the magnetic field sets the plasma over their.
As the magnetic field can't technically set any falling star exactly at the locating which is vertically to the poles, it proves that new matter that is created by that EM is created at the accretion disc.
In the article it is also stated:
"Research says the Cygnus X-1 contains the most massive stellar-mass black hole ever detected. It is also known to have 21 times the sun’s mass, which makes it 50 percent bigger than researchers previously believed it to be."
So, how can we believe that the BH is eating the matter from that ultra big star that its size is 21 times the Sun's mass?
If the BH is eating that star, then in the past it should be bigger.
So, how big it could be?
30 Times the size of a sun or 100 or 1000 times?
How a star could be so massive in our galaxy?
Sorry, you have a fatal mistake!
As that star is so massive it proves that the star is eating the matter that is ejected from the accretion disc and not the other way.
Actually, this twin system is located just 7,200 light years from Earth.
So, we can easily discover the matter flow.
We can observe if the matter flows from the accretion disc to the giant star as UFO or the other way as UFI.
I know by 100% that the matter flows IS - From the accretion disc to that star (UFO).
So please, go ahead and verify the flow.
If we will observe the UFO then the BBT should be set in the garbage.
If we observe the UFI, then my theory would be set in the garbage.
No actual observation contradicts the BBT.No.
All this stuff about BH is irrelevant to that question since the BBT doesn't even mention BH.
As we clearly observe that matter doesn't fall into the accretion disc and as we clearly observe that the accretion disc is stable and fully vertically to the magnetic poles of the SMBH then it proves that matter must be created at the accretion disc.
Once we agree on that - it proves that the Universe is stable as confirmed by Fred Hole and Einstein!
Post by: Kryptid on 05/06/2021 08:44:52
Another reason I'm calling you out on the liar accusations is because it isn't conducive to decent conversation. Calling people liars is inflammatory, especially when they aren't lying (see above).
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 11:25:18
Our understanding can ONLY be based on real observation.And all the observations are consistent with the BBT.
On the other hand, I presume you accept that we have not been able to look at every single BH in the Universe?
Since we have not observed all of them, we can not say anything scientific about those which we have not observe.
Do you understand that?
If we have not seen it, we can not say anything much about it.
So it is wrong for you to make this claim.
We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe are 100%...
How can you talk observation being important and about 100% of teh universe?
We have not observed 100% of the Universe, have we?
We all agree that we have never ever observed any falling star.Why would anyone with any sense agree with that?
We have pictures of the stars falling into BH.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:52:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:38:10
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 11:26:38
Dave, there is a difference between being mistaken and lying. That's why I don't think either you or Bored Chemist are lying. Both of you believe that what you are saying is correct.
Is there anyone else here who is qualified to make a judgement and who thinks Dave is correct?
Post by: Origin on 05/06/2021 13:38:53
Is there anyone else here who is qualified to make a judgement and who thinks Dave is correct?Dave thinks that mass somehow magically pops into existence in the accretion disc of a black hole and that this new mass is not bound by gravity to the black hole. So, I would think anyone who has taken at least one physics or astronomy course would be qualified to recognize him as a pseudoscience crank.
Post by: Kryptid on 05/06/2021 17:44:04
Is there anyone else here who is qualified to make a judgement and who thinks Dave is correct?
I doubt it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/06/2021 17:53:14
On the other hand, I presume you accept that we have not been able to look at every single BH in the Universe?We didn't observe any BH in the Universe as we didn't observe any orbital system in the Universe.
Since we have not observed all of them, we can not say anything scientific about those which we have not observe.
Do you understand that?
If we have not seen it, we can not say anything much about it.
So, why we have to agree that any orbital system must obey to Newton or Kepler laws while we don't see all the orbital systems in the Universe?
Don't you understand that our current Theories including the BBT is based on what we can see and not on what we haven't observed yet?
Sorry - we must base our understanding on what we see and observe.
So, as I have stated:
When Hubble set its law, he didn't observe all the 100% of the far away galaxies.Is it clear to you?
He could only observe few of them.
But as all of those few observed galaxies behave the same, then he claimed that any far away galaxy behave as those few galaxies that he observed.
In the same token when Newton had set his formula for gravity he didn't observe all the 100% orbital systems in the entire Universe.
The Solar system was good enough for him.
In the same token, any law and any understanding is actually based on relatively very few observations.
Why our scientists at that time didn't claim that Hubble has to observe all the 100% galaxies in the entire Universe in order to set his law? Why no one claimed that maybe some other far away galaxies should have blue shifted radiation instead of red shifted?
Sorry - we don't need to observe the 100% accretion discs in the entire Universe. We have to accept the current observations as an indication for all the other missing observations.
Hence - we must accept the current observation as is!.
If we only can observe 10 SMBH' accretion discs in the entire Universe and in all of them the magnetic jet stream is vertically to the accretion disc while none of them change the orbital plane of that disc (due to the invisible falling matter) - then it is good enough to accept this observation as clear evidence for the entire SMBH' accretion discs in the Universe.
In the same token, as have NEVER & EVER observed any falling matter into that accretion disc and as we have NEVER & EVER observed any change in the orbital plane, then it proves that matter DOESN"T fall from outside into that disc.
NEVER & Ever.
If you still insist to see all the 100% BHs in the entire universe before you accept the simple idea that matter doesn't fall into the SMBH accretion disc, then I demand to eliminate all your science laws based on the same argument that we didn't see the entire Universe to prove that those laws works on every galaxy at the same way.
In the same token I demand to eliminate the BBT as we didn't observe the entire Universe to understand if this theory is correct or wrong.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:12:01Dear BC I really don't like to use the word "Lie" but please why do you keep on with the imagination that matter falls in.
We clearly observe that all the SMBH' accretion discs (without any acceptation) in the entire universe are 100%...
How can you talk observation being important and about 100% of the universe?
We have not observed 100% of the Universe, have we?
Once and for all - Do you confirm that in all the 100% of the SMBH' accretion discs that we have observed so far - we have NEVER and EVER see any matter that falls in.
Yes Or No please!
I hope that you fully agree that the answer MUST be YES, YES and.... YES!!!
So, you can continue to believe that somehow, somewhere someday some month some century we would find a matter as it falls in. You are more than welcome to keep on with your imagination.
However, based on any current observation matter doesn't fall into the accretion disc.
Therefore - I really don't care about the all the other BH' or SMBH' accretion Discs in the entire Universe that we didn't see yet.
As based on the current observation we have never seen any matter as it falls into any SMBH' accretion disc (that we could observed so far) then this observation proves that matter doesn't fall.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 10:12:01
We all agree that we have never ever observed any falling star.
Why would anyone with any sense agree with that?
How anyone with any sense would claim that matter falls in while we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the accretion disc.
Again - NEVER and EVER and you know that!
As you insist to reject this observation (that matter doesn't fall in) just because we didn't see the accretion discs in the entire universe, then I demand to reject all the science knowledge and especially the BBT based on the same argument.
Which is - We didn't observe yet the entire universe to qualify the BBT or any other science law.
Therefore, we should disqualify all our science knowledge.
Sorry – we should use any observation to our current understanding.
So, Kepler law is correct and Newton law is correct.
If one day we will discover an orbital system that works differently, then we can always change the law.
In the same token – as we do not observe any falling matter – then we all must agree that matter doesn't fall.
If one day we would see a falling matter then we can adjust this understanding.
However – currently without any solid observation to disqualify it – we all must agree that matter doesn't fall in!!!
We have pictures of the stars falling into BH.This is incorrect.
We have a picture of Giant star near a BH. However, from that picture we really don't know if the matter is moving from the BH into the accretion disc or the other way.
So please read again the following and let me know in which direction the matter really flows:
However, I have found new article that could help me to show that the plasma in the accretion disc is generated by the BH/SMBH EM field.Sorry - in this article they do not offer any valid data to prove that "We have pictures of the stars falling into BH" as you wish to believe.
Please look at the image of "Cygnus X-1 system. A stellar-mass black hole orbits with a companion star located 7,200 light years from Earth" in following article:
https://www.eastmojo.com/news/2021/02/22/1st-black-hole-spotted-in-1964-much-bigger-than-earlier-thought-says-study/
Our scientists observe accretion disc that is directly vertically to the ejected jets stream. We already know that the jet stream is a direct indication of the BH' magnetic poles.
So, we have to agree that the accretion disc is vertically to the BH's magnetic poles. Hence, the matter in the accretion disc must fully align with the BH magnetic poles.
This MUST be correct to any sort of accretion disc, Including M87 disc.
However, the chance for any falling star to fall directly into the accretion disc that must be vertically to the poles is just not realistic.
Therefore, as the matter in the accretion disc is located exactly at that located due to magnetic field it proves that the magnetic field sets the plasma over their.
As the magnetic field can't technically set any falling star exactly at the locating which is vertically to the poles, it proves that new matter that is created by that EM is created at the accretion disc.
In the article it is also stated:
"Research says the Cygnus X-1 contains the most massive stellar-mass black hole ever detected. It is also known to have 21 times the sun’s mass, which makes it 50 percent bigger than researchers previously believed it to be."
So, how can we believe that the BH is eating the matter from that ultra big star that its size is 21 times the Sun's mass?
If the BH is eating that star, then in the past it should be bigger.
So, how big it could be?
30 Times the size of a sun or 100 or 1000 times?
How a star could be so massive in our galaxy?
Sorry, you have a fatal mistake!
As that star is so massive it proves that the star is eating the matter that is ejected from the accretion disc and not the other way.
Actually, this twin system is located just 7,200 light years from Earth.
So, we can easily discover the matter flow.
We can observe if the matter flows from the accretion disc to the giant star as UFO or the other way as UFI.
I know by 100% that the matter flows IS - From the accretion disc to that star (UFO).
So please, go ahead and verify the flow.
If we will observe the UFO then the BBT should be set in the garbage.
If we observe the UFI, then my theory would be set in the garbage.
Therefore, We have no observation of the stars falling into BH.
Hence, it is forbidden to claim that We have pictures of the stars falling into BH as it is just incorrect/unproved data.
Dave, there is a difference between being mistaken and lying. That's why I don't think either you or Bored Chemist are lying. Both of you believe that what you are saying is correct.Thanks Kryptid
I fully agree with you.
I just want to highlight that my message isn't directly against BC.
He is just a messenger.
He reads articles from our scientists that matter falls into the SMBH' accretion disc and he believes in those imagination stories.
Therefore, he claims that matter falls in.
He also read in those articles that "We have pictures of the stars falling into BH" and he believes in that nonsense.
Those two statements are clearly incorrect.
As our scientists have never observed any matter or star that falls in I would consider those kinds of statements from our scientists as lie.
So, our scientists that claim that matter falls in lie to all of us and confuse BC with this wrong data
Why is it?Is there anyone else here who is qualified to make a judgement and who thinks Dave is correct?I doubt it.
Do you also accept those lies from our scientists that matter falls in while they have never ever observed any matter as it falls in?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/06/2021 17:57:48
Why is it?
Because you have many deep-rooted misconceptions about science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 18:19:05
We didn't observe any BH in the UniverseYes, we did.
We have pictures. etc.
Dear BC I really don't like to use the word "Lie"You clearly do like to use the word "lie"- you use it a lot, even though it is not the right word.
You even got into trouble for doing so.
So why do you make that claim even though it is obviously not correct?
why do you keep on with the imagination that matter falls in.Because things fall down, not up.
We have a picture of Giant star near a BH. However, from that picture we really don't know if the matter is moving from the BH into the accretion disc or the other way.Yes we do. the people who made the measurements took accurate spectra and were able to looks at the Doppler shifts.
We do know which way the matter is moving.
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/06/2021 11:34:54
Because you have many deep-rooted misconceptions about science.I base my understanding ONLY on real observation while our scientists totally ignore most of the observations and base their understanding on imagination.
So let set the observations as they are (I hope that at least we can agree on what we see and especially - about what we do not see):
1. Our scientists clearly observe a constant outflow (UFO) from the outer side of the accretion ring to the Bulge for the last 20 - 50 years
2. They also observed for one time (2018) an inflow (UFI) from the inner side of the disc (UFI) to the SMBH
3. However - They have NEVER EVER observed any star or matter as it falls all the way from outside into the SMBH' accretion ring.
4. There is a significant change in the accretion ring size per year. The main change is in the inner radius of the disc.
5. The magnetic jet stream flux is vertically to the accretion disc (and to the galactic disc).
6.All the stars and gas clouds around the SMBH are actually orbiting the SMBH. Nothing there is waiting just to be eaten by that main mass.
7. Our scientists have NEVER EVER verify in a giant star/ BH orbital system if the matter flows from the star to the BH or the other way.
This is the real observed data
If you, BC or any other scientist disagree with one of the above - please offer the observation to protect your understanding.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:53:14Because things fall down, not up.
why do you keep on with the imagination that matter falls in.
It seems that this is all you have.
Hence, because things fall down, not up - then you, all the 10,000 scientists and all the moderators in this site hope that somehow matter should fall into the accretion disc.
Sorry - this is your fatal problem.
Around our SMBH there is no free star that is willing to fall down just to be eaten by that monster.
Any object around the SMBH is actually orbiting around this massive mass.
So, do you confirm that any star (as S stars), any gas cloud (as G gas clouds) around the SMBH is there due to its orbital momentum (around that SMBH)?
If you disagree - please offer the observation of the star/gas cloud that is there just to be eaten by the SMBH.
If you agree - than we should discuss from now on only about orbital system (or orbital object) and not about falling stars/matter.
If we all agree on that, now it is your job is to prove how any orbital object (for example S2) at average orbital radius- R (about 2Ly) and average velocity - V would fall all the way into the accretion disc.
During this process it should decrease significantly its average radius to the accretion ring radius (which is almost the event horizon radius). So, if we discuss about a nearby S star with average radius of about 2 LY, it should be reduced to almost the event horizon radius, while its orbital velocity should be increased dramatically to almost 0.3c
Can you please offer an example for orbital system where the orbital object decreases its average radius and increases its average orbital velocity so dramatically?
Good Luck!
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/06/2021 11:38:29
So let set the observations as they are (I hope that at least we can agree on what we see and especially - about what we do not see):We do not see the black cat in a coal cellar.
But only you think that proves that the cat is not there.
Do you understand that point?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/06/2021 11:39:56
The magnetic jet stream flux is vertically to the accretion disc.Because the same rotation causes both the disk and the jet.
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/06/2021 11:55:11
Why is it so difficult for you even to agree on the observations?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:34:54We do not see the black cat in a coal cellar.
So let set the observations as they are (I hope that at least we can agree on what we see and especially - about what we do not see):
I have offered 7 points.
1. Our scientists clearly observe a constant outflow (UFO) from the outer side of the accretion ring to the Bulge for the last 20 - 50 yearsWhy are you so afraid from those observations?
2. They also observed for one time (2018) an inflow (UFI) from the inner side of the disc (UFI) to the SMBH
3. However - They have NEVER EVER observed any star or matter as it falls all the way from outside into the SMBH' accretion ring.
4. There is a significant change in the accretion ring size per year. The main change is in the inner radius of the disc.
5. The magnetic jet stream flux is vertically to the accretion disc (and to the galactic disc).
6.All the stars and gas clouds around the SMBH are actually orbiting the SMBH. Nothing there is waiting just to be eaten by that main mass.
7. Our scientists have NEVER EVER verify in a giant star/ BH orbital system if the matter flows from the star to the BH or the other way.
Would you kindly advice (Based on your data) which one is correct and which one is incorrect.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/06/2021 12:10:06
Would you kindly advice (Based on your data) which one is correct and which one is incorrect.I an not saying they are incorrect.
I am saying that one of them (the one you have numbered as 3) is irrelevant.
Now, to try to get to to understand why it is irrelevant, please answer this.
We do not see the black cat in a coal cellar.
But only you think that proves that the cat is not there.
Do you understand that point?
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/06/2021 12:27:05
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:55:11I an not saying they are incorrect.
Would you kindly advice (Based on your data) which one is correct and which one is incorrect.
I am saying that one of them (the one you have numbered as 3) is irrelevant.
Do appreciate you honest answer!
So, based on this answer I understand that all the 7 observations/points are correct.
However - you claim that number 3 is correct but it is also irrelevant.
Please confirm
Now let's focus on No. 3
As it is correct then we all agree that: Our scientists have NEVER EVER observed any star or matter as it falls all the way from outside into the SMBH' accretion ring.
You claim that it is irrelevant while I claim that this is the MOST important observation.
We clearly see the UFO as it is ejected from the Accretion disc.
Why are you so sure that we shouldn't see a star as it falls in or actually be accreted in?
In the accretion disc there are no solid stars
So, if an orbital star (as S2) is accreted inwards, somehow it must be broken to its atoms.
Why are you so sure that when this star is falling in /accreted in and losing his life it isn't expected to see some sort of Supernova or mighty fire works?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/06/2021 12:52:43
Why are you so sure that we shouldn't see a star as it falls iIf it is a star, we do see it.
Do you not remember the pictures, and my explanation that the doppler shifts tell us which way it is going?
But most stuff that falls in is not a star.
Most of it is just hydrogen.
And you can't see hydrogen unless it is very hot.
So we do not see stuff falling in- because it is invisible.
Just like you do not see a black cat in a coal cellar.
Now, for the third time...
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:38:29
We do not see the black cat in a coal cellar.
But only you think that proves that the cat is not there.
Do you understand that point?
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/06/2021 19:56:18
But most stuff that falls in is not a star.Thanks
Most of it is just hydrogen.
1.What do you mean by "most"?
You claim that "most stuff that falls in is not a star". Therefore it is quite clear that you mean that at least some must be star.
However, as you claim that:
If it is a star, we do see it.Then as some must be stars and as we must see those falling stars - then how could it be that we have NEVER ever observe any falling star?
2. .Falling star/matter or orbital star/matter?
Why are you using the message of falling star instead of not orbital star/matter.
In point 6 I have stated:
6.All the stars and gas clouds around the SMBH are actually orbiting the SMBH. Nothing there is waiting just to be eaten by that main mass.So, do you claim now that this point is incorrect?
Do you mean that around the SMBH there are some stars or Hydrogen atoms that don't orbit around the SMBH and just waiting for their time to be eaten by the SMBH?
3. Hydrogen atoms
Most of it is just hydrogen. And you can't see hydrogen unless it is very hot.Why are you so sure that most of the falling matter is Hydrogen atom?
From where those atoms are coming ?
Do you also claim that he Hydrogen atom doesn't orbit the SMBH? So do you mean that Hydrogen atom is a preferable food by the SMBH? If so why is it??
Why a gas cloud which is full with Hydrogen atoms is not falling in while just atoms must fall in?
4. Temp
And you can't see hydrogen unless it is very hot.What is the minimal requested temp of the atom so it can be observed??
You have already explained that as the atom falls in, it should increase its temp. So based on this logic as it gets to the accretion disc its temp is already 10^9 c. However, it is not logical to assume that the temp is moving from almost 0c to 10^9c exactly at the accretion disc. Somehow it must increase the temp as it gets closer and closer to the SMBH.
So, it is quite clear that when the atom is falling in its temp is increasing as it gets closer.
Hence, at what distance from the accretion disc the temp of the atom would be high enough to be observable?
How could it be that we can only observe it at the accretion disc and not as it get hotter and closer to that disc?
Please try to answer all the above questions.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/06/2021 20:33:01
then how could it be that we have NEVER ever observe any falling star?We have.
This one.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
But, in spite of the evidence from the Doppler shift, you still think it is falling up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/06/2021 20:35:37
What is the minimal requested temp of the atom so it can be observed??Very roughly "red hot" of course.
It will be a lot brighter if it is hotter- say 10,000 K
Since it starts at roughly 3K it has quite a way to go.
Essentially, it is like asking "how hot does air need to get before you can see it glow?".
Why did you not know that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/06/2021 20:37:54
So, it is quite clear that when the atom is falling in its temp is increasing as it gets closer.Only if it hits something, and most of the time it is space where collisions are rare.
The point where collisions become significant is the accretion disk.
Please try to answer all the above questions.What do you mean by "try"?
They all have simple answers.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/06/2021 17:25:48
Sorrythen how could it be that we have NEVER ever observe any falling star?We have.
This one.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
But, in spite of the evidence from the Doppler shift, you still think it is falling up.
This is just an image.
Our scientists didn't really verify if the matter is moving inwards or outwards.
If you believe that we have the data to justify the imagination of accreted inwards- then please show if it is red-shifted or blue-shifted.
Therefore - this image is useless.
It seems that you already forgot the UFO.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:56:18Only if it hits something, and most of the time it is space where collisions are rare.
So, it is quite clear that when the atom is falling in its temp is increasing as it gets closer.
The point where collisions become significant is the accretion disk.
Our scientists claim that there is a constant outflow from the accretion disc to the Bulge.
Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that the chance for collision is rare.
Actually, if we could clear the way for a falling matter all the way to the accretion disc then the chance to increase the temp of a falling atom from almost zero to 10^9c due to a single collision at the accretion disc and keep it there is absolutely zero.
As we discuss about a collision, how do we know what could be the outcome of that collision?
Please be aware that the plasma at the accretion ring orbits at the outer ring at about 0.3 seed of light.
So, what should be the outcome if a falling atom would collide with an orbital atom?
Don't you agree that in order to increase the falling atom temp to 10^9 the collision should has so high energy that the collided atoms must be ejected away from that disc?
If you wish to hold a falling atom at the accretion disc, then you actually must get a smooth falling in (or accretion) but in this case without significant collision there is no way to get that 10^9 c.
If you wish to increase the temp of the falling matter outside the accretion disc so it would be accreted smoothly into that disc, then as it falls in - it must collide with the matter that is already located outside the disc (as that UFO). However, in this case, the falling matter has to be observable but we all know that it is not.
Hence, there is a significant contradiction between the request to deliver the falling matter smoothly into the outwards side of the accretion disc without observing it as it falls in - to the request of mighty collision in order to achieve that 10^9c exactly as the outer side of the accretion ring..
Somehow you can't gain them all.
If you need smooth accretion without increasing the temp of the matter as it falls in - then you might keep the falling matter at the accretion disc - but you prevent the mighty collision that is needed for the 10^9c at the disc itself.
If you get a mighty collision at the accretion disc - then you might get the 10^9 c but that collision should eject matter from the disc.
Please also be aware that our scientists clearly observed that in 2011 the accretion disc was almost empty. There was only a thin corona at the outer most accretion ring.
Therefore it is clear that a significant amount of matter had to be accreted into the accretion ring in order to bring back the full capacity of this accretion ring.
Therefore, the idea of a mighty collision is unrealistic.
If a falling matter would collide with that thin corona at ultra high momentum it would surly clear the accretion disc from any sort of matter.
Therefore, it is very clear that there is no falling matter but a smooth accretion matter.
That smooth accretion matter can't technically increase the matter from virtually zero c to almost 10^9c exactly at the accretion disc.
Therefore - Don't you agree that this is a dead end of the road for the falling matter imagination?
If you still not sure about it, then let's focus on the accretion disc.
We actually observe a ring.
So, if your imagination of falling matter was correct, then the falling matter had to fall into the outer ring and accreted inwards all the way into the inner ring.
During this process it has to decrease the orbital radius, increase the orbital velocity and also increase its temp.
However, as our scientists have no clue in orbital system - they don't know that orbital objects DO NOT decrease the radius and increase the orbital velocity
NEVER and EVER.
So even by this idea you can set your falling matter in the garbage.
However, if you wish to hold your imagination - then please go ahead and offer an example of orbital object that increases its orbital velocity as is accreted inwards.
Please - this time only real data and not just useless image.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 18:13:25
Our scientists didn't really verify if the matter is moving inwards or outwards.Yes they did. If you look at the paper you will see the report about Doppler shifts.
Denial isn't just a river in Africa.
Therefore, it is incorrect to claim that the chance for collision is rare.Do you understand that the stuff falls in from all directions?
Anything that hits the outgoing (hot, fast) jet will get knocked aside.
But the stuff that falls in anywhere close to tangentially will not hit anything much until it hits the edge of the disk.
So you won't see it.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:52:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:38:10
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/06/2021 19:53:45
You have just offered an image.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:25:48Yes they did. If you look at the paper you will see the report about Doppler shifts.
Our scientists didn't really verify if the matter is moving inwards or outwards.
Please offer the whole article and specify the message about that Doppler shifts to prove the falling direction of the matter.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 20:03:01
Please offer the whole articleIt was already posted here.
You just didn't understand it.
What would be the point of posting it again?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 11:25:18
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:52:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:38:10
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/06/2021 20:08:57
Well, if the data was real, you could set it again.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:53:45It was already posted here.
Please offer the whole article
You just didn't understand it.
What would be the point of posting it again?
Therefore, I'm quite sure that there is no indication for any sort of Doppler shifts to prove the falling matter.
Its not too late.
If you don't do it - it proves that it is all about IMAGINATION.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/06/2021 21:49:51
You did not understand it before.
You have not learned anything between then and now.
You still would not understand it.
If you are too lazy to learn or check, that's OK.
Just accept that the data is real.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:13:25
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 11:25:18
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:52:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:38:10
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/06/2021 08:19:47
You are saying that you are too lazy to go back through the thread and find the reference to data which you didn't understand before.Dear BC
I'm not too lazy as you might consider.
Actually I have invested days and years in order to verify the key question about accretion activity:
"Is there any possibility for orbital object to reduce its average radius and increase its average orbital velocity?
The answer for that was clearly - NO!
In any case, I have found at the web an article that specifically discuss about the image that you had offered:
https://www.sciencealert.com/astronomers-spot-a-strange-black-hole-so-ravenous-it-s-pushing-the-limits-of-physics
In that article they do not claim about any sort of Doppler shifts.
They just claim that they have observed the X-ray flare:
"We've seen plenty of these TDE's in the past, thanks to the distinct X-ray flare they produce."
We already know that this kind flare is due to Electromagnetic field.
Therefore, there is no indication for Doppler shifts (as you have stated) which could justify the assumption of accreted matter.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/06/2021 08:38:00
I'm not too lazyThen get on with it.
Have a look at the right article.
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
Find the right report
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/504/1/792/6185055
And then tell me if I was right about you not understanding it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/06/2021 08:45:42
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:03:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 18:13:25
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 11:25:18
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:52:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:38:10
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/06/2021 05:49:30
Have a look at the right article.Did you had a chance to read the above article which you had offered?
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
Did they found the evidence of the Doppler shifted as you have stated?
No!!!
So what did they really observed?
"The astronomers observed the spectral absorption lines when looking at the black hole's rotational pole."
"Absorption lines are unusually dark lines detected in the otherwise continuous spectrum of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a source, in this case a black hole. These lines appear when material that absorbs part of the electromagnetic radiation (in this case the spaghettified star) obscures the source. "
So, it is all about the impact of the BH magnetic poles.
We normally observe similar magnetic jet stream as it is ejected from any BH/SMBH' magnetic poles.
So, that all they see.
Now comes the nice part of their imagination:
The observation suggested that there was a strand of material wrapped multiple times around the black hole like a yarn ball, the scientists said in a statement on April 23. The team believes that this material is the torn star as it orbits around the black hole before disappearing inside of it."
So, they wish to believe that in the past a star was orbiting around this BH as they hope that this magnetic line that they have observed is actually suggested that there "was a strand of material wrapped multiple times around the black hole like a yarn ball".
So they see some sort of magnetic lines and that is already good indication for them that a star was there orbiting the BH and it then was torn apart.
How do they dare to discuss about a star the turn apart while all they see is the impact of the BH magnetic poles?
Why they set their "believe" and imagination as real science?
How can they claim that: "his material is the torn star as it orbits around the black hole before disappearing inside of it" without any sort of Doppler shifts to indicate the real flow of that matter?
In any case, this article doesn't offer any real Doppler shifts to indicate the material flow direction.
Therefore it is useless for our discussion.
In the other article that you had offered:
Find the right reportThey mainly discuss focus on TDE and X-ray emission:
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article-abstract/504/1/792/6185055
"We present the results of a large multiwavelength follow-up campaign of the tidal disruption event (TDE) AT 2019dsg, focusing on low to high resolution optical spectroscopy, X-ray, and radio observations"
So again there is no indication of any matter that is accreted inwards by any sort of Doppler shift.
However they claim that they actually observe an indication for star formation:
"instead, the TDE host galaxy shows narrow optical emission lines that likely arise from star formation activity."
Hence, this is the ultimate observation that the matter around the BH is forming NEW STAR.
However, the matter for that new star must come from somewhere.
This matter can't come from other torn apart star (as this idea is only imagination that had not been proved by Doppler shifts). Therefore, it must come from the SMBH itself!!!
In any case, you have totally failed to backup your statement that matter is accreted inwards by Doppler shifts as there are no Doppler shifts.
Therefore please don't believe those believers that wish to believe that matter is accreted inwards into the SMBH without any real Doppler shifts to backup this believe.
Please - don't mix believe with real science.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
Sorry that I called you liar.
You aren't liar. You are just believer. They are the real LIARS.
They lie to all of us. They confuse all of us.
Therefore you believed them and accepted their lies.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 10:41:29
Now all you need to do is explain why they didn't mention that those shifts indicated that the material was heading the wrong way- out rather than in.
Sorry that I called you liar.Let's have a quick look at where you called me a liar.
It was because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
Nobody else was involved, were they?
It's not that i was misled, is it?
You called me a liar for saying something that was and remains obviously true.
They are the real LIARS.There was no "they" involved, was there?
Stop trying to avoid responsibility for calling me a liar when I told the truth.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/06/2021 17:44:37
So, you recognise that they measured the Doppler shifts.No
This is incorrect.
I have just informed you that:
So again there is no indication of any matter that is accreted inwards by any sort of Doppler shift.Therefore - so far our scientists have NEVER & EVER found any observation of matter that is accreted inwards into the accretion disc.
You are the one that have stated that our scientists observed the Doppler shifts:
However, so far you couldn't backup this nonsense by any article.then how could it be that we have NEVER ever observe any falling star?We have.
This one.
But, in spite of the evidence from the Doppler shift, you still think it is falling up.
So please go home and find the article that could support this nonsense.
Please don't come back without it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 18:40:26
So please go homeI'm already at home.
I have just informed you that:You said it, but cited no reason to believe it.
You could just as well have said that horses are green.
Saying it does not make it true.
You are the one that have stated that our scientists observed the Doppler shifts:No
The scientists who wrote the paper said they had examined the Doppler shifts.
It says so in the paper.
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/06/2021 20:57:25
The scientists who wrote the paper said they had examined the Doppler shifts.Sorry, I couldn't find any discovery about that Doppler shifts in any article which you had offered.
It says so in the paper.
So would you kindly offer the article/paper and highlight the message about that Doppler shifts.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 21:18:23
The Doppler effec
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/06/2021 22:07:08
"The absorption lines are narrow," said Giacomo Cannizzaro, the lead author of the paper. "They are not broadened by the Doppler effect, like you'd expect when you would be looking at a rotating disk."Sorry
The Doppler effec
Do you have some basic knowledge in English?
It is stated:
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
"They are NOT broadened by the Doppler effect".
So, the absorption lines are narrow and they are NOT broadened by the Doppler Effect.
What do you understand from that?
Actually it is stated with:
"The authors of the current study, however, claim that the material they were looking at wasn't part of the accretion disk. "
So we know that it is not part of the accretion disc.
Then it is stated:
"The Doppler effect, caused by the fast motion of the material in the accretion disk, stretches or shrinks the electromagnetic waves depending on whether the source is moving towards or away from the observer."
So they actually claim that the Doppler Effect stretches or shrinks the electromagnetic waves.
Then they claim: "As a result, the light emitted by the part of the accretion disk that is moving away from Earth would be brighter. But the scientists saw no evidence of that."
So it is clearly stated that:
"the light emitted by the part of the accretion disk that is moving away from Earth would be brighter. But the scientists saw no evidence of that"
Therefore, our scientists don't see any evidence as they have expected (from the Doppler effect?).
So, how do you claim that our scientists are using the Doppler Effect as an evidence for matter from outside flows/accretes inwards into the accretion disc while they claim that they don't have any evidence?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:15:01
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:16:18
Actually it is stated with:So it's the stuff that's falling in.
"The authors of the current study, however, claim that the material they were looking at wasn't part of the accretion disk. "
If it was coming out there would be a doppler shift due to that motion.
As you say; they didn't find it.
Because it's not coming out.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/06/2021 22:26:36
If it was coming out there would be a doppler shift due to that motion.Thanks
As you say; they didn't find it.
So we all agree that there is no Doppler effect.
However you claim that:
So it's the stuff that's falling in.Sorry, that outcome is not realistic as in the same token I could claim that:
Because it's not coming out.
"So it's the stuff that's falling out, Because it's not coming in"
Therefore, as they don't see if it comes in or out then no one can claim that it is falling in or out.
Conclusion
So far you have failed to offer any real evidence (as Doppler shifts) for matter that clearly falls into the accretion disc!
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:57:50
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 23:08:00
And it's a pity that you don't understand that, if they made the measurements accurately enough to say that the doppler broadening (which is a measure of temperature, not absolute motion) is small, then they can measure the absolute Doppler shifts accurately.
And I guess somehow, you just can't get the idea that, if they found an anomalous Doppler shift which indicated material coming our way, they would publish it and claim their Nobel prize.
But, could you explain this?
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/06/2021 11:14:29
I'm sorry that you can't see that the Doppler shift would be different falling in than coming out.Yes that is clear.
However, they have stated that:
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-holeTherefore, there is no Doppler shift.
"They are NOT broadened by the Doppler effect".
Without that observation we can't know for sure if the matter is falling in or out.
Hence, your falling statement is just incorrect:
Sorry if it was falling in there would be a Doppler shift due to that motion.Actually it is stated with:So it's the stuff that's falling in.
"The authors of the current study, however, claim that the material they were looking at wasn't part of the accretion disk. "
If it was coming out there would be a Doppler shift due to that motion.
As you say; they didn't find it.
Because it's not coming out.
So, in any direction we must get a Doppler shift (however while one is red shifted, the other one might is blue-shifted).
Therefore, as they can't verify if that matter is moving in or out than it is a severe mistake to assume that this matter is falling in.
There is a possibility that this matter (which is not part of the accretion disc) had been ejected from the accretion disc.
And it's a pity that you don't understand that, if they made the measurements accurately enough to say that the doppler broadening (which is a measure of temperature, not absolute motion) is small, then they can measure the absolute Doppler shifts accurately.It's a pity that you still don't understand the real meaning of:
"They are NOT broadened by the Doppler effect".
And I guess somehow, you just can't get the idea that, if they found an anomalous Doppler shift which indicated material coming our way, they would publish it and claim their Nobel prize.Actually, our scientists clearly observe the constant UFO which indicates that the matter in the M87 accretion disc is coming out. So, the Nobel prize could be given to those scientists that have observed the UFO at M87 and to those scientists that have been observed to the magnetic molecular jet stream that is ejected from the MW accretion disc and almost any SMBH' accretion disc in the universe.
It's a pity that you and all our science community don't wish to accept the observations as they are.
It's a pity that you and all our science community which to force the accretion disc to eat its food from outside while even one tiny particle isn't falling in from outside.
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.Well, as you insist to deal with lies then:
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..
You have totally failed to prove by real observation as Doppler shift that matter is falling into the accretion disc.
Therefore, any scientist who claims that matter falls into the SMBH accretion disc from outside without real observation for that is liar.
If you wish to support this lie then you are part of those liars gang.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2021 11:27:31
Well, as you insist to deal with lies then:I don't.
But you called me a liar for telling the truth and then, when I called you out on it you lied again by saying it was because of some "they" who lied- but there was nobody else involved.
Therefore, there is no Doppler shift.You don't understand this, do you?
Broadened is not the same as shifted. [ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/06/2021 16:24:41
Sorry, do you really think that you can band the observation or (no observation) according to your wish?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:14:29You don't understand this, do you?
Therefore, there is no Doppler shift.
Broadened is not the same as shifted.
We wish to understand the real meaning of "NOT broadened by the Doppler effect":
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-holeSo first let's understand the meaning of
"They are NOT broadened by the Doppler effect".
Doppler broadening
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doppler_broadening
"In atomic physics, Doppler broadening is the broadening of spectral lines due to the Doppler effect caused by a distribution of velocities of atoms or molecules. Different velocities of the emitting particles result in different Doppler shifts, the cumulative effect of which is the line broadening.[1] This resulting line profile is known as a Doppler profile. A particular case is the thermal Doppler broadening due to the thermal motion of the particles. Then, the broadening depends only on the frequency of the spectral line, the mass of the emitting particles, and their temperature, and therefore can be used for inferring the temperature of an emitting body."
It is also stated:
"Derivation
"When thermal motion causes a particle to move towards the observer, the emitted radiation will be shifted to a higher frequency. Likewise, when the emitter moves away, the frequency will be lowered."
Based on that let's read again the whole message from our scientists:
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
"The absorption lines are narrow," said Giacomo Cannizzaro, the lead author of the paper. "They are not broadened by the Doppler effect, like you'd expect when you would be looking at a rotating disk."
The Doppler effect, caused by the fast motion of the material in the accretion disk, stretches or shrinks the electromagnetic waves depending on whether the source is moving towards or away from the observer. As a result, the light emitted by the part of the accretion disk that is moving away from Earth would be brighter. But the scientists saw no evidence of that.
So, The Doppler effect, caused by the fast motion of the material in the accretion disk, stretches or shrinks the electromagnetic waves depending on whether the source is moving towards or away from the observer.
Therefore, it is expected that the light emitted by the part of the accretion disk that is moving away from Earth would be brighter.
However, our scientists saw no evidence of that.
Do you agree with that?
If so you have to agree that there is no evidence whether the source is moving towards or away from the observer.
It is stated clearly " the scientists saw no evidence of that".
So why do you claim that our scientists have evidence for matter that falls into the accretion disc while they clearly claim that they saw no evidence of that?
Who is lying to us?
Is it you or they?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2021 16:29:53
Who is lying to us?Neither.
Is it you or they?
It's just that you still don't understand the difference.
Try having another look at the picture I drew for you.
Doppler broadening refers (typically) to the broadening due to temperature- sometimes due to rotation of a star or disk.
But the doppler shift is the displacement of the absorption compared to what it would look like if we measured it in the lab where it is essentially stationary.
The first one tells you the temperature (which isn't very interesting)
The second one tells you if the material is coming towards you (i.e. out of the BH) or going away from you (i.e. into the BH).
In one case (stuff going in) you get a red shift and in the other case (stuff coming towards us) a blue shift.
What you are claiming is that this material- because it is coming towards us out of the hole should be blue shifted but somehow, the scientists didn't notice that.
Because, if they had noticed it, they would be lining up for their Nobel prizes by now.
How do you explain that?
How come, the shift , if you were right, would be the opposite of what is expected, but nobody noticed?
Are you saying that these scientist are utterly incompetent?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/06/2021 17:47:07
In one case (stuff going in) you get a red shift and in the other case (stuff coming towards us) a blue shift.That is very clear.
What you are claiming is that this material- because it is coming towards us out of the hole should be blue shifted but somehow, the scientists didn't notice that.No
I claim that as our scientists don't observe the red shift or the Blue shift then they can't claim for matter that falling in or falling out.
How come, the shift , if you were right, would be the opposite of what is expected, but nobody noticed?Our scientists claim that they observe the UFO at M87.
So, they see the redshift of the matter as it is ejected outwards from the accretion disc.
Therefore, do you agree once and for all that so far we have NEVER EVER observed any sort of matter as it falls into the accretion disc from outside, but we clearly see the matter (UFO) as it is ejected outwards from that accretion disc?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2021 17:56:36
I claim that as our scientists don't observe the red shift or the Blue shiftThe shift is bigger than the broadening.
Why are you saying they can see (and measure) the small effect, but didn't notice the Nobel prize winning big one?
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/06/2021 18:08:43
The shift is bigger than the broadening.How long can we discuss on that issue?
It is stated that they don't see the doppler shift or the broadening:
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
"They are NOT broadened by the Doppler effect"
"But the scientists saw no evidence of that..
Why are you saying they can see (and measure) the small effect,I didn't say that kind of nonsense.
I only say that so far we have no evidence to confirm the imagination that matter falls into the accretion disc.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2021 18:26:22
I didn't say that kind of nonsense.Yes you did.
I claim that as our scientists don't observe the red shift or the Blue shift
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/06/2021 18:29:11
It is stated that they don't see the doppler shift or the broadening:The Doppler shift and the doppler broadening are different things.
They say that the broadening is too small to see.
But they will have seen the much shift.
The smaller the broadening is, the easier it is to see the shift.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/06/2021 06:19:31
The Doppler shift and the doppler broadening are different things.That is correct
They say that the broadening is too small to see.
But they will have seen the much shift.Where in the attached article it is stated that they really observe this shift?
The smaller the broadening is, the easier it is to see the shift.
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-holeHow do you twist the following messages of:
"The absorption lines are narrow," said Giacomo Cannizzaro, the lead author of the paper. "They are not broadened by the Doppler effect, like you'd expect when you would be looking at a rotating disk."
The Doppler effect, caused by the fast motion of the material in the accretion disk, stretches or shrinks the electromagnetic waves depending on whether the source is moving towards or away from the observer. As a result, the light emitted by the part of the accretion disk that is moving away from Earth would be brighter. But the scientists saw no evidence of that.
"They are not broadened by the Doppler effect"
&
"But the scientists saw no evidence of that"
To this kind of imagination that:
But they will have seen the much shift.Where in this article it is stated that the imaginary observation of this "shift" proves that the matter is drifting/falling inwards into the accretion disc?
Please quote the messages from that article in order to backup your imaginations & wish.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/06/2021 08:33:29
Where in the attached article it is stated that they really observe this shift?Finally, you nearly get the point.
They don't say it.
But it must be there unless...
Are you saying that these scientist are utterly incompetent?
So, once again...
Why are you saying they can see (and measure) the small effect, but didn't notice the Nobel prize winning big one?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/06/2021 17:02:24
As they don't say that there is a shift (even a small shift), and as they don't say that there is observation/prove for any sort of matter that is drifting/falling inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside, then this is the reality!!!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:19:31Finally, you nearly get the point.
Where in the attached article it is stated that they really observe this shift?
They don't say it.
Therefore, if you would claim again that this article proves that matter from outside falls into the accretion disc - then I would consider your message as a lie.
Conclusion
So far you couldn't offer any valid article that proves by real observation that matter from outside falls into the accretion disc!
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/06/2021 17:21:02
Do they not say it because they don't observe it, or because they are stupid?
Do you understand what the measurement is here?
They measure the wavelength of some incoming light from the object.
It hardly matters exactly what they look at so we can use made up numbers- it's easier that way.
They look at the light from a flame on Earth and they measure the wavelength of the light.
It has a wavelength of 100nm. There's some spread on it- say they find the light is between 98 and 102 nm.
So that's the broadening they see (part of it will be Doppler, some will be measurement error, part will be uncertainty broadening- which is not the same thing as the measurement error- and some will be pressure broadening. There may be other contributions.)
And then they look at the spectrum they get from the object.
And they will see that it's 103 to 107 nm.
They conclude two things;
The broadening is the same- it's +/- 2nm
And that's interesting, so they publish it.
They don't bother to mention the fact that it is red shifted from about 100 to about 105 because nobody cares.
Hubble already posted that result, and it has been repeated loads of times since (and in a more interesting form where they compare shift vs. distance).
What you are saying is that they got a blue shifted measurement which said the light was between 93 and 97 nm.
And they reported the non- result - that the broadening was essentially the same.
But they somehow did not report the fact that the light was blue shifted from 100 to 95 nm.
That's the point at which you say they threw away their prize.
Now, can you please explain why you think they would do that?
Do you not think they would notice that 95 is smaller than 100?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/06/2021 17:35:53
But, could you explain this?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:15:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 18:40:26
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/06/2021 17:29:38
Thank for the explanation
However:
What you are saying is that they got a blue shifted measurement which said the light was between 93 and 97 nm.No
That is incorrect.
I only claim that in this article there is no evidence for matter that falls into the accretion disc.
So let me ask you for the last time:
Do they observe any matter that falls into the accretion disc from outside?
Yes or no?
Please answer!
It seems to me that the answer is clearly no as you even claim that:
You need to explain why they don't say the thing that would win them a Nobel prize.So as they are not stupid, then it is clear that they don't see any evidence for matter that falls in.
Do they not say it because they don't observe it, or because they are stupid?
So simple and clear.
Therefore, why do you keep on with the incorrect data that we have evidence/observation for matter as it falls into the accretion disc?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/06/2021 17:36:17
But, could you explain this?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:15:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 18:40:26
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/06/2021 17:39:25
Dear BCAre you saying they saw blue shifted light?
Thank for the explanation
However:What you are saying is that they got a blue shifted measurement which said the light was between 93 and 97 nm.No
That is incorrect.
Because stuff coming out of the hole would be moving towards us and would emit light that was blue shifted.
And blue shifted light would be something they would have notice- but what they saw was not blue shifted, because it was not coming towards us, because it was not coming out of the BH.
Are you finally accepting that stuff does not come out of the accretion discs of BH, or are you saying it does, but these scientists missed it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/06/2021 17:58:06
Are you saying they saw blue shifted light?Wow, it is so difficult to set even simple evidence with you.
Because stuff coming out of the hole would be moving towards us and would emit light that was blue shifted.
And blue shifted light would be something they would have notice- but what they saw was not blue shifted, because it was not coming towards us, because it was not coming out of the BH.
You have offered that article in order to prove that matter falls in.
I hope for the last time that you confirm that this article doesn't offer any evidence for matter that falls in.
With regards to the Blue shift.
Actually, we have a clear observation of the UFO from the M87 accretion disc.
So, our scientists clearly see matter as it is ejected outwards from the M87 SMBH' accretion disc.
However, so far you couldn't offer any observation of matter that falls in (from any SMBH' accretion disc in the whole Universe!).
Therefore we all must agree for the following:
We have clear UFO observation for matter that is ejected outwards from the SMBH' accretion disc but we have NEVER & EVER observe any matter that falls in.
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.Sorry - As you keep on with your nonsense and do not admit that we have no evidence for matter that falls in, then you clearly don't tell the truth.
So, next time when you raise the "Truth" flag, please try to hide somewhere.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/06/2021 18:06:38
Are you finally accepting that stuff does not come out of the accretion discs of BH, or are you saying it does, but these scientists missed it?I clearly say that as we observe the UFO and we have NEVER &EVER observe any matter that falls into the Accretion disc.
Therefore - Matter MUST come out from the SMB' accretion disc!!!
Any scientist that claims that matter falls in from outside without real observation to backup this imagination is LIAR!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/06/2021 18:24:28
I clearly say that as we observe the UFO and we have NEVER &EVER observe any matter that falls into the Accretion disc.And you repeatedly ignore the fact that we never see it coming out; yet you believe it does; even though the laws of physics make that impossible.
But, could you explain this?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:15:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 18:40:26
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/06/2021 05:06:22
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:06:38And you repeatedly ignore the fact that we never see it coming out; yet you believe it does; even though the laws of physics make that impossible.
I clearly say that as we observe the UFO and we have NEVER &EVER observe any matter that falls into the Accretion disc.
Please answer with only one word - YES or NO on the following questions:
1. Do you confirm that in the following article?
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
There is no clear observation/evidence for matter from outside as it falls inwards into the accretion disc.
Yes or No?
2. Do you confirm that in the article about M87, there is clear observation /evidence for matter from the M87 accretion disc as it falls outwards or ejected outwards - as UFO?
Yes or No?
Please - Only one word (Yes or No) for each question!
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/06/2021 05:50:10
even though the laws of physics make that impossible.Any law of physics that prevents from the SMBH to create new positive mass particle pair (with negative charge between each other) by using its Ultra gravity force and its mighty Electromagnetic Power (near the event horizon - which is the exact location of the accretion disc) should be set deep in the garbage.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/06/2021 08:34:38
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:36:17
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/06/2021 17:35:53
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 23:08:00
But, could you explain this?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:15:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 18:40:26
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/06/2021 12:39:15
QuoteQuote from: Bored chemist on 21/06/2021 17:35:53Sorry - As you keep on with your nonsense and do not admit that we have no evidence for matter that falls in, then you clearly don't tell the truth.
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
So, next time when you raise the "Truth" flag, please try to hide somewhere.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/06/2021 12:46:36
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:36:17
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/06/2021 17:35:53
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 23:08:00
But, could you explain this?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 22:15:01
Quote from: Bored chemist on 12/06/2021 18:40:26
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/06/2021 03:48:23
Now, please explain why you called me a liar for telling the truth.I have already answered your question.
Don't try to blame some mysterious "others" who don't exist..
Sorry - how do you dare to carry the name of "truth" for nothing?
You can't even answer the following simple question with No or Yes:
Please answer with only one word - YES or NO on the following questions:
1. Do you confirm that in the following article?
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
There is no clear observation/evidence for matter from outside as it falls inwards into the accretion disc.
Yes or No?
2. Do you confirm that in the article about M87, there is clear observation /evidence for matter from the M87 accretion disc as it falls outwards or ejected outwards - as UFO?
Yes or No?
Please - Only one word (Yes or No) for each question!
You can't do so because you know that based on "truth" you need to say "Yes" or lie.
However:
If you say "Yes" - then you justify my theory.
If you say "No" - then you lie, and somehow you prefer to avoid lies at this phase.
So, instead of answering the question with Yes or No, you try to bypass it by unrealistic "truth".
You have just proved that there is no real truth in your messages as your main mission is to protect the BBT and keep away any observation or evidence that contradicts this useless theory.
As you are requested to answer by Yes or No, then Real truth means one word: Yes or No!
If you can't use real truth in your answers (in order to keep the BBT alive) then please stay away from my thread.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 08:27:31
I have already answered your question.No, you did not.
You made silly noises about me being a liar.
But, in this case it is clear that I was telling the truth, yet you called me a liar.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:52:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:38:10
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to
Why did you do that?
Is it because you can not tell lies from truth?
Is that why you keep saying things that are not true?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 08:31:28
keep away any observation or evidence that contradicts this useless theory.There is no evidence which contradicts the BBT.
There's your paranoid fantasy which breaks the rules of physics, and your misunderstanding of how the BBT works.
And there's also your lack of understanding of how science, evidence, and common sense work.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 08:33:34
If you say "Yes" - then you justify my theory.That's just not true.
Sit down quietly an try to understand why not seeing a black cat in a coal cellar does not prove that the cat is not there.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/06/2021 19:46:23
If that isn't true, then why you are so afraid to answer my following questions with Yes or no?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:48:23That's just not true.
If you say "Yes" - then you justify my theory.
Sorry - how do you dare to carry the name of "truth" for nothing?
You can't even answer the following simple question with No or Yes:
Please answer with only one word - YES or NO on the following questions:
1. Do you confirm that in the following article?
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
There is no clear observation/evidence for matter from outside as it falls inwards into the accretion disc.
Yes or No?
2. Do you confirm that in the article about M87, there is clear observation /evidence for matter from the M87 accretion disc as it falls outwards or ejected outwards - as UFO?
Yes or No?
Please - Only one word (Yes or No) for each question!
You can't do so because you know that based on "truth" you need to say "Yes" or lie.
However:
If you say "Yes" - then you justify my theory.
If you say "No" - then you lie, and somehow you prefer to avoid lies at this phase.
So, instead of answering the question with Yes or No, you try to bypass it by unrealistic "truth".
How do you dare to raise the flag of true while you escape from true?
If you still have some minimal "true" then please answer my question and then I will tell you why the "yes" kills the BBT.
As you clearly can't offer real true in your messages, then please try to find a shelter when the true flag is raised..
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 19:50:24
If that isn't true, then why you are so afraid to answer my following questions with Yes or no?I'm not afraid. I already answered them.
And you jumped to an illogical conclusion. You think it justifies your nonsense.
That's why I suggest this.
Sit down quietly an try to understand why not seeing a black cat in a coal cellar does not prove that the cat is not there.
As you clearly can't offer real true in your messages,I did.
You called me a liar.
And I keep asking why you did that.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 11:25:18
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:52:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:38:10
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/06/2021 19:53:24
As you already answered my questions, why can't you just say if it is yes or no?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:46:23I'm not afraid. I already answered them.
If that isn't true, then why you are so afraid to answer my following questions with Yes or no?
Only one word please.
Yes or no?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 19:54:36
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:46:23
As you clearly can't offer real true in your messages,
I did.
You called me a liar.
And I keep asking why you did that.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:27:31
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 11:25:18
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:52:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:38:10
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
So it is clear that you are not worth listening to
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 19:55:49
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/06/2021 20:18:48
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this textWell, I do not recall that I have called you a liar because of this word.
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
If I did, then I'm apology.
If I answer your question, do you promise not to lie about what the answer means?I have never lied.
In the same token I expect you to say true.
So, are you willing now to answer my following questions with Yes or No?
1. Do you confirm that in the following article?
https://www.space.com/spaghettified-star-observed-near-black-hole
There is no clear observation/evidence for matter from outside as it falls inwards into the accretion disc.
Yes or No?
2. Do you confirm that in the article about M87, there is clear observation /evidence for matter from the M87 accretion disc as it falls outwards or ejected outwards - as UFO?
Yes or No?
Please - Only one word (Yes or No) for each question!
Post by: Kryptid on 25/06/2021 23:47:26
Please - Only one word (Yes or No) for each question!
This is rather akin to that old trick question of "Have you told people you are gay yet?"
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 23:49:46
I have never lied.You plainly did.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 19:50:24You even apologised for it
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:46:23
As you clearly can't offer real true in your messages,
I did.
You called me a liar.
And I keep asking why you did that.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 08:27:31
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/06/2021 11:25:18
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/06/2021 17:35:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:52:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 15:38:10
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 17:52:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on 31/05/2021 10:00:14
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:35:32
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:36:30
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 11:09:16
So.
You are the man who called me a liar because I said that this text
"And they found, as predicted by general relativity, that the black hole shadow - the circle in the middle of the glowing golden ring - was persistent throughout the time period, maintaining the same diameter over years. This is yet further confirmation of the nature of M87*, the researchers said."
does not include the word "perfect".
You called me a liar for saying something which is obviously true.
Quote from: Dave Lev
link=topic=80881.msg644509#msg644509 date=1624648728
link=topic=80881.msg644509#msg644509 date=1624648728
If I did, then I'm apology.
, though it took so long that the apology looks completely insincere.
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 23:53:58
If I answer your question, do you promise not to lie about what the answer means?Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 23:56:36
As you already answered my questions, why can't you just say if it is yes or no?If you were so rude that you didn't listen, why should I repeat myself?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/06/2021 16:45:56
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1011047410/city-sized-neutron-star-massive-black-hole-collide-gulps-universe-gravitational
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/07/2021 08:21:31
You even apologised for itLet's make it clear.
I have never lied.
However, I have agreed to apologies.
This isn't good enough for you as you have no answer to my key question.
You were requested to answer by yes or no.
You know by 100% that the answer must be yes.
However, you know that if you say yes, you kill the BBT.
If you say no - you lie.
Therefore, in order to avoid yourself again from lies, you prefer to focus on "lies".
So, instead of answering my technical question, you prefer to stay at the comfort zone of "lies".
Hence, please stay there as you wish.
In any case, I have proved that so far our scientists have no real observation for any matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
The idea that matter from the Bulge falls into that accretion disc is just pure imagination!
Hence, any one form the 10,000 BBT scientists that claim differently without real observation (by real article and by real observation) is liar by definition!!!
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/07/2021 08:47:09
I'm sure this will fall on deaf ears, but...Thanks for this article.
https://www.npr.org/2021/06/29/1011047410/city-sized-neutron-star-massive-black-hole-collide-gulps-universe-gravitational
In this article our scientists claim that:
"A black hole swallowing a neutron star — a star more massive than our sun but only about the size of a city — has been observed for the first time ever."
Those objects are located at a distance of one BLY away:
However, they don't offer any real measurements in order to justify that statement.
All they say is:
"We are pretty sure, based on what we do know, that for these particular systems, the neutron star would have just plunged into the black hole without emitting any light, without being ripped to pieces," Fishbach agrees.
Is it real?
How could they base science or "pretty sure"???
Is it pretty sure - "yes" or "no"
Sorry - science must be based on real measurements and not on "pretty sure".
In any case, this kind of collision between those two objects doesn't contradict my statement that nothing from outside falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
In this article, they do not claim that the neutron star falls into the BH' accretion disc.
They just claim that: " the neutron star would have just plunged into the black hole without emitting any light, without being ripped to pieces".
So, if this neutron star falls into the BH and stay there forever and ever - that does not contradict my statement that:
Nothing from outside falls into the SMBH' accretion disc. - Never and ever!
Hence, if something falls into the BH it falls to stay there forever!
Nothing from the Bulge would fall into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Nothing from outside would increase its orbital velocity to almost the speed of light and its temp to 10^9 as it falls into the accretion disc, stay there for some time just in order to be ejected outwards later on!
NEVER & EVER!!!
Any scientist that claims against it without clear observation is LIAR!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/07/2021 11:20:44
How could they base science or "pretty sure"When scientists in fields like this talk about "pretty sure" they typically mean something like a 6 sigma result.
And this is how they have described the accretion disk on this occasion.
"we expect that the two bodies circle each other in a spiral. Eventually the black hole would just swallow the neutron star like Pac-Man." You just didn't understand it.
So, yes, there's an accretion disk. An unusual one because of what's falling in, but an accretion disc nonetheless.
Now, have you made up your mind whether you are a liar or not?
If I answer your question, do you promise not to lie about what the answer means?Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/07/2021 15:09:08
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:47:09When scientists in fields like this talk about "pretty sure" they typically mean something like a 6 sigma result.
How could they base science or "pretty sure"
And this is how they have described the accretion disk on this occasion.
"we expect that the two bodies circle each other in a spiral. Eventually the black hole would just swallow the neutron star like Pac-Man." You just didn't understand it.
So, yes, there's an accretion disk. An unusual one because of what's falling in, but an accretion disc nonetheless.
Now, have you made up your mind whether you are a liar or not?
They say: "we expect that the two bodies circle each other in a spiral."
Based on that message, we can understand that they only observe this orbital system. However, they don't see that the Neutron star is spiraling inwards.
They just EXPACT that it will spiral inwards.
So, again - they don't have any valid measurement for that expectation of spiraling inwards.
They just expect or assume or imagine that somehow the neutron star would spiral inwards.
As I have stated, I don't care about their expectations/imagination or "pretty sure" wish.
I only care about real measurements.
As they didn't offer any valid measurements then their exaction is useless!
As you claim that their "pretty sure" mean something like a 6 sigma result without any real measurements to backup that statement, then you have a fatal error.
Science can't be base on "pretty sure" or expectation!
You need to prove your expectation.
Without it - any expectation is just imagination!
So, yes, there's an accretion disk. An unusual one because of what's falling in, but an accretion disc nonetheless.No, there is not even one word about accretion disc in this article.
Now, have you made up your mind whether you are a liar or not?
Therefore, how do you dare to claim that there is one?
If you claim that the matter of the Newton star would fall in and set the BH' accretion disc without any backup for that - then you prove who is the real liar!
Post by: Kryptid on 03/07/2021 17:43:57
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/07/2021 18:53:00
No, there is not even one word about accretion disc in this article.Do you realise that it is possible to talk about something without using the name?
That inbound spiral of stuff is an accretion disk.
It doesn't matter if they use those words or not.
As you claim that their "pretty sure" mean something like a 6 sigma result without any real measurements to backup that statement, then you have a fatal error.You just showed your ignorance again.
Science can't be base on "pretty sure" or expectation!
You need to prove your expectation.
OK, here's what the signal looks like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves#/media/File:LIGO_measurement_of_gravitational_waves.svg
You can see the waves get quicker and more intense as time moves on.
That's because the nearer the two things are to eachother, the stronger the gravitational pull, and the faster they orbit.
So we do know, from that signal, that the things are moving together, not apart.
So we do know that the stuff is falling in not out.
The only problem is that you don't understand this fact.
Why is that?
Now, have you made up your mind whether you are a liar or not?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 23:53:58
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 19:55:49
If I answer your question, do you promise not to lie about what the answer means?
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/07/2021 15:39:57
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:09:08
No, there is not even one word about accretion disc in this article.
Do you realise that it is possible to talk about something without using the name?
That inbound spiral of stuff is an accretion disk.
It doesn't matter if they use those words or not.
You and all the 10,000 scientists don't have a basic knowledge in orbital system.
Orbital object NEVER EVER spiral inwards and increasing their orbital velocity during that process.
OUR scientists have NEVER EVER observed any orbital system that spiraling inwards (reducing the radius) and increasing its velocity over time.
When we look at the solar system we don't see even one moon or planet that spiral inwards.
On the contrary, all the moons and all the planets in the solar system are spiraling outwards and losing velocity in this process.
Our scientists estimate that some moons are spiraling inwards (as triton).
They are wrong!
Newton formula is:
F= G M m / r^2
However, the real formula with reference to time must be:
F(t) = G M m / (r(t))
r(t) = r+Δr(t)
So, the radius of the orbital object is increasing over time, while the gravity force and the orbital velocity is reducing over time.
Hence, any orbital object in the entire universe is spiraling outwards!!!
Not inwards - but outwards.
This is real science!
You can't offer any real observation for spiraling inwards.
Therefore, those scientists that claim that the Neutron star is spiraling inwards - without real measurements - are LIAR!
Yes, all of them are liars!
There is no difference between our current mainstream to those "scientists" that 500 Years ago claimed that the Earth is the center of the Universe.
Just to remind you that those 500 years ago "scientists" were pretty sure that they know how the universe works.
However, we know today that all of them were wrong.
In the same token, our current scientists are pretty sure that the orbital object can spiral inwards.
The new generation in the next 500 Year would know that all our current scientists are wrong.
Sooner or later, students will learn my theory in the University!
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 11:20:44
Now, have you made up your mind whether you are a liar or not?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 23:53:58
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/06/2021 19:55:49
If I answer your question, do you promise not to lie about what the answer means?
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/07/2021 19:44:31
I have proved that so far our scientists have no real observation for any matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
The idea that matter from the Bulge falls into that accretion disc is just pure imagination!
Hence, any one form the 10,000 BBT scientists that claim differently without real observation (by real article and by real observation) is liar by definition!!!
Therefore, those scientists that claim that the Neutron star is spiraling inwards - without real measurements - are LIAR!
Yes, all of them are liars!
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
If you support them, then you are part of this liar' gang
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/07/2021 06:01:47
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?Dear BC
When we discuss about "lies" it's better for you to grab all those 10,000 liars and run into the nearest shelter.
They claim that they are "pretty sure" / "expect" that the Neutron star is spiraling into the main BH without any measurement to backup this expectation.
So far, with all the articles that you and Kryptid have offered, there is no clear measurement that matter from the bulge is spiraling inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc or even that an orbital object can spiral inwards.
Therefore - From now on any scientist that claim that:
1. Matter from the bulge is spiraling into the SMBH' accretion disc - is LIAR!
2. In orbital system the orbital object is spiraling inwards - is LIAR!
In our galaxy, all the stars & Planets & Moons are spiraling outwards over time.
All the mass for our solar system had been created in the MW SMBH' accretion disc.
The solar system had been formed in one of those G gas cloud that orbit around the SMBH.
Sooner or later the solar system would be ejected from the MW galaxy.
The mass for all the Billion stars at the Milky Way had been created there at the SMBH' accretion disc.
Not even a single star comes into the galaxy from outside.
Therefore
As long as you and all the 10,000 BBT scientists can't prove by real measurements that you have found an orbital object (even if it is a single Planet or moon) that is spiraling inwards - then don't dare to claim that you are "pretty sure" that this Neutron star is spiraling inwards!!!
However - be aware that we discuss about spiraling inwards - not falling inwards.
In other words - spiraling inwards means that the orbital object decreases its average radius and increases its orbital velocity over time.
In the meantime - Please keep your "pretty sure" and BBT expectation - deep in the garbage.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Post by: Kryptid on 05/07/2021 20:29:58
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 20:53:55
He doesn't seem to understand that the scientists idea of "pretty sure" are typically six sigma results i.e. 99.99966% probability of being real, rather than statistical glitches.
Also, since he thinks there are only 10,000 scientists who disagree with him, but the real figure is thousands of times more, it's impossible to work out who he might be libeling.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/07/2021 00:08:57
Post by: Origin on 06/07/2021 01:40:52
Question for both of you: do you think that this current argument is going to accomplish anything useful?Heck no, Dave is completely anti-science and refuses to learn anything. He believes himself to be a genius who cannot be wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/07/2021 05:20:34
Dave is completely anti-science and refuses to learn anything. He believes himself to be a genius who cannot be wrong.No
You miss the whole point.
I'm not anti real science, I'm only anti science fiction.
I claim that:
1. Matter from the bulge would NEVER EVER spiral into the SMBH' accretion disc.
2. In orbital system the orbital object would NEVER EVER spiral inwards.
This is real science as our scientists have NEVER EVER observed those activities.
Do you agree that Science must be based on real measurements and observation?
Hence, without real measurements and observations, even if all our 10,000 (or 100,000) scientists are pretty sure that those understanding are incorrect - their "pretty sure" is still irrelevant.
Therefore, I hope that you confirm that our science community has two options:
1. Offer real observations/measurements that contradict my statement/understanding.
2. Accept those understanding.
Post by: Kryptid on 06/07/2021 05:45:09
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 08:59:17
Question for both of you: do you think that this current argument is going to accomplish anything useful?I'm trying to achieve something useful; I'm trying to make sure that anyone looking casually at this web page doesn't get the mistaken impression that Dave might be right in any way.
But Dave can't even promise not to lie, so it's very hard to imagine that he thinks he's doing something "good".
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 09:07:16
2
Do you agree that Science must be based on real measurements and observation?
Yes, it should be.
Here's the observation
https://physicsworld.com/a/black-holes-merging-with-neutron-stars-have-been-spotted-by-ligo-virgo-for-the-first-time/
They have seen a neutron star spiraling into a black hole.
Similar observations with two black holes have already been made.
The signature of the events is the rising chirp in the gravity waves as the two objects get closer together (and gravity becomes stronger).
If you managed to fling something out from near the BH the pitch would fall with time.
So we know, from direct observation, that this signal is from something falling in.
And then we have Dave who still says
In orbital system the orbital object would NEVER EVER spiral inwards.even though we have repeated proof that it does.
So, only one question remains, is Dave deluded, or dishonest?
In a way, it hardly matters. Neither option is consistent with him making a useful contribution, so he should be prevented from making further counterproductive posts.
Post by: The Spoon on 06/07/2021 09:12:59
Well, that's two people who think this current argument is pointless. Anyone else?Given that Dave, some random on the Internet, thinks that thousands of scientists are lying and he is the soil possessor of the truth, I think we can class this as somebody delusional promoting conspiracy theories.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 10:11:17
Post by: Origin on 06/07/2021 15:47:51
Post by: The Spoon on 06/07/2021 15:55:14
Glad to see this train wreck was moved to It can't be true, to bad there isn't a section called It's not true to put it in...Likewise.
Cant understand why this nonsense thread has not been moved:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82016.100
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/07/2021 21:25:32
Yes, it should be.
Here's the observation
https://physicsworld.com/a/black-holes-merging-with-neutron-stars-have-been-spotted-by-ligo-virgo-for-the-first-time/
They have seen a neutron star spiraling into a black hole.
In the article it is stated:
"Gravitational waves from two separate mergers of a black hole with a neutron star have been seen by the LIGO observatories in the US and the Virgo observatory in Italy."
"Gravitational waves are ripples in space–time that are generated when pairs of massive objects such as black holes and neutron stars orbit each other in a rapid inspiral before merging."
In order to understand what causes gravitational waves?
https://spaceplace.nasa.gov/gravitational-waves/en/
"What causes gravitational waves?
The most powerful gravitational waves are created when objects move at very high speeds. Some examples of events that could cause a gravitational wave are:
when a star explodes asymmetrically (called a supernova)
when two big stars orbit each other
when two black holes orbit each other and merge"
Based on that information, I have several questions:
1. why those scientists offer a misleading information?
Why they claim: Gravitational waves are ripples in space–time that are generated when pairs of massive objects such as black holes and neutron stars orbit each other in a rapid inspiral before merging", while we know that the cause for gravitational wave could also be when a star explodes asymmetrically (called a supernova) or when two big stars orbit each other?
2. How those scientists know for sure that the gravitational wave that they have detected is due to the mergers of a black hole with a neutron star and not due to supernova (for example)?
3. As the gravitational wave is created at the moment of collision/final merge between those two objects, how do they know that they were spiraling inwards before the moment of collision and not just falling inwards?
In other words, spiraling inwards means (for me) that Newton gravity formula works at every moment. Hence, there is a perfect balance between the radius to the orbital velocity. Therefore, those objects could orbit around each other for years at ultra high orbital velocity before the final merge.
Falling inwards means that there is no balance. Therefore, they could set just few orbital cycles before the final merge.
4. How this observation could support the idea that matter from the Bulge could fall/spiral inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc and STAY there for quite long time (as we see at the M87 accretion disc)?
In this article they give an example for merge or collision between the two objects.
So, once it falls in - it falls to stay there forever.
However, our main task is to prove how matter from outside could spiral inwards and stay at the accretion disc (in order to be ejected outwards later on).
This is the most critical issue of our discussion!
So, do you agree that this article can't be used as an observation/evidence for matter that falls at the accretion disc and stay there (to be ejected later on)?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20
Here is what it looks like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves#/media/File:LIGO_measurement_of_gravitational_waves.svg
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/07/2021 23:16:41
Likewise.
Cant understand why this nonsense thread has not been moved:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82016.100
I brought this issue up with the other moderators recently and the problem is that we can't move just any thread with nonsense in it to "That CAN'T be true!" because then we'd have to move just about all of them there. The reason I've moved this one is in part because of just how long it has gone on with continual science denialism. How extreme a thread needs to be in order to move it is apparently a matter of opinion based on individual moderators.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/07/2021 18:22:05
Why do you ignore the actual data?Well, it is stated that they comparison the gravitational wave signals to the signals expected due to a black hole merger event.
Here is what it looks like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_observation_of_gravitational_waves#/media/File:LIGO_measurement_of_gravitational_waves.svg
Based on that I have few questions:
1. Why they don't try to compare it to the signals expected due to star explodes asymmetrically (called a supernova) or to two big stars orbit each other?
2. As it is stated specifically "a black hole merger event" why they claim in the article for a Neutron star with a BH merger event? Why just not two BHs?
3. How can they distinguish between mergers due to falling-in/collision to a merger due to spiraling in?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/07/2021 18:45:15
Dear Kryptid
I brought this issue up with the other moderators recently and the problem is that we can't move just any thread with nonsense in it to "That CAN'T be true!" because then we'd have to move just about all of them there. The reason I've moved this one is in part because of just how long it has gone on with continual science denialism. How extreme a thread needs to be in order to move it is apparently a matter of opinion based on individual moderators.
So far you couldn't offer even one real observation that contradicts my explanation!
If you monitor all the billions stars/BHs/Planets/moons in the MW galaxy, you won't find even one that is spiraling inwards.
In our solar system for example - there are quite many planets and moons.
Surprisingly - all of them (without exception) are spiraling outwards. (Yes, even Triton).
In the same token - matter from the Bulge NEVER and EVER spirals inwards into the accretion disc.
Therefore, our scientists are looking to protect their imagination by looking at orbital systems that are located millions or even billions LY away from us.
How many years it would take you all to understand that the BBT is the biggest mistake ever.
Just to remind you that 500 years ago our scientists we pretty sure that our planet is located at the center of the Universe.
So, maybe 500 years from now, the next generation would find that the BBT is nonsense and after all my explanation/theory is fully correct!
It's better for you to set the BBT theory at "That CAN'T be true!" ?
Actually, if you evaluate my thread based on true - you should put it on the highest level of real science!
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/07/2021 18:59:07
Why they don't try to compare it toThey did
How can they distinguish between mergers due to falling-in/collision to a merger due to spiraling in?Learn to read.
I already answered that.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/07/2021 01:29:24
Surprisingly - all of them (without exception) are spiraling outwards.
Funny, that contradicts what you admitted to me a while back, but I'll just leave this here:
I won't even bother to explain why this video proves you wrong, as I'm sure someone else will do it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/07/2021 14:03:55
Sorry – no one can twist the reality!Surprisingly - all of them (without exception) are spiraling outwards.
Funny, that contradicts what you admitted to me a while back, but I'll just leave this here:
I won't even bother to explain why this video proves you wrong, as I'm sure someone else will do it.
My message is correct by 100%!
You, BC and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know by 100% that so far we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it spirals inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc.
You all also know that all of those articles which you have offered so far, including this video clip, ca't be used as a confirmation for your wrong assumption.
Somehow all of you wish that one day you would find it.
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?You are the one that fully confirmed that so far we didn't find any observation to confirm the idea of matter that spiral inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc.
However, as you and all the other scientists continue to claim that this is real (without any evidence or observation for that) - then you all do not speak in the name of true.
Sorry - if you dare to claim again that we have an approval for matter that falls/spirals inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside without real observation - then you would be considered as a liar.
How can you ask me about lie while you lie in this issue?
Why is it so difficult for you to accept the reality that without real observation – the idea that matter from the bulge falls into the accretion disc might be wrong?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/07/2021 14:31:05
You, BC and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know by 100% that so far we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it spirals inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc.yes we have, most notably, recently, that data from LIGO and VIRGO.
You seem very determined to ignore reality here.
Those results really happened.
Are you able to put foreword a credible alternative explanation?
Also why won't you promise not to lie?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
I'm beginning to wonder if this thread is good for your mental health.
You seem to be deluded- in your belief that all the scientists are liars, and you seem to not know fact from fiction- hence your inability to say you won't lie.
That, taken together with the fact that you say things that are not true leads me to wonder how you cope in real life.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/07/2021 14:35:30
Sorry – no one can twist the reality!Then why do you keep trying to twist it?
Post by: The Spoon on 09/07/2021 14:41:30
The issue isn't just that it is nonsense, but it is factually incorrect. The OP on that thread is also not interacting with other forum members when they try to point out the errors in what he is stating. This to me is purely trolling for the hell of it.Likewise.
Cant understand why this nonsense thread has not been moved:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=82016.100
I brought this issue up with the other moderators recently and the problem is that we can't move just any thread with nonsense in it to "That CAN'T be true!" because then we'd have to move just about all of them there. The reason I've moved this one is in part because of just how long it has gone on with continual science denialism. How extreme a thread needs to be in order to move it is apparently a matter of opinion based on individual moderators.
If it is accepted that just about all of the threads in that section are nonsense, would it not be useful to have some kind of sub header pointing this out? Is there not a danger of people reading it and mistaking it for valid scientific fact?
Post by: Origin on 09/07/2021 16:30:52
If it is accepted that just about all of the threads in that section are nonsense, would it not be useful to have some kind of sub header pointing this out? Is there not a danger of people reading it and mistaking it for valid scientific fact?I agree with this. The section called "That CAN'T Be True", has the sub heading of, "Heard an unbelievable science or medicine fact? Post it here". I think this can be a source of confusion. The section seems to be for Strange But True topics. But it is actually a Goofy Pseudoscience section. Simply changing the word 'fact' to 'claim' would be a much better description of this section.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/07/2021 22:26:06
Unfortunately this forum hasn't got a "trashcan" thread, so "That can't be true" is the least bad option.
Just a thought, but can anyone think of a good reason why there's no "Debris" section for nonsense like Dave's?
I think it would be doubly helpful- it would discourage the trolls as well as cleaning up the real topics.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/07/2021 16:27:48
Dear BCQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:03:55yes we have, most notably, recently, that data from LIGO and VIRGO.
You, BC and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know by 100% that so far we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it spirals inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc.
You have a severe mistake.
The gravity waves can't be used as an indication for the activity at the SMBH' accretion disc.
In order to prove this statement, let me use the articles that you and Kryptid have offered:
Here's the observation
https://physicsworld.com/a/black-holes-merging-with-neutron-stars-have-been-spotted-by-ligo-virgo-for-the-first-time/
They have seen a neutron star spiraling into a black hole.
Similar observations with two black holes have already been made.
The signature of the events is the rising chirp in the gravity waves as the two objects get closer together (and gravity becomes stronger).
If you managed to fling something out from near the BH the pitch would fall with time.
Surprisingly - all of them (without exception) are spiraling outwards.Funny, that contradicts what you admitted to me a while back, but I'll just leave this here:
I won't even bother to explain why this video proves you wrong, as I'm sure someone else will do it.
The key differences between the SMBH' accretion disc (system A) to the BH (or Pulsar) to Neutron star (System B) are as follow:
1. The objects in each system.
In system A the main mass is a SMBH while the orbital matter is not a solid object but molecular ring.
The ratio between the mass of the objects is about 1,000,000 to 1.
In system B both objects are solid and have similar mass
Hence, the ratio between the two objects is about 1 to 1.
2. Orbital shape
System A - Circular shape (eccentricity close to zero).
System B - Elliptical shape. (eccentricity = 0.617). Hence, although at the periastron/periapsis the distance between the objects is less than the radius of the Sun, both objects are still solid. None of them brakes out.
3. Orbital velocity
System A - close to the speed of light (0.3c)
System B - about 300 Km/s (0.0001 c)
4. Gravitational wave
System A - No gravitational wave had ever been detected at this kind of system.
System B - Gravitational wave had been detected.
The gravitational wave is a key element for the Orbital_decay
In order to understand that key issue let me offer the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
"In orbital mechanics, orbital decay is a gradual decrease of the distance between two orbiting bodies at their closest approach (the periapsis) over many orbital periods. These orbiting bodies can be a planet and its satellite, a star and any object orbiting it, or components of any binary system. Orbits do not decay without some friction-like mechanism which transfers energy from the orbital motion. This can be any of a number of mechanical, gravitational, or electromagnetic effects. For bodies in low Earth orbit, the most significant effect is atmospheric drag"
Hence, in order for the orbital system to decay it is requested to have some friction-like mechanism which transfers energy from the orbital motion.
Therefore, system B have has the ability to generate gravity wave that force the orbital system to decay. This decay ends with a merger between the two objects. They are locked in a death orbital system that must end with a merger/collision!
However, in system A there is no gravitational wave. Therefore, there is no way to transfers energy from the orbital motion. Therefore, there is no possibility for the orbital system to decay. Hence, there is no way for the accretion disc to merge with the SMBH. Hence, we clearly observe the UFO (Ultra fast outflow) from the accretion disc.
However, you can believe that s2 star that orbits around the SMBH generate gravity waves - but so far we didn't find that wave.
My answer for that is as follow:
If S2 star or any orbital atom decay and transfer energy from its orbital motion it can't gain it back. Therefore, any gravitational wave must end with a merger.
Therefore, if S2 orbital motion would decay – it must end with a collision/merger with the SMBH.
Nothing would be ejected back from the accretion disc.
Hence, if your theory of gravity wave is applicable also for S2 star that orbits around the SMBH, then this must fall all the way into the SMBH. There is no way for it to hold at the accretion disc and then be ejected back as a UFO to the bulge.
As we clearly observe the UFO that is ejected from the accretion disc, it proves that this matter doesn't come from any falling star.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2021 16:30:30
But I still want to know why you refuse to say that you will not tell lies.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/07/2021 18:59:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/07/2021 16:39:38
And again, you are claiming that, because we have not seen the black cat in the coal cellar, it can not be there.No
But I still want to know why you refuse to say that you will not tell lies.
I claim that you have to take a decision.
If you claim that due to gravity wave S2 decays its orbital motion - then you MUST agree that this decay should end at the final stage with a SMBH merger/collision. Nothing from S2 would be ejected backwards/outwards.
However, if you claim that due to gravity wave S2 decays its orbital motion - but as it gets to the accretion disc it is ejected outwards - then you and all the other 100,000 scientists are LIAR!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2021 16:52:02
But I still want to know why you refuse to say that you will not tell lies.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/07/2021 14:31:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/07/2021 18:59:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2021 16:54:59
Therefore, there is no way to transfers energy from the orbital motion.Yes there is; some will be radiated way as heat.
But...
But I still want to know why you refuse to say that you will not tell lies.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/07/2021 14:31:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/07/2021 18:59:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?
Post by: Origin on 10/07/2021 17:00:13
then you and all the other 100,000 scientists are LIAR!!!You're delusional.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/07/2021 17:44:38
Therefore, system B have has the ability to generate gravity wave that force the orbital system to decay. This decay ends with a merger between the two objects. They are locked in a death orbital system that must end with a merger/collision!
So now you are admitting that your earlier claim here...
If you monitor all the billions stars/BHs/Planets/moons in the MW galaxy, you won't find even one that is spiraling inwards.
...was wrong?
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/07/2021 18:55:44
Excellent question.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 07/07/2021 18:45:15...was wrong?
If you monitor all the billions stars/BHs/Planets/moons in the MW galaxy, you won't find even one that is spiraling inwards.
We have found that gravity wave has an impact on an orbital system with similar mass objects (as two Bhs, Pulsar and Neutron star or binary system). So, the gravity wave decay the orbital motion in orbital system where the objects have similar mass.
That understanding doesn't contradict my statement as I was aiming for orbital system where the mass of the main object is significantly bigger than the orbital object.
Therefore, all the planets in the solar system are drifting outwards from the Sun, while all the moons are drifting away from the planets.
In the same token it won't have any real impact (or decay) on the orbital motion of the matter in the accretion disc.
Therefore, this matter must be ejected outwards as UFO.
However, I hope that you agree with the following:
If the gravity wave decays the orbital motion and the orbital object spirals/falls inwards - then it must fall all the way and merge with the other object.
There is no way for the orbital object to reduce the average radius (by decay) and then increase it.
However, I still wonder how a decay in orbital motion could increase the orbital velocity as the average radius is decreasing while the orbital motion is decreasing..
I totally reject that idea.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:27:48Yes there is; some will be radiated way as heat.
Therefore, there is no way to transfers energy from the orbital motion.
Heat has no impact on orbital motion.
This is pure imagination!
Please – it is OK to believe in the gravity wave, but you must accept the outcome of the gravity wave.
If the gravity wave forces the orbital object to fall inwards - then it must fall all the way to the merger point as Einstein has told us.
If you think that your idea is correct - then please offer the formula that sets the connection between heat to orbital motion.
First - Please set the formula that proves that due to the decay as the orbital object decreases its orbital radius (or ejected inwards) it should also increase its heat.
Second - Please set the formula that proves that due to that extra heat (as it is ejected inwards) at some point (at the accretion disc) it will suddenly stop the decay process and it would start to increase its orbital motion and finally be ejected outwards.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2021 19:21:33
I totally reject that idea.If you reject science, why are you on a science forum?
Heat has no impact on orbital motion.Do you know why it is cold at the tops of mountains?
This is pure imagination!
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:52:02
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:30:30
But I still want to know why you refuse to say that you will not tell lies.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/07/2021 14:31:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/07/2021 18:59:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?
Post by: Just thinking on 10/07/2021 19:33:14
However, we clearly know that our Universe must be much bigger than that.Hi, Dave you have mentioned a few times and questioned the size of the univers. Well, the largest optical and radio telescopes have a limit and the most distant galaxies seen to date are fully formed so that on its own implies that the universe continues on as for its actual size I very much doubt that it will ever be discovered as light and radiation can only be detected to the limit of time and the universe has already proven to extend beyond that of light and time its self. Some mistorys will stay just that.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/07/2021 20:45:43
If it is so easy, why don't you prove the following by real formula?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:55:44Do you know why it is cold at the tops of mountains?
Heat has no impact on orbital motion.
This is pure imagination!
If you think that your idea is correct - then please offer the formula that sets the connection between heat to orbital motion.
First - Please set the formula that proves that due to the decay as the orbital object decreases its orbital radius (or ejected inwards) it should also increase its heat.
Second - Please set the formula that proves that due to that extra heat (as it is ejected inwards) at some point (at the accretion disc) it will suddenly stop the decay process and it would start to increase its orbital motion and finally be ejected outwards.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/07/2021 20:53:58
No!then you and all the other 100,000 scientists are LIAR!!!You're delusional.
Any scientist that claims that matter from the Bulge should fall inwards due to gravity waves and then as it gets to the accretion disc it should be ejected backwards/outwards while gravity waves force it to merge with the main mass (SMBH) is the real delusional.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/07/2021 22:22:26
OK, you don't think you are deluded.No!then you and all the other 100,000 scientists are LIAR!!!You're delusional.
Any scientist that claims that matter from the Bulge should fall inwards due to gravity waves and then as it gets to the accretion disc it should be ejected backwards/outwards while gravity waves force it to merge with the main mass (SMBH) is the real delusional.
But
(1) you think everyone else is a liar and
(2) You can't be sure that you won't lie about it if I answer a question.
Do you really think that's normal?
Do you know why it is cold at the tops of mountains?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/07/2021 05:52:20
(1) you think everyone else is a liarWell,
1. Do you confirm that based on your message the matter from the Bulge should fall inwards due to gravity waves?
Yes Or No?
2. Do you confirm that based on Einstein formula any falling matter or star due to that gravity wave should end its way by merger/collision with the other orbital object?
Yes or no?
Therefore, as you claim that heat should help the falling matter to be ejected backwards without any real formula to confirm this nonsense:
Yes there is; some will be radiated way as heat.
Then you and all the other 100,000 scientists have a severe mistake!
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/07/2021 06:01:50
I have found a confirmation for my following explanation:
We have found that gravity wave has an impact on an orbital system with similar mass objects (as two Bhs, Pulsar and Neutron star or binary system). So, the gravity wave decay the orbital motion in orbital system where the objects have similar mass.
That understanding doesn't contradict my statement as I was aiming for orbital system where the mass of the main object is significantly bigger than the orbital object.
Therefore, all the planets in the solar system are drifting outwards from the Sun, while all the moons are drifting away from the planets.
In the same token it won't have any real impact (or decay) on the orbital motion of the matter in the accretion disc.
Therefore, this matter must be ejected outwards as UFO.
However, I hope that you agree with the following:
If the gravity wave decays the orbital motion and the orbital object spirals/falls inwards - then it must fall all the way and merge with the other object.
There is no way for the orbital object to reduce the average radius (by decay) and then increase it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
Gravitational radiation
Main article: Two-body problem in general relativity
Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites (when considering their orbital motion on time scales of centuries, decades, and less), but is noticeable for systems of compact objects, as seen in observations of neutron star orbits. All orbiting bodies radiate gravitational energy, hence no orbit is infinitely stable."
It is stated clearly:
"Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites "
So, it is also negligible for SMBH/S2 orbit.
Therefore, S2 MUST drift outwards as all planets in the solar system drift outwards from the Sun over time.
Hence, there is no way for any star or atom from the Bulge to fall into the SMBH!
This is real science.
Now it is your obligation to set this thread at real science status and move the idea that stars fall into the SMBH' accertion disc to this section of "That CAN'T be true!"
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/07/2021 07:58:05
If it is accepted that just about all of the threads in that section are nonsense, would it not be useful to have some kind of sub header pointing this out? Is there not a danger of people reading it and mistaking it for valid scientific fact?I have proved that my understanding about the accretion disc is 100% true!
Don't you think that there is a severe danger of people reading the imagination that stars fall into the SMBH' accretion disc and mistaking it for valid scientific fact?
Now it is your time to correct your reply.!
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/07/2021 10:38:01
I have proved that my understanding about the accretion disc is 100% true!No you have not.
If you had then we would believe you.
What you have done is demonstrate that you don't know the science- for example.
I totally reject that idea.
Heat has no impact on orbital motion.
This is pure imagination!
If you knew the science you could answer my question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 19:21:33
Do you know why it is cold at the tops of mountains?
But instead of admitting that you don't know what you are talking about, you make the insane leap to " everybody else is lying".
1. Do you confirm that based on your message the matter from the Bulge should fall inwards due to gravity waves?There's no point in me answering questions if you won't promise not to lie about the meaning of what I say.
Yes Or No?
And you refuse to do that.
Why won't you say that you won't lie?
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 16:54:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:52:02
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:30:30
But I still want to know why you refuse to say that you will not tell lies.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 08/07/2021 14:31:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on 07/07/2021 18:59:07
Quote from: Bored chemist on 06/07/2021 21:32:20
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/07/2021 08:26:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 20:07:06
Quote from: Bored chemist on 04/07/2021 17:34:15
Why can't you promise not to lie about this?
Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/07/2021 17:50:36
Yes I didQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:58:05No you have not.
I have proved that my understanding about the accretion disc is 100% true!
Please read it again:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decayIn other words - Due to the mass ratio between the Sun to a planet, the orbital decay due to gravity wave is negligible.
Gravitational radiation
Main article: Two-body problem in general relativity
Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites (when considering their orbital motion on time scales of centuries, decades, and less), but is noticeable for systems of compact objects, as seen in observations of neutron star orbits. All orbiting bodies radiate gravitational energy, hence no orbit is infinitely stable."
It is stated clearly:
"Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites "
So, it is also negligible for SMBH/S2 orbit.
Therefore, S2 MUST drift outwards as all planets in the solar system drift outwards from the Sun over time.
Hence, there is no way for any star or atom from the Bulge to fall into the SMBH!
This is real science.
Therefore - any planet in the solar system drifts outwards from the Sun over time.
As the mass ratio between the SMBH to S2 is similar to the Sun/planet ratio, then also in this orbital system the orbital decay due to gravity wave is negligible.
Hence, S2 (and any other star or gas cloud) at the bulge MUST drift outwards from the SMBH over time!
Therefore, your statement that Stars from the Bulge should fall inwards due to gravity wave is incorrect.
Those results are based on the gravity wave between "compact objects, as seen in observations of neutron star orbits" (as stated in the article).QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 08/07/2021 14:03:55yes we have, most notably, recently, that data from LIGO and VIRGO.
You, BC and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know by 100% that so far we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it spirals inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc.
You seem very determined to ignore reality here.
Those results really happened.
Are you so dishonest that you can not be sure you will not deliberately say something which you know is untrue?You are the one that proved his dishonest.
If you have some basic knowledge in science you must understand how gravity wave really works.
Therefore - from now on if you would dare to claim that S2 (or any other star or gas cloud) must drift inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc due to gravity wave - I would claim that you are not just dishonest but also LIAR!
This message is not just for you, but also to any other scientist (from all the 100,000 scientists) that would dare to claim again that stars falls into that accretion disc!
It's time for our scientists to update the science book.
It is forbidden to sell us lies and call it "science"
Shame on them!
Post by: Origin on 11/07/2021 17:57:02
It's time for our scientists to update the science book.Says the guy who is incapable of doing freshman physics?! You're unhinged.
It is forbidden to sell us lies and call it "science"
Shame on them!
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/07/2021 18:56:11
You are the one that proved his dishonest.No
The only person who has been proved dishonest in this thread is you.
Do you not remember?
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.msg644506;topicseen#msg644506
Post by: The Spoon on 11/07/2021 19:01:18
As demonstrated by him typing LIAR in upper case followed by exclamation marks.It's time for our scientists to update the science book.Says the guy who is incapable of doing freshman physics?! You're unhinged.
It is forbidden to sell us lies and call it "science"
Shame on them!
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/07/2021 03:31:19
The only person who has been proved dishonest in this thread is you.Well, as expected, instead of dealing with the message that contradicts your theory, you prefer to deal with the messenger.
You and Kryptid have stated that due to gravity waves, orbital stars should spiral inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc.
However, now we clearly know that the gravity wave has negligible decay impact on orbital systems as Sun-planet or SMBH-S2 system:Surprisingly - all of them (without exception) are spiraling outwards.
Funny, that contradicts what you admitted to me a while back, but I'll just leave this here:
I won't even bother to explain why this video proves you wrong, as I'm sure someone else will do it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
Gravitational radiation
Main article: Two-body problem in general relativity
Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites (when considering their orbital motion on time scales of centuries, decades, and less), but is noticeable for systems of compact objects, as seen in observations of neutron star orbits. All orbiting bodies radiate gravitational energy, hence no orbit is infinitely stable."
It is stated clearly:
"Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites "
So, it is also negligible for SMBH/S2 orbit.
Therefore, S2 MUST drift outwards as all planets in the solar system drift outwards from the Sun over time.
Hence, there is no way for any star or atom from the Bulge to fall into the SMBH!
This is real science.
In other words - Due to the mass ratio between the Sun to a planet, the orbital decay due to gravity wave is negligible.
Therefore - any planet in the solar system drifts outwards from the Sun over time.
As the mass ratio between the SMBH to S2 is similar to the Sun/planet ratio, then also in this orbital system the orbital decay due to gravity wave is negligible.
Hence, S2 (and any other star or gas cloud) at the bulge MUST drift outwards from the SMBH over time!
Therefore, your statement that Stars from the Bulge should fall inwards due to gravity wave is incorrect.
Hence, when the ratio between the main object mass to the orbital object is significantly high (in SMBH-S2 the ratio is: 1,000,000 to 1), the orbital object is spiraling outwards - exactly as I have stated long time ago.
Actually even at a lower ratio, the orbital object must spiral outwards.
For example In the Earth- Moon system the ratio is only 81 to 1 and still it is high enough to set negligible orbital decay due to gravity wave. Therefore, the moon is also spiraling outwards.
Conclusions:
1. Our scientists have NEVER & EVER observed any matter/star/gas cloud as it spirals inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc. (Not just to fall inwards for merging with the SMBH - but to stay at a circular orbital cycle near the SMBH' event horizon)
2. The theory that due to gravity wave star should spiral inwards into the SMBH direction - had been proved as incorrect.
Therefore - The imagination that the matter in the SMBH' accretion disc is there due to falling/spiraling objects from the bulge around the SMBH is absolutely wrong!
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/07/2021 08:58:31
When you understand the bit about a black cat in a coal cellar, get back to us about the scientists not seeing things.
Well, as expected, instead of dealing with the message that contradicts your theory,The message just said I was wrong, but (see above) the messanger is mistake or dishonest.
I'm trying to find out which.
Why won't you promise not to lie?
Why is it so hard for you to be honest?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/07/2021 12:07:39
We discuss about the orbital motions around the SMBH:
You confirm that you were wrong:
So we all agree at this point that the gravity waves between the SMBH-S2 can't spiral the S2 inwards.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:31:19The message just said I was wrong,
Well, as expected, instead of dealing with the message that contradicts your theory,
ut (see above) the messanger is mistake or dishonest.Why do you keep on with personal attack?
I'm trying to find out which.
Why won't you promise not to lie?
Why is it so hard for you to be honest?
If there is something that is incorrect in my message, please specify it.
If you think that I lie on something, please specify it.
However, it is your obligation to backup your understanding by real article.
Therefore, if you really think that:
When you realise that black holes don't have oceans, get back to us about things spiralling out. When you understand the bit about a black cat in a coal cellar, get back to us about the scientists not seeing things.Then - Please show how black holes without oceans or a black cat in a coal cellar can force S2 to spiral inwards
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/07/2021 13:00:41
You confirm that you were wrong:No, I did not.
Why did you claim I did?
Why did you say something that was not true?
So we all agree at this point that the gravity waves between the SMBH-S2 can't spiral the S2 inwards.No.
We do not agree that at all.
Why did you claim we did?
Why did you say something that was not true?
Why did you tell those lies?
Why do you keep on with personal attack?It isn't a personal attack.
I am just trying to understand why you keep saying things (like the two points above) which are obviously not true.
Why do you do it?
Do you think it makes you look clever or something?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/07/2021 20:04:45
Sorry. I was quite sure that based on my arguments you had been convinced that matter/stars from the Bulge can't spiral inwards into the accretion disc.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:07:39No, I did not.
You confirm that you were wrong:
Why did you claim I did?
So, in order to prevent any further misunderstanding, please let me know which one of the following is correct or incorrect:
1. Is it correct that you and Kryptid have stated that due to the gravity waves matter/stars from the bulge must spiral inwards into the accretion disc?
Yes or No?
2. Do you understand by now that due to the high ratio between the SMBH and any orbital stars the gravity wave is negligible and therefore there is no orbital decay to force the orbital star to spiral inwards
Yes or no?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/07/2021 20:52:54
Sorry. I was quite sure that based on my arguments you had been convincedWhat caused that hallucination?
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/07/2021 11:04:39
What caused that hallucination?You!
I assume that for the last 100 replies we focus on one key issue:
How the SMBH' accretion disc gets its matter?
Unfortunately, you do not answer the following questions:
1. Is it correct that you and Kryptid have stated that due to the gravity waves matter/stars from the bulge must spiral inwards into the accretion disc?
Yes or No?
2. Do you understand by now that due to the high ratio between the SMBH and any orbital stars the gravity wave is negligible and therefore there is no orbital decay to force the orbital star to spiral inwards
Yes or no?
So, please offer your answer (and backup it by real article) or keep yourself away from this tread.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/07/2021 12:41:49
So, please offer your answer (and backup it by real article) or keep yourself away from this tread.As I have explained, there's no point me posting a reply if you are going to lie about it as I pointed out that you did here.
You confirm that you were wrong:No, I did not.
Why did you claim I did?
Why did you say something that was not true?So we all agree at this point that the gravity waves between the SMBH-S2 can't spiral the S2 inwards.No.
We do not agree that at all.
Why did you claim we did?
Why did you say something that was not true?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/07/2021 12:42:20
Most of your questions can be answered by pointing out that things generally fall down rather than up.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/07/2021 03:15:46
I have never lied!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 11:04:39As I have explained, there's no point me posting a reply if you are going to lie about it as I pointed out that you did here.
So, please offer your answer (and backup it by real article) or keep yourself away from this tread.
However, as I have explained, you fully support the LIE that star/matter from the bulge spirals/falls into the accretion disc due to gravity wave. This LIE is incorrect as I have proved that due to the SMBH-S2 ratio the orbital decay is negligible.
We also have NEVER EVER observed any star as it spirals into the SMBH' accretion disc!
Therefore, any scientist (including you) that would dare to claim again that the matter in the accretion disc gets from outside (the Bulge) - is LAIR!
So please - before you hold the "lie flag", grab all the other 100,000 BBT scientists and run into the nearest "lie shelter"!
Don't dare to get out before all of you fully confirm that we have no evidence for the imagination/LIE that matter from outside falls into the SMBH' accretion disc!
Shame on you - all of you!
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/07/2021 05:09:54
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
"..astronomers studying Sgr A* (the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy) were surprised to notice that less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed – almost everything else gets ejected. Who knew that a black hole could be such a picky eater"
"When astronomers used Chandra to study Sgr A*, in one of its longest ever observations, they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon.."
So, our scientists clearly see that the matter is ejected outwards.
However, the have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls in.
Even so, the call that matter in the accretion disc as: "Iinfalling material"
So, I calim that as they have NEVER EVER observed any material or star as it falls inwards from the Bulge - then there is no "infalling material".
Therefore, the statement of "infalling material" is a clear LIE!
Post by: Kryptid on 14/07/2021 06:01:14
So, I calim that as they have NEVER EVER observed any material or star as it falls inwards from the Bulge - then there is no "infalling material".
Do you believe that anything that we can't see doesn't exist?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 08:37:02
I have never lied!I have pointed out, repeatedly, where you did.
So, please offer your answer (and backup it by real article) or keep yourself away from this tread.As I have explained, there's no point me posting a reply if you are going to lie about it as I pointed out that you did here.You confirm that you were wrong:No, I did not.
Why did you claim I did?
Why did you say something that was not true?So we all agree at this point that the gravity waves between the SMBH-S2 can't spiral the S2 inwards.No.
We do not agree that at all.
Why did you claim we did?
Why did you say something that was not true?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 08:42:43
Apparently, he does believe that.So, I calim that as they have NEVER EVER observed any material or star as it falls inwards from the Bulge - then there is no "infalling material".
Do you believe that anything that we can't see doesn't exist?
I have tried to explain it to him by using the example of a black cat in a coal cellar, but he does not seem clever enough to understand it.
I'm not sure that this thread- which seems to be feeding his delusional beliefs- is good for his mental health.
He's clearly deeply troubled by this idea he has- he wants to tell us it's true, but he must have some understanding that it is nonsense or he would be prepared to promise not to lie about it.
I wonder if it might be better to ban him for his own good, so he can focus on other things, more closely related to reality.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/07/2021 13:39:17
So, I calim that as they have NEVER EVER observed any material or star as it falls inwards from the Bulge - then there is no "infalling material".Do you believe that anything that we can't see doesn't exist?
Well, I do believe that if we don't see something - then there is a possibility that it doesn't exist.
Let me ask you the following:
Do you believe that if we can't see a monster under our bed then it does exist?
Do you believe that if we can't see Albert Einstein today then he does exist/live?
Do you believe that if we can't see the Big Foot Man in the forest then it does exist?
Therefore, as I have stated - if we can't see something then there is a possibility that it doesn't exist!
So let's make it clear:
Our Scientists have NEVER EVER see any matter that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Therefore, there is good possibility that what they see (or what they do not see) is correct.
In other words - as they have never ever observe any falling matter, then there is a possibility that matter doesn't fall inwards from the bulge into the SMBH' accretion disc.
In the following article it is stated the SMBH is a picky eater:
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/
"..astronomers studying Sgr A* (the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way Galaxy) were surprised to notice that less than 1% of the gas and dust drawn into its gravitational field ever get consumed – almost everything else gets ejected. Who knew that a black hole could be such a picky eater"
"When astronomers used Chandra to study Sgr A*, in one of its longest ever observations, they found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon.."
Hence, based Chandra to study Sgr A*, our scientists have found that more than 99% of the infalling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon.."
So, our scientists clearly see/observe that the matter is ejected outwards.
However, we all agree that they have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls in.
Therefore, as our scientists clearly see matter that is ejected outwards from the accretion disc but they have never ever observed any matter that falls in then the accretion disc is actually excretion disc.
Why is it so difficult to accept the observation as is?
When Newton had observed that the apple is falling in, he didn't claim that this apple was first falling out and then falling in.
He just accepted the observation that if the apple is disconnected from the tree it must fall down.
In the same token, we clearly observe that the matter from the SMBH' accretion disc is ejected outwards.
Therefore, as we do not see any matter that falls into that accretion disc - then the only outcome is that the matter in the accretion disc is created there by the SMBH power!
Hence, any scientists that call the matter in the accretion disc as "infalling material" without any backup for this imagination - lie to himself and lie to all of us.
Why Is it so impossible mission for our scientists to accept the idea that if they don't see a falling matter - then there is a possibility that there is no falling matter?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 13:43:36
Therefore, as I have stated - if we can't see something then there is a possibility that it doesn't exist!Finally, you accept that not seeing something is not proof that it isn't there; just a "possibility" that it isn't there.
Now, let's consider the more relevant case of a black cat in a coal cellar.
It would be very very hard to see.
Do you accept that not seeing it is not proof that it is not there?
In fact, it is only sensible to expect that you will not see it.
Not seeing the cat does not tell you anything about whether the cat is there or not.
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.
Here is a picture of the cellar.
cellar.jpg (4.42 kB . 619x394 - viewed 2412 times)Is the cat there or not?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 13:44:13
I have never lied!I have pointed out, repeatedly, where you did.So, please offer your answer (and backup it by real article) or keep yourself away from this tread.As I have explained, there's no point me posting a reply if you are going to lie about it as I pointed out that you did here.You confirm that you were wrong:No, I did not.
Why did you claim I did?
Why did you say something that was not true?So we all agree at this point that the gravity waves between the SMBH-S2 can't spiral the S2 inwards.No.
We do not agree that at all.
Why did you claim we did?
Why did you say something that was not true?
Post by: Kryptid on 14/07/2021 14:33:20
Well, I do believe that if we don't see something - then there is a possibility that it doesn't exist.
That's not what I asked.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/07/2021 17:16:46
Finally, you accept that not seeing something is not proof that it isn't there; just a "possibility" that it isn't there.Well, what do we really see?
Now, let's consider the more relevant case of a black cat in a coal cellar.
It would be very very hard to see.
Do you accept that not seeing it is not proof that it is not there?
I hope that we all agree that we clearly see matter as it is ejected outwards from the accretion disc.
So, we see the matter as they ejected outwards, but we don't see any matter that is falling inwards.
Hence, with regards to your example of the black cat in a coal cellar:
If all the cats were back, then it is not expected to see any cat - not as it falls on the coal cellar and not as it jump away from that cellar.
However, as we clearly see them jumping outwards from the cellar it is clear that their color is not so black.
If the cats were really black - it was impossible to see them as they jump in or jump out.
Actually we see them all so clearly that we should agree that their color is white (If you insist - Let's agree on gray). Therefore the assumption that they are totally back is just incorrect.
If we see them jumping outwards, we also should see them jumping inwards.
Therefore, if we see them jumping outwards, but we don't see them jumping inwards - then we have to agree that none of them is jumping inwards.
Therefore - all of those cats that we clearly see jumping away from the coal cellar had been created over there at the coal cellar. As they became big enough they jump away from that coal cellar.
In the same token:
We clearly see all of that matter that is ejected outwards from the SMBH' accretion disc.
Therefore, if we see the matter as it is ejected outwards, there is no technical limitation that could prevent us from not seeing the matter as it falls in.
Hence, as we don't see any matter that falls in, then the only solution is that there is no matter that really falls in.
Therefore - the matter that was ejected from the accretion disc must be created over there at the accretion disc.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 17:22:07
Is the cat there or not?
We still need to sort out your grasp of honesty.I have never lied!I have pointed out, repeatedly, where you did.So, please offer your answer (and backup it by real article) or keep yourself away from this tread.As I have explained, there's no point me posting a reply if you are going to lie about it as I pointed out that you did here.You confirm that you were wrong:No, I did not.
Why did you claim I did?
Why did you say something that was not true?So we all agree at this point that the gravity waves between the SMBH-S2 can't spiral the S2 inwards.No.
We do not agree that at all.
Why did you claim we did?
Why did you say something that was not true?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/07/2021 17:37:24
You are so pathetic.
You have offered the example of black cat in the coal cellar and now you can't answer my message.
Therefore, it's better for you to force yourself at the insulted Lie cube.
Please don't forget to cover yourself with your coal cellar.
Stay there forever and ever as it is the safer location for you!
Don't go out as you might find that your imagination is totally unrealistic.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/07/2021 17:40:22
Well, I do believe that if we don't see something - then there is a possibility that it doesn't exist.
That's not what I asked.
So what is your intention?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 17:52:07
You have offered the example of black cat in the coal cellarI asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Is the cat there or not?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/07/2021 18:11:29
Is the cat there or not?
Wow!
We all proud of you that you took the difficult decision and moved away from your comfort zone of the insulted lie cube (even if it is just for one Pico-second). Don't forget to jump backwards to this cube ASAP...
With regards to your question:
If we can't see any cat as it is ejected inwards or outwards - no one can claim that it is there or not!
Not even me.
However, that is not the case.
We see that this cat is ejected outwards from the coal cellar. Therefore, we must agree that it is/was there.
So, it is/was there by 100%.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 18:14:02
asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/07/2021 19:39:57
asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?
Is it a new tactics?
Instead of going back to your comfort insulted lie cube, you just ask the same question as you didn't get any.
At least you show some improvement.
Enjoy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 20:05:08
Is it a new tactics?No.
Asking questions is not a new tactic.
asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/07/2021 00:47:09
So what is your intention?
What I asked you was a yes or no question, not an essay question.
To remind you, this was my question: do you believe that anything that we can't see doesn't exist?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/07/2021 03:41:21
So what is your intention?
What I asked you was a yes or no question, not an essay question.
To remind you, this was my question: do you believe that anything that we can't see doesn't exist?
The answer to your question is: NO
However, I claim that your question doesn't reflect the reality of the accretion disc.
If for example we couldn't see any matter as it is coming in or ejected out from the accretion disc- then your question was perfectly ok.
In this case we all can agree that: as the matter is there in the accretion disc there is high chance that it came from outside.
However, in our case, we clearly see the matter as it is ejected outwards from the accretion disc.
Therefore, it was incorrect to claim that we don't see ANYTHING, as we see clearly the matter moving in one direction - while they are ejected outwards from the accretion disc.
Hence - if we can see the matter in one direction (ejected outwards), there is no technical limitation to prevent from us to see it in the other direction (falling inwards direction).
Therefore, as we don't see any matter in the other direction (falling inwards) then the simple answer is - That matter/star from outside doesn't fall inwards!
Conclusion:
The chance that we miss all the stars/matter as they fall into the accretion disc from outside, while we deeply observe so many SMBH' accretion discs (some of them at a distance of 1 Billion LY) for more than 50 years with a supper advanced technology (and we clearly see everywhere the ejected matter) - Is Zero!
Therefore. Nothing really falls inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc from outside!
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/07/2021 06:18:59
Based on the above explanation - The idea that we can see the ejected matter, but we can't see the infalling matter - Can't be true!
Therefore - it is your obligation to set this imagination of our current mainstream in this location (That can't be true) and move this tread to the real science location!!!
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/07/2021 08:38:27
However, I claim that your question doesn't reflect the reality of the accretion disc.That's because you don't understand it.
as we don't see any matter in the other direction (falling inwards) then the simple answer is - That matter/star from outside doesn't fall inwards!
A mentally competent adult would remember that this difference was already explained.
The stuff falling in is, like the cat in the coal cellar, black.
The stuff flung out has just been "kicked" out by collisions and is bright.
Why do you ignore this difference?
Dear KryptidThat viewpoint is based on not understanding the reality, isn't it?
Based on the above explanation - The idea that we can see the ejected matter, but we can't see the infalling matter - Can't be true!
Therefore - it is your obligation to set this imagination of our current mainstream in this location (That can't be true) and move this tread to the real science location!!!
So that viewpoint is what should be put in the bin, shouldn't it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/07/2021 08:39:46
Is not answering questions- i.e. not doing science, your "tactic"?Is it a new tactics?No.
Asking questions is not a new tactic.asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/07/2021 16:37:32
A mentally competent adult would remember that this difference was already explained.Sorry, your answer doesn't reply the key question:
The stuff falling in is, like the cat in the coal cellar, black.
The stuff flung out has just been "kicked" out by collisions and is bright.
Why do you ignore this difference?
How could it be that we clearly see the stuff that flung out from the accretion disc into the bulge, but we have never ever see any stuff/matter/star as it falls from the Bulge into the SMBH' accretion disc?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/07/2021 17:36:06
How could it be that we clearly see the stuff that flung out from the accretion disc into the bulge, but we have never ever see any stuff/matter/star as it falls from the Bulge into the SMBH' accretion disc?I did answer it, repeatedly.
You refuse to listen.
Here we go again.
The stuff that is falling in is just "stuff"- mainly hydrogen.
It is not hot and it emits no light it is black- like a black cat.
So you do not see it.
The stuff that is coming out is DIFFERENT; it has just been flung out by a violent collision or ripped up by a magnetic field.
It is white hot and glowing.
So, your problem is that you do not understand why we see the luminous cat in the cellar, but do not see the black cat.
As I said.
Any mentally competent adult would understand this.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/07/2021 17:37:27
Is it a new tactics?No.
Asking questions is not a new tactic.asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/07/2021 20:13:03
The stuff that is falling in is just "stuff"- mainly hydrogen.Sorry - you have a severe mistake!
It is not hot and it emits no light it is black- like a black cat.
So you do not see it.
Our scientists don't need the gas to be hot in order to see it. They clearly can observe cold gas cloud and/or hot gas cloud without any difficulties:
https://www.space.com/milky-way-mysterious-cold-gas.html
"We've observed there's not only hot gas coming from the center of our galaxy, but also cold and very dense gas. This cold gas is much heavier, so moves around less easily," McClure-Griffiths said in the same statement."
So, we have the technology to observe cold gas cloud and hot gas cloud.
Hence, if a cold gas was really falling in - we could see it very clearly.
Therefore, your statement that "It is not hot and it emits no light it is black- like a black cat" is a pure imagination.
We have the technology to see gas/stuff at any temp (cold or hot). If that cold gas/stuff was really falling inwards - we could see it so clearly as a white cat over a coal cellar.
Hence - your hope that we do not see the falling stuff as it is cold is totally incorrect!
Therefore - as we clearly see Hot and cold gas cloud as they are coming from the center of our galaxy while we don't see any falling gas/stuff (cold or hot) then it proves that nothing (absolutely Nothing) falls in!
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/07/2021 20:30:10
So, your problem is that you do not understand why we see the luminous cat in the cellar, but do not see the black cat.You problem is that you (and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists) don't wish to accept the reality based on the clear observation.
You refuse to understand that as we don't observe any falling stuff (cold or hot) than nothing really falls in.
You do so as this observation/understanding kills your lovely BBT nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/07/2021 20:36:51
Post by: Dave Lev 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.Let me tell you something about the black cat over a coal cellar:
So the view of the cellar does not tell you anything at all about the presence (or absence) of the cat.
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!
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/07/2021 15:32:03
Let me offer you the following example:
You stay in your room.
No one else is there.
You look under the bed and see there is no
You look under the carpet and see there is no
You look everywhere in the room and see there is no
So, Do you believe that the
So what else is need for your BBT mind to understand that what we see is what we have?I'm still waiting for real evidence; not seeing something (especially when it is invisible) is not grounds to believe it does not exist.
I'm also waiting for you to explain the error in this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
And I'm also still waiting for you to respond property to this.
Is it a new tactics?No.
Asking questions is not a new tactic.asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?
[/quote
And,while we are at it.
Why can't you promise not to tell lies?
Is it because you know that the truth is the opposite of what you are saying?
Is it because you know that things fall down, rather than up?]
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/07/2021 15:34:39
Do you know that the cat' eyes reflect light?Yes.
But they don't emit light.
And the point about coal cellars is they don't have lighting.
So there is no light to reflect.
Did you think you had a point?
I have full trust in the supper advanced technology of our scientists.It doesn't matter how good your technology is if the thing you are looking for is invisible.
Particularly iit is faraway, poorly lit and right next to something bright.
Post by: Just thinking on 16/07/2021 15:48:39
What we see is what we have!I think that what has been observed thus far is an object that has great mass and appears to bend the light that is in the foreground as the depth of field at such a vast distance cannot prove nor disprove the source of transmission. As for the movement of materials whether inwards or outwards this is an interpretation of the foreground light.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/07/2021 17:27:08
Dear BCQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:13:25I'm still waiting for real evidence; not seeing something (especially when it is invisible) is not grounds to believe it does not exist.
So what else is need for your BBT mind to understand that what we see is what we have?
I have already offered you the requested "real evidence"
You have stated that we can't see a stuff that is cold and Therefore you were sure that the falling cold stuff is invisible..
I have PROVED by real articale that our scientists have the technology to see a COLD stuff and/or a HOT stuff.
So you have totally failed with your argument that the falling stuff is cold and therefore it is invisible.
As our scientists can see the stuff (cold or hot) while it is ejected outwards from the SMBH' accretion disc, then there is no technical limitation to prevent them for observing that stuff as it falls in.
If you still keep on with your imagination that the falling stuff is invisible - then please let your imagination to offer other argument.
Please remember not to use again the "Cold stuff" argument as you have already lost it.
What kind of limitation do you carry in your mind that prevents you to understand that: "not seeing something (especially when it is
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/07/2021 17:49:40
That argument could be relevant if also the ejected matter was also invisible.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:13:25It doesn't matter how good your technology is if the thing you are looking for is invisible.
I have full trust in the supper advanced technology of our scientists.
Particularly iit is faraway, poorly lit and right next to something bright.
However, we clearly see the ejected matter under those limitations of: "Particularly iit is faraway, poorly lit and right next to something bright"
Therefore, if we can see the ejected matter we should also see the falling matter (if there was a falling matter).
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/07/2021 17:51:23
That argument could be relevant if also the ejected matter was also invisible.THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY; THE STUFF FALLING IN IS NOT GLOWING.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/07/2021 18:17:45
I have PROVED by real articale that our scientists have the technology to seeYou keep ignoring the more detailed explanations from a scientist.
I am a scientist and, unlike you, I understand what the difficulties are.
I did point them out to you
And now you need to look at the resolution and sensitivity.
but you never listen to anything that doesn't agree with your delusion.
You refuse to learn from the people who are here, on this site and who know better than you.
Why is that?
Why do you want to stay ignorant?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/07/2021 19:53:39
THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY; THE STUFF FALLING IN IS NOT GLOWING.Why is it?
Our scientists can observe a cold stuff/matter.
Hence, as the temp of the falling matter is identical to the temp of the ejected matter, how could it be that "THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/07/2021 20:04:49
Because it is hot.THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY; THE STUFF FALLING IN IS NOT GLOWING.Why is it?
Our scientists can observe a cold stuff/matter.
Hence, as the temp of the falling matter is identical to the temp of the ejected matter, how could it be that "THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY"?
Our scientists can observe a cold stuff/matter.Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there which makes to too difficult.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/07/2021 20:23:58
So you are using again the argument of "Hot"QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:53:39Because it is hot.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 17:51:23
THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY; THE STUFF FALLING IN IS NOT GLOWING.
Why is it?
Our scientists can observe a cold stuff/matter.
Hence, as the temp of the falling matter is identical to the temp of the ejected matter, how could it be that "THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY"?
However, I have proved that even if the ejected matter is cold, our scientists can observe it.
Did you already forget it?
So, if the ejected matter is cold and still visible to our scientists, then why the falling matter at exactly the same cold temp should be invisible?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2021 00:00:57
However, I have proved that even if the ejected matter is cold, our scientists can observe it.No. I didn't "forget" it.
Did you already forget it?
I answered it
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:53:39
Our scientists can observe a cold stuff/matter.
Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there which makes to too difficult.
and you ignored it because
you never listen to anything that doesn't agree with your delusion.
You refuse to learn from the people who are here, on this site and who know better than you.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/07/2021 04:47:05
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 20:04:49What do you mean by that reply?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:53:39Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there which makes to too difficult.
Our scientists can observe a cold stuff/matter.
Let's make it clear:
1. Cold/Hot stuff - You have stated that we can't see the falling stuff as it is cold.
I hope that by now you do understand that we can observe a cold stuff.
Therefore, you don't claim any more that the falling stuff is cold.
2. THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY - You have stated that THE EJECTED MATTER IS GLOWING BRIGHTLY
I hope that by now you do understand that at the same temp the falling stuff would glow exactly as the ejected stuff.
Therefore, you don't claim any more that the falling stuff isn't GLOWING BRIGHTLY.
3. Visible/Invisible stuff - You have stated that we can't see the falling stuff as it is invisible.
I hope that by now you do understand that the falling stuff should be visible exactly as the ejected stuff.
Therefore, you don't claim any more that the falling stuff is invisible
Hence, lets confirm that you have abandon the following arguments about the matter that falls in:
1. The falling stuff is cold - Incorrect argument
2. The falling stuff isn't glowing - Incorrect argumentt
3. The falling stuff is invisible - Incorrect argument
Therefore, now you offer new argument:
Let's read it again:
"Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there which makes to too difficult."
So, do you mean that based on your understanding it is expected that the total falling matter must be higher than the ejected matter (as some matter must also be eaten by the SMBH monster)
Hence, as there is more stuff that falls in than the stuff that is ejected outwards - we can easily see the matter that is ejected outwards but it is difficult to see the falling matter.
Is it real? Are you sure about it? Would you kindly explain how it works?
You are using the word "sometimes".
Why is it?
If it is just sometimes "yes" why sometimes it can't be "no" or vice versa?
Hence If:
Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there which makes to too difficult.
Then also
Sometimes, if there's not a;lot of it and nothing else there which makes
Therefore, based on this "sometimes" you have to agree that sometimes we have to see the falling matter.
However, this isn't the case as we have NEVER & EVER see any falling matter.
So please would you update your statement as follow:
A. Forever and ever
or
B. Sometimes, the falling matter is invisible and sometimes it must be visible.
Hence - If sometimes due to your idea (what ever it is) the falling matter is invisible, then sometimes it must be visible.
However, as we have NEVER EVER observe any falling matter, then this argument is clearly incorrect
So far I have eliminated all your three main arguments.
I hope that you agree that this new one is also incorrect
Why don't you call the other 100,000 BBT scientists and ask for help with some more arguments?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2021 15:09:47
You are using the word "sometimes".Because I don't mean "never" and I don't mean "always".
I hope that by now you do understand that we can observe a cold stuff.Yes.
I have seen snow.
Do you now understand this?
Sometimes, if there's a ;lot of it and nothing else there which makes to too difficult.
Let's try the cat analogy again.
If the cat (regardless of colour and luminous paint) is far enough away I will not be able to see it.
If the luminous cat is bigger then I will be able to see it at a greater distance than if it is smaller.
Similarly, if it is brighter I will be able to see it if it is either smaller or more distant.
All of those depend on there not being something else- like a pile of coal- between me and the cat.
So, I will sometimes be able to see the cat.
Do you now understand what "sometimes" means?
The rest of your post made no sense.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/07/2021 19:43:54
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:47:05Because I don't mean "never" and I don't mean "always".
You are using the word "sometimes".
Good!
I hope that by now you do understand that sometimes the falling matter must be also visible.
However, why do you try to explain that the falling matter is sometimes invisible but you ignore the fact that for the same reasons the ejected matter should also be invisible?
Do you agree that as our scientists can observe cold & hot matter then the chance to observe the falling matter should be similar to the chance to see the ejected matter?
If the chance is not equal, would you kindly explain why is it and tell us the chance for the falling matter & the ejected matter to be visible?
Can you backup this chance (for each matter) by real data?
As you agree that sometimes the falling matter is invisible and sometimes it is visible, then you also have to agree that sometimes the ejected matter is visible and sometime it should be invisible.
I hope that you agree that based on the mainstream theory, the total matter that falls in must be bigger than the total matter that ejected.
So, how could it be that we ALWAYS observe ejected matter but we have NEVER EVER observed any falling matter?
Why the "sometimes visible" for the falling matter is - always "NEVER visible".
While the same idea of "sometimes visible" for the ejected matter is - always "ALWAYS visible"?
Do you know why the universe is not so cooperative with your theories about "sometimes" visible/invisible?
Did you try to explain the universe that you don't mean "never" and you don't mean "always"?
If so, why when it comes to real observation the Universe insists to tell us that the ejected matter is always visible but the falling matter is never visible?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2021 19:50:33
I hope that by now you do understand that sometimes the falling matter must be also visible.I always did.
I pointed out that's why we can see the accretion disk.
Please try to pay attention.
but you ignore the fact that for the same reasons the ejected matter should also be invisible?No.
Kicking something out of the gravity well near a black hole will always require that you put a lot of effort into it.
Since that process, whatever it is, will not be 100% efficient, some of the wok will be converted to heat.
So the stuff coming out will always (not just "sometimes") be hot.
Again, this is obvious physics.
Why don't you learn the science?
What are you scared of?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/07/2021 21:33:02
This is incorrect argument as the matter at the accretion disc has a circular orbit around the SMBH.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:43:54I always did.
I hope that by now you do understand that sometimes the falling matter must be also visible.
I pointed out that's why we can see the accretion disk.
Therefore, the matter at the accretion disc can't be used as indication for a falling matter!
However, we clearly observe that the matter from the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
Therefore, based on real observation - this accretion disc should be called - Excretion disc!
Hence, as the accretion disc can't be used as an evidence for a falling matter - Not sometimes and not once in a life time.
JUST never and ever.
Therefore, your assumption for sometime is useless.
Sorry - there is no science or physics in your explanation due to the following:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:43:54No.
but you ignore the fact that for the same reasons the ejected matter should also be invisible?
Kicking something out of the gravity well near a black hole will always require that you put a lot of effort into it.
Since that process, whatever it is, will not be 100% efficient, some of the wok will be converted to heat.
So the stuff coming out will always (not just "sometimes") be hot.
Again, this is obvious physics.
1. Kicking - "Kicking something out of the gravity well near a black hole will always require that you put a lot of effort into it."
Can you please explain how the matter at the accretion disc is kicked out? Who is responsible for the requested effort/ energy to kick away the matter from the accretion disc into the Bulge and against the gravity force?
Do you claim that the SMBH had nothing to do but kick his food away from his mouth and also to lose energy in this process?
2. Heat - "Since that process, whatever it is, will not be 100% efficient, some of the wok will be converted to heat."
First you need to explain who invest the energy for that kicking process and why.
Second, you have a sever mistake with regards to the heat.
The temp of the plasma at the accretion disc is already 10^9c. Do you claim that the matter that is ejected outwards should be hotter than that?
Actually, if you discuss about the heat - you have to agree that as the matter falls in it should be heated to that 10^9 c.
Therefore, even if the falling matter at the first phase wasn't too hot, as it falls in the direction of the accretion disc it must be heated and GLOW BRIGHTLY
So, if we consider the heat, then due to that heat the falling matter should glow much more than the ejected matter.
Therefore, if matter was really falling in - we have to see it!
Unfortunately for your theory/imagination - we have NEVER ever observed matter as it falls from the bulge and glow in its way into the accretion disc.
So, you have totally failed in your arguments
1. The accretion disc can't be used as an indication for falling matter
2. The heat of the accretion disc is already 10^9c. Therefore, the assumption that the ejected matter gets hotter is just incorrect as we do not observe that kind of temp in any ejected matter.
One last question -
You fully agree that we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
So, what is needed for you to finally understand that nothing really falls into that accretion disc?
If for example God by himself would tell you that what we see is what we have - would you believe him?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/07/2021 21:38:14
You fully agree that we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
No, I don't
Because we observe stuff falling in.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01153-7
And the rest of your post is wrong too.
By the way, have you noticed that none of this has anything to do with the BBT?
Is tat because you realise the the BBT is correct?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/07/2021 22:42:58
Therefore, based on real observation
We've never observed anything coming out of a black hole.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/07/2021 05:32:34
Dear BCQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:33:02
You fully agree that we have never ever observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
No, I don't
Because we observe stuff falling in.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01153-7
It seems that you have severe problem with your memory.
Kryptid had already offered a similar article about this specific issue of gravitational wave that was discovered by LIGO and VIRGO in 2019 and we have discussed deeply about it.
If you do not remember, please ask Kryptid to remind you.
We have discovered that the gravitational wave works ONLY when the two orbital objects (as BSs or Neutron stars) are similar in their mass.
In this case the ratio in the mass is 1:3.
If the ratio between the orbital objects is too high, (for example the ratio between the Earth to Moon is 1:81) then the gravitational wave can't work.
Due to the gravitational wave the orbital objects MUST merge with each other in a final collision.
So. it is totally different process from the accretion disc where the matter must be ejected outwards.
In the gravitational wave not even one atom would be ejected outwards!
As I have already explained in the past, the ratio between the S2 to SMBH is 1:1,000,000).
Therefore, the gravity wave can't work there and has no impact.
Hence, as the Moon is spiraling outwards from the Earth (due to a ratio of 1:81), then S2 (and actually all the other orbital objects at the Bulge) are spiraling outwards from the SMBH. Therefore, it is expected that the time that it takes S2 to set full orbital cycle around the SMBH must be longer for every new orbital cycle.
The last orbital period of S2 around the SMBH was 15.2 years. The next one MUST be longer!
Therefore, stars & gas clouds do not fall inwards. Nothing falls into the accretion disc. NEVER and EVER!!!
And the rest of your post is wrong too.You have fatal mistake.
If you would dare to claim again that we observe stuff/matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc, without real observation on SMBH' accretion disc (and only at that specific disc) - You would be considered as a person that twist the reality!!!
So, everything that I say about the SMBH' accretion disc is 100% correct!
We've never observed anything coming out of a black hole.That is correct.
I have never claimed that matter is coming out from the SMBH.
I have stated that new particle pairs are created near the SMBH' event horizon by its ultra high Electromagnets and gravity force.
So, the SMBH isn't loosing mass in order to set new stuff at the accretion disc.
It is only loosing EM energy in that process.
However, as one partial falls into the SMBH the one is ejected out into the accretion disc. Therefore, the SMBH is gaining mass in that process over time. It doesn't need to eat any matter from outside as it's generating its food by its EM + Gravity power
The compensation for the EM energy lost is coming back to the SMBH from the tidal forces.
Therefore, the matter at the accretion disc is coming from the Ultra EM+Gravity power of the SMBH.
There is no need for any matter to fall in.
Due to that process, the new created particles (that had been ejected to the inner side of the accretion disc) orbit at almost the speed of light and have the 10^9 c (or even higher temp).
If the matter was just falling in, they would NEVER EVER get to that kind of temp and orbital velocity.
Matter that falls in the direction of the SMBH - falls to merge with that monster.
Nothing that falls in can escape from its ultra high gravity force.
However, the issue with the matter that had been created by the SMBH' power at the accretion disc is different.
They orbit around the SMBH at ultra high velocity.
So they are not falling in but they are in a circular orbital momentum (at ultra high velocity).
The mass ratio between any particle at the accretion disc to the SMBH is more than 1:to 1.000,000,000,000.
Therefore, they all must spiral outwards (as all the planets and moons spiral outwards)
So, the accretion disc gets new particles/stuff from inside (inner disc) and over time that stuff is spiraling outwards) to the outer disc)
As the stuff gets to the outer disc, it is ejected outwards to the Bulge as a UFO that we clearly observe at any accretion disc in the entire universe.
By the way, have you noticed that none of this has anything to do with the BBT?Yes it is.
Is tat because you realise the the BBT is correct?
New matter is constantly created in any SMBH accretion disc.
This new matter compensates the escape galaxies from the observable universe.
Therefore - Over time, the density of the Universe would stay constant.
Therefore, the idea that all the matter/energy of the universe had been created at one single moment is ABSOLUTLY incorrect
Hence, after all Fred hoyle and Albert Einstein were fully correct in their theory that our universe MUST be steady forever and ever!
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/07/2021 10:10:26
It seems that you have severe problem with your memory.The problems isn't my memory.
Kryptid had already offered a similar article about this specific issue of gravitational wave that was discovered by LIGO and VIRGO in 2019 and we have discussed deeply about it.
Kryptid posted it.
You didn't understand it (and thus wrote nonsense about not having seen things fall into BH)
So I posted a similar article in the hope that you might understand it better this time.
In terms of falling and black holes, it's the only evidence we have.
Things fall in.
I'm also waiting for you to explain the error in this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether's_theorem
And I'm also still waiting for you to respond property to this.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 20:05:08
Quote from: Dave Lev on 14/07/2021 19:39:57
Is it a new tactics?
No.
Asking questions is not a new tactic.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 18:14:02
Quote from: Bored chemist on 14/07/2021 17:52:07
asked a simple question about it too, and you are pathetic, so you didn't answer.
Please try again.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 13:43:36
Is the cat there or not?
[/quote
And,while we are at it.
Why can't you promise not to tell lies?
Is it because you know that the truth is the opposite of what you are saying?
Is it because you know that things fall down, rather than up?]
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/07/2021 17:47:17
The problems isn't my memory.The main problem is that you consider the SMBH as it was a BH.
Kryptid posted it.
You didn't understand it (and thus wrote nonsense about not having seen things fall into BH)
So I posted a similar article in the hope that you might understand it better this time.
In terms of falling and black holes, it's the only evidence we have.
Things fall in.
This is a fatal mistake.
Don't you understand that a SMBH could be almost 1,000,000 times heavier than a BH?
Do you also consider an elephant as you consider an Ant?
In this discussion we focus ONLY on SMBH' accretion disc
NOT BH' accretion disc, but only SMBH' accretion disc.
Is it clear to you?.
Therefore, your understanding / observation about a BH is totally irrelevant for our discussion.
Hence, as you offer again and again the BH as an evidence for the SMBH activity - it proves that you don't have a basic knowledge in real science.
As long as you can't offer real observation for matter that falls/spirals into the SMBH' accretion disc don't dare to claim that matter really falls into that specific disc!
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/07/2021 17:52:59
The main problem is that you consider the SMBH as it was a BH.It is.
The hint is in the name.
A super massive black hole is a black hole.
I think this comment of yours is slightly dumber than your idea that things fall up.
Do you also consider an elephant as you consider an Ant?Depending on circumstances, one of them might be easier to study, but they are fundamentally very similar, aren't they?
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/07/2021 18:51:05
It is.No
The hint is in the name.
A super massive black hole is a black hole.
It is a fatal error to claim that each BH behaves as a SMBH.
A SMBH has Ultra high gravity force and Ultra high EM power.
Due to those abilities, the SMBH can generate new particle pairs near its event horizon.
The particles that are ejected into the accretion disc, orbit at almost the speed of light with temp of 10^9c.
Do you claim that any BH has similar abilities and accretion disc as SMBH?
If so, please offer real observation for the activity at their accretion disc near the event horizon?
Do we observe there particles that orbit at the speed of light (near their event horizon) while their temp is 10^9c?
Please offer the observation & measurements and backup this understanding by real article.
I think this comment of yours is slightly dumber than your idea that things fall up.As long as you can't see the difference between BH to SMBH, it proves that you are totally out of real science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/07/2021 18:58:07
A SMBH has Ultra high gravity forceOnce you have enough gravity to trap light, having any more doesn't make a difference.
You have invented this distinction, but it is not real.
Due to those abilities, the SMBH can generate new particle pairs near its event horizonAny BH will do that; it's called Hawking radiation.
In fact, the tiny little black holes do it better.
The particles that are ejected into the accretion disc, orbit at almost the speed of light with temp of 10^9c.No.
That's stuff falling in.
Remember things fall down, rather than up.
Do you claim that any BH has similar abilities and accretion disc as SMBH?You just asked me to prove that a black hole is a black hole.
Do you have any idea how stupid that question is?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/07/2021 18:58:43
As long as you can't see the difference between BH to SMBH, it proves that you are totally out of real science.The difference is that a SMBH has more size; not that it is magic as you are suggesting.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/07/2021 21:02:26
I have stated that new particle pairs are created near the SMBH' event horizon by its ultra high Electromagnets and gravity force.
We've never seen that happen either.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/07/2021 06:54:47
Comparing SMBH to BH is like comparing Lion to Lion Cub.As long as you can't see the difference between BH to SMBH, it proves that you are totally out of real science.The difference is that a SMBH has more size; not that it is magic as you are suggesting.
So based on your idea the difference is that the Lion has more size than the Lion Cub.
Is it all?
Do you really think that they behave the same?
If you look at a Lion Cub, can you estimate how a real Lion would behave?
Would you dare to stay next to a Lion as you stay next to a Lion Cub?
Hence, although both objects carry the name of Lion, they behave totally differently
Therefore, it is a severe mistake to look at the Lion Cub and expect that the Lion would behave the same..
In the same token, although BH and SMBH carry the name of Black Hole, they behave totally differently.
Therefore, it is a severe mistake to look at a BH and hope that a SMBH will behave the same.
No, they are totally different!!!
Do you know that "Thousands of Black Holes May Lurk at the Galaxy's Center"
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/black-hole-stellar-binary-stars-milky-way-galaxy
Are you sure that our scientists really know how all of those BHs had been created and how they all have got to the center of the Milky way?
No, a SMBH is totally different from a BH as a Lion is different from a Lion Cub.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:51:05You just asked me to prove that a black hole is a black hole.
Do you claim that any BH has similar abilities and accretion disc as SMBH?
Do you have any idea how stupid that question is?
We might think that a SMBH had been evolved from a BH but as it gets to be a SMBH it behave differently.
The basic idea of creating new particles around the BH is OK.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:51:05Any BH will do that; it's called Hawking radiation.
Due to those abilities, the SMBH can generate new particle pairs near its event horizon
In fact, the tiny little black holes do it better.
However, there is no negative mass in our Universe.
As Hawking radiation is based on the idea of negative mass, it's better for you to set this theory in the garbage.
We all know that any particle is all about EM.
Therefore, in order to generate any sort of new particle, EM is requested.
Without EM there is no new particle pair.
This is real science!
The main difference is not just in the gravity force, it is all about EM power.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:51:05Once you have enough gravity to trap light, having any more doesn't make a difference.
A SMBH has Ultra high gravity force
You have invented this distinction, but it is not real.
This EM sets the real difference between the two objects.
So, we can see many BH's in our Universe, however how many of them have the real EM power?
How a BH get's this strong EM ability?
Our scientists claim that our SMBH is a rotatable BH and therefore it can generate its Ultra high EM power.
For quite long time I have asked myself how a BH starts to rotate?
Now, with your help - I have got the answer for this key question.
It is all about Gravity wave.
So, once two BHs start their merging process, they actually orbit around each other.
As they get closer, their orbital velocity is increasing.
At the moment of the merging, their orbital velocity is maximal.
They would continue to keep the momentum of that rotation which will help them to generate Ultra high EM.
If this EM + their gravity force is high enough to generate new particle pair, they would evolve to Magnetar, Pulsar or even a SMBH that could carry billions of his babies stars and BH's in its own galaxy as our mighty SMBH does.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/07/2021 06:59:19
But we don't need to see.
So then you agree that you don't have to observe something directly in order to infer its existence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/07/2021 07:04:04
Comparing SMBH to BH is like comparing Lion to Lion Cub.As long as you can't see the difference between BH to SMBH, it proves that you are totally out of real science.The difference is that a SMBH has more size; not that it is magic as you are suggesting.
So based on your idea the difference is that the Lion has more size than the Lion Cub.
Is it all?
Do you really think that they behave the same?
If you look at a Lion Cub, can you estimate how a real Lion would behave?
Would you dare to stay next to a Lion as you stay next to a Lion Cub?
Hence, although both objects carry the name of Lion, they behave totally differently
Therefore, it is a severe mistake to look at the Lion Cub and expect that the Lion would behave the same..
In the same token, although BH and SMBH carry the name of Black Hole, they behave totally differently.
Therefore, it is a severe mistake to look at a BH and hope that a SMBH will behave the same.
No, they are totally different!!!
Do you know that "Thousands of Black Holes May Lurk at the Galaxy's Center"
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/black-hole-stellar-binary-stars-milky-way-galaxy
Are you sure that our scientists really know how all of those BHs had been created and how they all have got to the center of the Milky way?
No, a SMBH is totally different from a BH as a Lion is different from a Lion Cub.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:51:05You just asked me to prove that a black hole is a black hole.
Do you claim that any BH has similar abilities and accretion disc as SMBH?
Do you have any idea how stupid that question is?
We might think that a SMBH had been evolved from a BH but as it gets to be a SMBH it behave differently.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:51:05The basic idea of creating new particles around the BH is OK.
Due to those abilities, the SMBH can generate new particle pairs near its event horizon
Any BH will do that; it's called Hawking radiation.
In fact, the tiny little black holes do it better.
However, there is no negative mass in our Universe.
As Hawking radiation is based on the idea of negative mass, it's better for you to set this theory in the garbage.
We all know that any particle is all about EM.
Therefore, in order to generate any sort of new particle, EM is requested.
Without EM there is no new particle pair.
This is real science!
The main difference is not just in the gravity force, it is all about EM power.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:51:05Once you have enough gravity to trap light, having any more doesn't make a difference.
A SMBH has Ultra high gravity force
You have invented this distinction, but it is not real.
This EM sets the real difference between the two objects.
So, we can see many BH's in our Universe, however how many of them have the real EM power?
How a BH get's this strong EM ability?
Our scientists claim that our SMBH is a rotatable BH and therefore it can generate its Ultra high EM power.
For quite long time I have asked myself how a BH starts to rotate?
Now, with your help - I have got the answer for this key question.
It is all about Gravity wave.
So, once two BHs start their merging process, they actually orbit around each other.
As they get closer, their orbital velocity is increasing.
At the moment of the merging, their orbital velocity is maximal.
They would continue to keep the momentum of that rotation which will help them to generate Ultra high EM.
If this EM + their gravity force is high enough to generate new particle pair, they would evolve to Magnetar, Pulsar or even a SMBH that could carry billions of his babies stars and BH's in its own galaxy as our mighty SMBH does.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/07/2021 07:07:48
I agreeQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:32:34We've never seen that happen either.
I have stated that new particle pairs are created near the SMBH' event horizon by its ultra high Electromagnets and gravity force.
It is impossible mission to see the new particle pair creation near the SMBH' event horizon.
But we don't need to see.
The accretion disc is the ultimate evidence for that creation process due to the following:
1. In the inner side of the accretion disc the particles orbits at almost the speed of light and their temp could be much higher than 10^9c.
2. At the outer disc we clearly see real atoms and molecular. They orbit at 0.3c and their temp is 10^9c.
So, by the time that the new created particle spirals from the inner side of the accretion disc to the outer side, they had been transformed to real atoms and molecular.
3. Those molecular would be ejected outwards (as the observable UFO) to the Bulge and be joined together into gas clouds.
4. Under the gravity force of the SMBH, those gas clouds would form new star systems.
Not just one star with planets and moons around it, but several stars systems that are connected by gravity force.
5. Each star, each planet, each Moon would be created from the same gas/matter in that gas cloud.
Therefore, each planet and each moon starts its life as a huge gas ball. Over the time, the smallest objects would evaporate more than 98% of their early light gas as Hydrogen and be transformed into rocky objects as our planet and moon.
Therefore, our planet and moon have so nicely ball shape while the center of the Earth is still so hot.
6. Please be aware that the gravity force of the Moon-Sun is more than twice stronger than the Earth- Moon gravity force. So, we can ask why the moon orbit around the Earth instead around the Sun. However, if you add the missing 98% light gas to the Moon and planet you would find that at the creation time of the solar system the Earth-Moon gravity force was stronger than the Sun-Moon gravity force.
7.. We have never ever observed any stuff that falls into that accretion disc.
Therefore, all the observations proves that the SMBH' accretion disc gets its matter from inside!
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 08:47:43
It is impossible mission to see the new particle pair creation near the SMBH' event horizon....
8. It does not happen, because it's a figment of Dave's imagination and breaks the conservation laws.
it is all about EM power.This is the name you gave to the magic you invented.
There's nothing special about the electromagnetic fields of a big black hole compared to a small one.
Again you are seeking to beak the law of physics, in this case, Maxwell's laws.
No, a SMBH is totally different from a BH as a Lion is different from a Lion Cub.I presume you realis that means "pretty nearly indistinguishable from a distance".
Seriously, you are claiming there's a difference, but you have provided no evidence, not so much as a wiki link.
No, they are totally different!!!Putting three exclamation marks makes you look crazy, but it doesn't make things true.
I'm beginning to see why you refused to say you wouldn't tell lies.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 08:50:14
The basic idea of creating new particles around the BH is OK.Yes, as long as the BH evaporates at the same time, otherwise you break the mass conservation law and that's not possible.
We know this.
It has been proven mathematically.
You keep ignoring this fact.
This is presumably because you don't care about reality.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 08:53:47
Therefore, in order to generate any sort of new particle, EM is requested.Yes; and we know from experiments like this
Without EM there is no new particle pair.
This is real science!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casimir_effect
that , even in "empty" space there is always an EM field.
You do not need a black hole- not even a little one.
You keep ignoring this fact.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/07/2021 10:22:51
Did we ever observed a BH that had been evaporated due to Hawking radiation?The basic idea of creating new particles around the BH is OK.Yes, as long as the BH evaporates at the same time, otherwise you break the mass conservation law and that's not possible.
We know this.
It has been proven mathematically.
You keep ignoring this fact.
This is presumably because you don't care about reality.
As you claim that you know this., then please show the observation.
Sorry - this is the biggest imagination of the modern science.
Please answer the following:
Do you agree that based on Hawking idea in order for a BH to be evaporated a creation of negative mass is needed?
Yes or no please.
If so, do we have any evidence for the existence of negative mass?
I assume that you believe in that nonsense due to your wrong mathematics.
Sorry, as long as we can't see that imagination - we all must agree that there is no Negative mass in our Universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 12:37:21
Did we ever observed a BH that had been evaporated due to Hawking radiation?No, of course not.
It's like expecting to see a black cat in a dark cellar.
Nobody would be so stupid as to expect to see that.
do we have any evidence for the existence of negative mass?Again, of course we don't. No sensible person would expect that we would.
But we do have its "cousin".
" Currently, the closest known real representative of such exotic matter is a region of negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/07/2021 15:00:52
Sorry - "In our universe, There is no such thing as negative mass":QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:22:51Again, of course we don't. No sensible person would expect that we would.
Do we have any evidence for the existence of negative mass?
But we do have its "cousin".
" Currently, the closest known real representative of such exotic matter is a region of negative pressure density produced by the Casimir effect."
From
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
http://www.weizmann.ac.il/icore/quantum_universe/sites/icore.scb/files/mmr_2_bqnshtyn.pdf
"Antimatter does not have negative mass. In our universe, there is no such thing as negative mass. Mass only comes in positive form. In contrast, electric charge can be positive or negative. The nonexistence of negative mass has profound consequences.
If this isn't good enough, please read the following:
If vacuum energy can be negative, why is mass always positive?http://www.weizmann.ac.il/icore/quantum_universe/sites/icore.scb/files/mmr_2_bqnshtyn.pdf
"We recall, and justify in detail, the not so familiar subdominant trace energy condition for ordinary (baryon-electron nonrelativistic) matter. With its help we show, in two ways, that the mass energy of the cavity structure necessary to enforce the boundary conditions must exceed the magnitude of the negative vacuum energy, so that all systems of the type envisaged necessarily have positive mass energy"
Therefore
There is no Negative mass in our entire Universe.
The Hawking radiation which is based on negative mass is a fiction.
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:22:51No, of course not.
Did we ever observed a BH that had been evaporated due to Hawking radiation?
It's like expecting to see a black cat in a dark cellar.
Nobody would be so stupid as to expect to see that.
We have the tools to verify the total mass of a BH.
If the theory of BH evaporation was real, we could see that the BH is losing mass over time.
Therefore, we do not need to wait until it will be totally evaporated. We can see that activity is an action - if it was real.
However, as the Negative mass is a pure imagination, then the evaporation of a BH due to the Negative mass in Hawking radiation is also imagination.
Somehow in order to qualify the impossible, you use again and again the example of a black cat over a dark cellar.
It's better for you to agree with what we see and accept the idea that what we see is what we have.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/07/2021 15:06:39
If the theory of BH evaporation was real, we could see that the BH is losing mass over time.
Please explain how we could measure such a tiny loss of mass over the span of a single human life time.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/07/2021 15:13:33
I agree. It might be very difficult.If the theory of BH evaporation was real, we could see that the BH is losing mass over time.
Please explain how we could measure such a tiny loss of mass over the span of a single human life time.
Never the less, based on real science - there is no negative mass.
Therefore, we don't need to measure the mass of a BH in order to understand that the evaporation of a BH due to Negative mass is just a fiction.
If some of our scientists believe in that fiction, they have to find the way to prove their imagination about negative mass.
Without it, we all must reject the imagination of negative mass as explained by the above articles that I have offered.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/07/2021 15:15:14
I agree. It might be very difficult.
You said that it could be done. Tell us how.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/07/2021 15:34:04
Sorry. It's my job and I have also said that we don't need to do so as I have proved that there is no negative mass.I agree. It might be very difficult.You said that it could be done. Tell us how.
However, it was an advice for those scientists that believe in the existence of Negative mass.
So, only those scientists that believe in Negative mass have to find the way to justify Hawking radiation & BH evaporation
Why is it?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:07:488. It does not happen, because it's a figment of Dave's imagination and breaks the conservation laws.
It is impossible mission to see the new particle pair creation near the SMBH' event horizon....
If our scientists could generate a Boson in their accelerator which is all about EM forces, why it is impossible for the Universe to generate particle pair in one of the Biggest accelerator in the Universe - Near the SMBH' Event Horizon.?
Can you please explain why the SMBH' Ultra high gravity + Ultra high EM can't generate new particle pair?
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 16:26:50
Never the less, based on real science - there is no negative mass.What science are you basing this claim on?
Please show links to the research which says it can't happen.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 16:34:20
"We recall, and justify in detail, the not so familiar subdominant trace energy condition for ordinary (baryon-electron nonrelativistic) matter.We are not saying that the negative mass is ordinary mass.
We know that has positive mass.
The paper is interesting, but does not apply to the unusual matter we are talking about.
Nice try.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/07/2021 16:35:17
Why is it?Creating bosons is easy- switch the light on.
If our scientists could generate a Boson in their accelerator which is all about EM forces, why it is impossible for the Universe to generate particle pair in one of the Biggest accelerator in the Universe - Near the SMBH' Event Horizon.?
Can you please explain why the SMBH' Ultra high gravity + Ultra high EM can't generate new particle pair?
What is impossible is your claim that you can do it without the BH losing mass.
What's interesting here is that you do not even understand why you are so wrong.
Here's a cartoon.
https://dilbert.com/strip/1996-11-17
It parodies the stupid boss who thinks that saying "Try identifying the problem and then solving it" is actually helpful.
Obviously, that's absurd, the other guy, Dilbert, already knows that.
But in your case, if you got (and acted on) that instruction from someone, it would actually be progress.
You are literally, beyond parody.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/07/2021 14:00:15
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:34:04Creating bosons is easy- switch the light on.
Why is it?
If our scientists could generate a Boson in their accelerator which is all about EM forces, why it is impossible for the Universe to generate particle pair in one of the Biggest accelerator in the Universe - Near the SMBH' Event Horizon.?
Can you please explain why the SMBH' Ultra high gravity + Ultra high EM can't generate new particle pair?
So you agree that Boson could be created by EM power.
We actually have a confirmation for that process:
https://ir.library.illinoisstate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=fpphys
"By solving the quantum field theoretical version of the Klein-Gordon equation numerically, we study
the creation process for charged boson-antiboson pairs in static electric and magnetic fields. The fields are
perpendicular to each other and spatially localized along the same direction, which permits us to study the crucial
impact of the magnetic field’s spatial extension on dynamics. If its width is comparable to that of the electric field,
we find a magnetically induced Lorentz suppression of the pair-creation process. When the width is increased
such that the created bosons can revisit the interaction region, we find a region of exponential self-amplification
that can be attributed to a spontaneous emissionlike enhancement. If the width is increased further, this trend is
reversed and the magnetic field can even shut off the particle production completely"
Once we all agree that the EM can generate Boson, then the next process is to transform the Boson by the pair particle process to Electron positron or proton antiproton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson."
"Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton"
Therefore, it is feasible to use the Mighty Gravity force + EM power of a SMBH to create Bosons near its event horizon and then transform the boson to pair particles.
Both particles would carry positive mass but opposite charge with each other.
Due to Lorenz force under the SMBH' EM, while one new created particle would fall into the SMBH, the other one would be ejected into the accretion disc.
Due to this process the particles at the inner most accretion disc have Ultra high temp (over 10^9c) and orbit at almost the speed of light.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/07/2021 17:26:48
So you agree that Boson could be created by EM power.of course I do- as long as the mass that goes into making it is balanced by a loss of mas somewhere else.
As I pointed out, photons are bosons so making them really is as easy as turning on a light.
Did you not know that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/07/2021 06:04:34
Thanks for this reconfirmationQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:00:15of course I do
So you agree that Boson could be created by EM power.
You fully agree that a Boson is / could be created by the SMBH EM energy.
I hope that you also agree with the following explanation about Boson:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boson
"Examples of bosons are fundamental particles such as photons, gluons, and W and Z bosons (the four force-carrying gauge bosons of the Standard Model), the recently discovered Higgs boson, and the hypothetical graviton of quantum gravity. Some composite particles are also bosons, such as mesons and stable nuclei of even mass number such as deuterium (with one proton and one neutron, atomic mass number = 2), helium-4, and lead-208;[a] as well as some quasiparticles (e.g. Cooper pairs, plasmons, and phonons).[9]:130"
Hence, by definition - Boson is all about mass less particle as Photon or gluons.
Do you accept the following Pair production explanation from our scientists?
Once we all agree that the EM can generate Boson, then the next process is to transform the Boson by the pair particle process to Electron positron or proton antiproton
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"Pair production is the creation of a subatomic particle and its antiparticle from a neutral boson."
"Examples include creating an electron and a positron, a muon and an antimuon, or a proton and an antiproton"
If so, you should agree that this mass less particle (Boson), under the SMBH' Ultra high gravity + EM could be transformed to real mass particle pair without making it is balanced by a loss of mass somewhere else.
Hence, do we all should agree that the whole process is feasible?
So why do you insist that:
as long as the mass that goes into making it is balanced by a loss of mas somewhere else.
Actually, it seems that when it comes to the BBT you have double standard.
Based on the BBT, there was no mass before the Big bang moment.
Somehow in order to bypass the conservation law, our scientists claim that all the energy of our Entire Universe had been arrived free of charge. Then, this energy had been transformed to real mass particles without making it is balanced by a loss of mass somewhere else - as there was no other mass to lose.
So, why only when it comes to the BBT - the energy (that came almost from nothing) have been transformed to real mass without making it is balanced by a loss of mass somewhere else?
Do you mean that as the Master of Science you have the power to let the BBT to work against your own laws or those laws have been created in order to keep away any other theory from the BBT - forever and ever?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/07/2021 08:42:00
Hence, by definition - Boson is all about mass less particle as Photon or gluons.Don't be silly.
Even most of the examples you quote have mass.
W and Z bosons ...Higgs boson, ...mesons and stable nuclei of even mass number such as deuterium (with one proton and one neutron, atomic mass number = 2), helium-4, and lead-208; as well as some quasiparticles (e.g. Cooper pairs,...)."
And that's just the ones which have "rest mass"
All particles have relativistic mass.
You may remember that you already lost that argument before.
Please try to pay attention in future.
Actually, it seems that when it comes to the BBT you have double standard.I also already explained this.
Based on the BBT, there was no mass before the Big bang moment.
The start of the universe is the only circumstance under which time is not symmetrical.
So Noether's theorem does not apply.
So the mass/energy conservation law does not apply.
Again, you already lost this argument.
Please don't waste anyone's time by bringing it up again.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/07/2021 10:10:34
even most of the examples you quote have mass.You confirmed that Boson can be created from the SMBH EM energy.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:04:34
W and Z bosons ...Higgs boson, ...mesons and stable nuclei of even mass number such as deuterium (with one proton and one neutron, atomic mass number = 2), helium-4, and lead-208; as well as some quasiparticles (e.g. Cooper pairs,...)."
And that's just the ones which have "rest mass"
You even stated:
As I pointed out, photons are bosons so making them really is as easy as turning on a light.So, there is no need to lose mass in order to set the Boson.
Just EM energy is good enough
Is it Correct or incorrect?
If so and you even confirm that boson could be a mass particle, then why do you claim that :
as long as the mass that goes into making it is balanced by a loss of mas somewhere else.Can you please explain where is the problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/07/2021 10:47:02
You confirmed that Boson can be created from the SMBH EM energy.I confirmed that SOME bosons- specifically photons- could be created that way. Doing so would require the loss of mass by whatever created them.
So, there is no need to lose mass in order to set the Boson.Why have you written the word "so" in that post?
In English the word is used to show when something happens because of something.
But your statement is meaningless.
Not only is it factually wrong because mass loss IS required, even if that wasn't a requirement, it wouldn't be because I can generate photons by turning on a torch.
Do you realise that, as the battery goes flat, a torch loses energy and therefore loses mass.
The same mass as is carried by the (relativistic) mass of the photons.
(Please don't waste time telling me that photons are massless; their invariant mas is zero, but their relativistic mass is not zero).
So, there is no need to lose mass in order to set the Boson.The question is meaningless; EM energy has mass.
Just EM energy is good enough
Is it Correct or incorrect?
So you are saying we don't need mass, because we can use mass.
Can you please explain where is the problem?Between your ears.
The problem is a lack of understanding, and a refusal to learn.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/07/2021 12:02:32
Thanks for this important message!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:10:34The question is meaningless; EM energy has mass.
So, there is no need to lose mass in order to set the Boson.
Just EM energy is good enough
Is it Correct or incorrect?
So you are saying we don't need mass, because we can use mass.
If you confirm that EM energy has Mass, then we can agree that as the SMBH is transforming some of its EM energy for the creation of bosons, it is actually losing mass in this process.
Do you agree with that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/07/2021 12:10:13
Eventually, the BH will disappear- which is why they can not create the universe in the antiscientific way you have tried to put forward.
A BH does not have much "EM" energy.
That's why it is fundamentally black.
So that bit of your post makes no sense.
It really would be quicker if you learned some science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/07/2021 12:17:54
imagine a world where you had followed this advice.
Again, you simply fail to grasp the conservation laws. Why not learn science?
You could have started last November and, thanks to covid an the unprecedented expansion in on-line learning which it brought about, you could have a sound understanding of basic physics by now.
But instead, you just turn up here and sh1t on the doorstep.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/07/2021 15:45:40
The BH transfers some of its mass into hawking radiation.Well, let's verify how Hawking radiation really works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Hawking radiation is black-body radiation that is theorized to be released by black holes because of quantum effects near the black hole event horizon.
So how it works:
1. Creation of two photons near the event horizon:
" Very close to the event horizon, these always manifest as a pair of photons. It may happen that one of these photons passes beyond the event horizon, while the other escapes into the wider universe ("to infinity")"
So, near the Event horizon two photons are created.
2. The photon that falls into the BH has a negative mass:
"The amplification gives rise to a "partner wave", which carries negative energy and passes through the event horizon, where it remains trapped, reducing the total energy of the black hole".
3. The photon that is ejected outwards has a positive mass:
The escaping photon adds an equal amount of positive energy to the wider universe outside the black hole.[2] In this way, no matter or energy ever actually leaves the black hole itself
4. BH Evaporation - Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes and is therefore also theorized to cause black hole evaporation.
Hence:
1. Based on Hawking radiation the particle pair is created at the first step without any need for any sort of external investment of energy.
2. Only at the last step, when the negative particle falls into the BH, there is a payment for the creation of the pair by some mass evaporation.
This hawking radiation is not realistic due to the following:
1. In our real universe there is no free dinner. The payment must be paid in advance and in cash.
So, how can we agree with that fiction?
How can you believe that the Universe would generate one negative mass and one positive mass out of nothing (without any investment of energy) and just after the pair had been created, then the payment is delivered by decreasing/evaporating some of the BH mass with the falling negative particle?
Can you please offer other real process in the nature/ Universe that you can generate something out of nothing and just after getting your request you pay for it?
I would compare it to a person that lost his way in the Deseret. He has no water. So, he set an agreement with the desert in which he would get a positive mass water and negative mass water.
If Hawking could get the pair without any investment of energy, then this man can also get the negative and positive water for free.
He will drink the positive water and just when he will arrive to the ocean he will set the negative water there and balance the loan by evaporating some water from the ocean.
Is it real?
How can you believe in that kind of nonsense?
Sorry - In our Universe there is no loan.
There is no banking system in the nature. if you want something - you must pay in cash and in advance.
If Hawking needs a radiation - he first must pay in real energy and then get his request.
Therefore this process isn't realistic.
2. Energy Lost
In our real Universe for any activity that you do, there must be some energy lost. So, if the Hawking radiation was real, then it is expected that at the creation process there would be some heat dissipation. This heat dissipation means energy lost. Due to that energy lost, the total invested energy for the pair particles MUST be higher than the total energy in both mass particles.
Hence, the falling negative particle, can't balance the total energy that had been invested in the pair creation.
Therefore, this Hawking process isn't realistic.
3. Why the falling particle can't be positive?
I wonder why our scientists are so sure that the falling particles (due to hawking radiation) into all BHs in the entire Universe must be negative.
Why there is no possibility that in some BHs the falling mass would be positive while the ejected one would be negative.
So, while one BH is losing mass, the other one is gaining mass?
In the same token, while the ejected positive particle is increasing the mass around the BH, the ejected negative mass should actually reduce the total positive mass around the BH. At some point, all the mass around that BH would be negative.
That would reverse the gravity direction. (Repulsive?). Is it real?
Therefore, this Hawking process isn't realistic.
I really wonder how any person with some basic knowledge in science can agree with that imagination that is called - Hawking radiation?
This hypothetical fiction that is called Hawking radiation is worst than any other imagination ever invented in our imagination.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/07/2021 17:57:29
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 12:10:13I just did.
The BH transfers some of its mass into hawking radiation.
Well, let's verify how Hawking radiation really works.
The mass of the BH is shifted out, either as particles or as photons.
Eventually the BH ceases to exist because it has lost all its mass.
Sorry - In our Universe there is no loan.Yes there is; the amount you borrow determines the time you get to pay it back.
It's called the uncertainty principle.
In our real Universe for any activity that you do, there must be some energy lost.No.
That's breaking the conservation laws.
(the uncertainty principle does not allow you to borrow a whole universe worth of mass for 14 billion years- just in case you wondered.)
3. Why the falling particle can't be positive?Half the time it is, and then we don't see any overall effect.
I really wonder how any person with some basic knowledge in science can ...Well, why don't you get yourself some basic knowledge of science, and find out?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/07/2021 03:27:44
The mass of the BH is shifted out, either as particles or as photons.Your understanding contradicts the explanation of our scientists.
The gravity of the BH/SMBH is so strong that nothing can escape outside.
So nothing from the BH can shift out, not as particles and not as photons.
Why don't you read the following explanation?
Well, let's verify how Hawking radiation really works.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Hawking radiation is black-body radiation that is theorized to be released by black holes because of quantum effects near the black hole event horizon.
So how it works:
1. Creation of two photons near the event horizon:
" Very close to the event horizon, these always manifest as a pair of photons. It may happen that one of these photons passes beyond the event horizon, while the other escapes into the wider universe ("to infinity")"
So, near the Event horizon two photons are created.
2. The photon that falls into the BH has a negative mass:
"The amplification gives rise to a "partner wave", which carries negative energy and passes through the event horizon, where it remains trapped, reducing the total energy of the black hole".
3. The photon that is ejected outwards has a positive mass:
The escaping photon adds an equal amount of positive energy to the wider universe outside the black hole.[2] In this way, no matter or energy ever actually leaves the black hole itself
4. BH Evaporation - Hawking radiation reduces the mass and rotational energy of black holes and is therefore also theorized to cause black hole evaporation.
Hence:
1. Based on Hawking radiation the particle pair is created at the first step without any need for any sort of external investment of energy.
2. Only at the last step, when the negative particle falls into the BH, there is a payment for the creation of the pair by some mass evaporation.
Is it clear to you by now?
Do you claim the following scenario is feasible?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:45:40Yes there is; the amount you borrow determines the time you get to pay it back.
Sorry - In our Universe there is no loan.
It's called the uncertainty principle.
I would compare it to a person that lost his way in the Deseret. He has no water. So, he set an agreement with the desert in which he would get a positive mass water and negative mass water.Is it feasible to drive all the way from SF to LA without a drop of gasoline and while the battery is empty? Can we get an agreement with your "uncertainty principle" that we would gain negative gasoline and negative electric charge which would be paid at the end of the road?
If Hawking could get the pair without any investment of energy, then this man can also get the negative and positive water for free.
He will drink the positive water and just when he will arrive to the ocean he will set the negative water there and balance the loan by evaporating some water from the ocean.
Is it real?
Can you please offer any real activity in the Universe to justify a loan of energy based on this "uncertainty principle"?
Is it?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:45:40No.
In our real Universe for any activity that you do, there must be some energy lost.
That's breaking the conservation laws.
Don't you know that a creation of new particle must come at Ultra high temp?
Therefore, don't you understand that in order to create a particle, you must invest more energy than the energy in the particle mass?
Do you have an idea what kind of energy our scientists at CERN have invested to gain that single Higgs Boson?
Do you think that this Boson includes in its mass all the energy that our scientists had invested in their activity?
Therefore, if the total energy in each boson mass is E(Boson mass).
Don't you agree that the real formula for the total invested energy during the pair creation must be:
E(Total invested energy) = 2 * E(Boson Mass) + E (Energy lost in the pair creation process)
So, based on Hawking radiation who is going to pay for the E(energy lost in the pair creation process)?
Perfect!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:45:40Half the time it is,
3. Why the falling particle can't be positive?
.. and then we don't see any overall effect.Is it?
If the positive mass is falling in, then it is expected that the BH would increase its total mass instead of evaporation process.
In the same token, as the negative mass is ejected outwards eventually all the matter around that BH would be Negative mass.
Therefore, half of all the BHs in the entire Universe must carry Negative mass around them.
We all know that negative mass must have negative gravity.
Hence, theoretically, around any second BH in the Universe the gravity must be negative.
Do we really observe that kind of negative gravity anywhere in our Universe?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/07/2021 08:35:06
Your understanding contradicts the explanation of our scientists.No, it does not.
The problem is still between your ears.
All I did was summarise what the scientists say.
You keep forgetting; I'm a scientist.
Is it clear to you by now?It's still clear that you are wrong.
Do we really observe that kind of negative gravity anywhere in our Universe?You are the one who insists that everything falls up.
Dave,
imagine a world where you had followed this advice.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/11/2020 21:22:47
Again, you simply fail to grasp the conservation laws. Why not learn science?
You could have started last November and, thanks to covid an the unprecedented expansion in on-line learning which it brought about, you could have a sound understanding of basic physics by now.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/07/2021 16:57:17
I have already proved by real article that our scientists explain that when the ratio between the orbital object to the main object is high enough the gravity wave doesn't work. Therefore, in this case the orbital object Must spiral outwards.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:27:44You are the one who insists that everything falls up.
Do we really observe that kind of negative gravity anywhere in our Universe?
So, it is not about falling outwards but about spiraling outwards.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand?
However, now we focus on Hawking radiation -
You are the one that have stated:
Based on your answer while one positive mass falls in, the other one with negative mass must be ejected outwards?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:45:40Half the time it is, and then we don't see any overall effect.
3. Why the falling particle can't be positive?
Therefore, do you agree that the negative mass that had been ejected Must have a Negative gravity?
Hence, if your understanding is correct - then around 50% of all the BH in the Universe we must observe matter with negative gravity.
If we do not observe the Negative gravity anywhere in the Universe - then the Hawking radiation is just nonsense!
You keep forgetting; I'm a scientist.Sorry - there is no science in the Hypothetical Hawking radiation. How can you consider yourself as scientists while you support that imagination?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/07/2021 17:01:43
I really wish to get your feedback
Do you agree with the following:
1. Based on Hawking radiation the particle pair is created at the first step without any need for any sort of external investment of energy.
2. Only at the last step, when the negative particle falls into the BH, there is a payment for the creation of the pair by some mass evaporation.
If so, how can we accept a situation where new particle pair could be created without any investment of energy?
BC claims that this kind of loan of energy is feasible:
However, he didn't offer any example to support this imagination.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:45:40Yes there is; the amount you borrow determines the time you get to pay it back.
Sorry - In our Universe there is no loan.
It's called the uncertainty principle.
So, what is your advice about the idea of creating particle pair without any investment of energy as we read in Hawking radiation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/07/2021 17:51:20
BC claims that this kind of loan of energy is feasible:Kryptid will know this beccause, unlike you , he undersyands some sciebnce.
But for the benefit of Dave- who isn't very well informed.
https://courses.lumenlearning.com/physics/chapter/29-7-probability-the-heisenberg-uncertainty-principle/#:~:text=Heisenberg%20Uncertainty%20for%20Energy%20and,is%20the%20uncertainty%20in%20time.
I apologise for not citing this well known result earlier; I forgot just how little you know.
The weird thing is you keep saying stuff like
BC claims that this kind of loan of energy is feasible:as if it is me making the claim.
All I am doing is pointing out well established physics- backed up be experimental evidence.
You seem to think you are arguing with me.
You are arguing with the whole interlinked mesh of scientific understanding.
And you should recognise that you are not going to win that one.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/07/2021 17:55:31
I have already proved by real article that our scientists explain that when the ratio between the orbital object to the main object is high enough the gravity wave doesn't work.You only proved that you don't understand it- and we already knew that.
So, it is not about falling outwards but about spiraling outwards.The point is that reality makes them spiral downwards.
And we observed this via Ligo and Virgo.
It's particular stupid action on your part to ignore the actual experimental results.
Hence, if your understanding is correct - then around 50% of all the BH in the Universe we must observe matter with negative gravity.Nothing I said implied anything like that.
You just made it up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/07/2021 17:57:26
SorryYou should be.
there is no science in the Hypothetical Hawking radiation.Yes there is, the problem is simply your refusal to learn science.
How can you consider yourself as scientists while you support that imagination?Because it is consistent with the evidence whereas your flight of fancy is not.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/07/2021 20:29:25
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:57:17You only proved that you don't understand it- and we already knew that.
I have already proved by real article that our scientists explain that when the ratio between the orbital object to the main object is high enough the gravity wave doesn't work.
I have already proved that the gravity wave as observed by LIGO and VIRGO is ONLY applicable for objects at similar size:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
Gravitational radiation
Main article: Two-body problem in general relativity
Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites (when considering their orbital motion on time scales of centuries, decades, and less), but is noticeable for systems of compact objects, as seen in observations of neutron star orbits. All orbiting bodies radiate gravitational energy, hence no orbit is infinitely stable."
It is stated clearly:
"Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites "
So, it is also negligible for SMBH/S2 orbit.
Therefore, S2 MUST drift outwards as all planets in the solar system drift outwards from the Sun over time.
Hence, there is no way for any star or atom from the Bulge to fall into the SMBH!
This is real science.
Why is it so difficult for you to remember that simple issue?
Why do we have to discuss about the same issue again and again?
It is very clear that you don't wish to understand the real meaning of gravity wave and when it is applicable.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:57:17The point is that reality makes them spiral downwards.
So, it is not about falling outwards but about spiraling outwards.
And we observed this via Ligo and Virgo.
For you gravity wave impact between two similar BHs is similar to the Impact between SMBH to S2.
But based on any observation that we have when the ratio between the orbital object to the main mass is more than 81, the orbital object would ALWAYS spiral outwards!
If you can't understand that, then I really can't help you any more.
Keep on with your imagination.
It's particular stupid action on your part to ignore the actual experimental results.Please - show me one case where the ratio between the orbital object to the main mass is higher than 81 that is spiral inwards.
If you can find only one real observation that can justify your imagination - then you win it all
However, if you can't find even one example - then you have to apologize for your following message and admit that you had a fatal mistake.
You only proved that you don't understand it- and we already knew that.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/07/2021 21:13:50
Why is it so difficult for you to remember that simple issue?It's not a matter of me remembering it.
Why do we have to discuss about the same issue again and again?
The issue is that you don't realise it isn't true.
But based on any observation that we have when the ratio between the orbital object to the main mass is more than 81, the orbital object would ALWAYS spiral outwards!you made that up.
is 81 the sum of your lottery numbers?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/07/2021 07:47:44
It's not a matter of me remembering it.Yes it is.
Your ability to remember our discussion is quite poor.
I have already explained that the 81 is the mass ratio between the Erath to the Moon.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:29:25you made that up.
But based on any observation that we have when the ratio between the orbital object to the main mass is more than 81, the orbital object would ALWAYS spiral outwards!
is 81 the sum of your lottery numbers?
But as expected – you have already forgot it
I have also explained that ALL the Moons and all the Planets in the solar system and even in the entire Universe spiral outwards from their main orbital object - but who cares?
You should know that in any natural orbital system (Sun - Planet, Planet - Moon) all the orbital objects spirals outwards. (Yes, even Triton spirals outwards)
You can't offer even one real measurement that contradicts this understanding.
You rais the flag of gravity wave without understanding how it really works because you don't wish to understand anything that kills your theory of "falling orbital objects".
Therefore you totally ignore the clear message that the gravity wave is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_decay
"Gravitational radiation is another mechanism of orbital decay. It is negligible for orbits of planets and planetary satellites "
Therefore, it is also negligible for SMBH/S2 orbit. Hence, S2 MUST drift outwards as all planets in the solar system drift outwards from the Sun over time.
As all the 100,000 BBT scientists claim that S2 must fall into the SMBH, then in your imagination it must fall in.
You trace the entire Universe with millions of SMBH and trillions of stars around them, and you can't find even one falling star.
Even if you won't find a falling star in the next billion years - it won't convince you that orbital objects do not fall/spiral inwards
You just don't care about real science.
You don't care about real observation.
Therefore, you and all the other BBT scientists don't let the observation and real science to confuse your imagination science that is called BBT.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/07/2021 10:31:59
Your ability to remember our discussion is quite poor.How would you know?
Anyway, I remember you posting a lot of nonsense and calling it a discussion.
You were wrong at the start of it, and you are sill wrong now.
I have already explained that the 81 is the mass ratio between the Erath to the Moon.There is nothing special about the Earth and the moon.
But as expected – you have already forgot it
As I pointed out, the difference in behaviour is due to tides and they are irrelevant to discussions of black holes.
You are the one who forgets stuff.
I have also explained that ALL the Moons and all the Planets in the solar system and even in the entire Universe spiral outwards from their main orbital objectNo, you have not.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/07/2021 15:38:15
As I pointed out, the difference in behaviour is due to tides and they are irrelevant to discussions of black holes.OK
You blame the tidal forces for drifting the moon away from Earth.
Therefore you reject the idea that it is normal activity for all the orbital objects (around massive object) to spiral outwards.
Hence, in order to justify your understanding, would you kindly offer One orbital system in the entire Universe where moon spirals outwards from its planet or a planet spirals outwards from it sun.
Only one is good enough.
Good luck.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/07/2021 15:42:26
Only one is good enough.How many times do I have to answer that?
Maybe you will understand it better as a video.
This is what we expected to see
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/ligo20160211v9
and we saw it
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-57639520
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/07/2021 18:21:42
Maybe you will understand it better as a video.Dear BC
This is what we expected to see
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/ligo20160211v9
It seems that you didn't understand my request.
The Ligo is all about orbital system with similar mass (The ratio is 1:3).
I'm asking for an example with higher mass ratio where the main mass is much more massive with regards to the orbital object. (If possible at least 1:81)
Is it clear to you by now?
So, please try to offer one example of orbital system (with mass ratio above 1:81) and show that the orbital object spirals inwards.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/07/2021 18:24:01
Please show a reason why I should look.Maybe you will understand it better as a video.Dear BC
This is what we expected to see
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/video/ligo20160211v9
It seems that you didn't understand my request.
The Ligo is all about orbital system with similar mass (The ratio is 1:3).
I'm asking for an example with higher mass ratio where the main mass is much more massive with regards to the orbital object. (If possible at least 1:81)
Is it clear to you by now?
So, please try to offer one example of orbital system (with mass ratio above 1:81) and show that the orbital object spirals inwards.
I realise a mere fact won't stop you pretending that you are right, will it?
Well, here goes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong-1#/media/File:Altitude_of_Tiangong-1.svg
Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)#Predicted_destruction
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6489_Golevka
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/07/2021 10:40:11
Well, here goes.Thanks
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiangong-1#/media/File:Altitude_of_Tiangong-1.svg
Or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)#Predicted_destruction
or
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/6489_Golevka
I would like to focus on Phobos and Deimos as they are the moons of mars and while Phobos spirals inwards, Deimos spirals outwards:
Phobos is the innermost and larger of the two natural satellites of Mars, the other being Deimos.
Phobos is a small, irregularly shaped object with a mean radius of 11 km.
Deimos has a mean radius of 6.2 km and also has irregularly shaped object.
Phobos orbital radius is 9.3Km.
Mars Radius s - 3.4 Km
Tidal deceleration is gradually decreasing the orbital radius of Phobos by approximately two meters every 100 years,
Deimos orbital radius around Mars is about 23,400 Km.
Both moons have very circular orbits which lie almost exactly in Mars's equatorial plane.
Mars Mass = 6.4^23 Kg = 0.107 Earth mass. Hence, Mass mass is significantly higher than its moons.
Now we need to understand why Phobos spirals inwards, while Deimos spirals outwards.
The answer is very clear:
The ratio between Mars radius to Phobos orbital radius is less than 1:3
The ratio between Mars radius to Deimos orbital radius is about 1:7
That makes the whole difference.
I think that the ratio of 1:3 is a magic number.
In the Ligo, our scientists have detected two BH's with a mass ratio of 1:3. that are spiraling inwards.
Our scientists didn't tell us the distance between them.
I can just assume that they were close together.
So, we can now understand the following:
1. When the two objects are BHs and due to gravity wave:
If the two objects have a similar mass (ratio of about 1:3) and they are located near to each other - they would spiral inwards due to Gravity wave decay.
2. When the main object is much bigger than the orbital object and the ratio between the radius of the main mass to the orbital radius is about 1:3 the orbital object would spiral inwards due to tidal decay. The orbital shape is critical. In order to spiral inwards the orbital object must have very circular orbits.
3. When the main object is much bigger than the orbital object and the ratio between the radius of the main mass to the orbital radius is above 1:6, then the orbital object would spiral outwards and the tidal decay would be neglected.
Once you understand that, you can clearly know the requested conditions for any orbital object to spiral inwards or outwards.
That will also answer the orbital activity at any other object as Tiangong-1 or 6489_Golevka.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2021 11:22:12
I realise a mere fact won't stop you pretending that you are right, will it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/07/2021 17:21:45
I realize that you won't let any observation or evidence to stop you pretending that you are right, will it?I realise a mere fact won't stop you pretending that you are right, will it?
Phobos and Deimos are the Ultimate examples for spiral in/out in orbital system.
As a person that calls himself "scientist" it is your mission to explain why Phobos and Deimos spirals to different directions, while both of them are quite similar and they orbit around the same planet.
You clearly don't accept my explanation, then would you kindly explain why Phobos spirals inwards while Deimos spirals outwards?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2021 17:39:23
both of them are quite similar and they orbit around the same planet.In "opposite directions". One orbits faster than the planet's spin; the other slower.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/07/2021 18:14:55
both of them are quite similar and they orbit around the same planet.In "opposite directions". One orbits faster than the planet's spin; the other slower.
Well, their orbital velocity is an outcome of their orbital radius (or vice versa)
Phobos that is located closer to mars has a relatively fast orbital velocity, while Deimos that is located farther away from Mars orbits slower.
Do you claim that the ratio between the orbital velocity to the planet spin makes the difference?
What about the ratio between the Orbital radius to the planet radius?
What about the orbital shape?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2021 18:19:56
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/07/2021 18:37:07
I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.If it is complicated for you - as you say, then why don't you solve this problem?
How can you tell us (or even to yourself) that orbital objects should spiral inwards or outwards without understanding why those two moons of Mars spiral as they do?
Therefore, before you try to tell us how S2 should behave around SMBH it is your obligation to solve Phobos/Deimos orbital enigma.
If you can't solve it, or you don't want to solve it, then you can't be considered scientist and you can't tell that your wish is correct or wrong!
So please - take your time and solve this enigma.
Once you have a real answer, give us a call.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/07/2021 18:42:55
why don't you solve this problem?It isn't really a problem. Experimentally, we know the outcome; that's what LIGO is for.
On the other hand, your idea requires ignoring the laws of physicals and that is a problem.
It can be solved by simply ignoring your ideas- because they are plainly wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/07/2021 02:34:09
As it isn't a problem and you know the outcome, then why while Phobos spirals inwards, his brother - Deimos spirals outwards?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:37:07It isn't really a problem. Experimentally, we know the outcome; that's what LIGO is for.
why don't you solve this problem?
How LIGO could help you understanding if the orbital object should spiral inwards or outwards?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/07/2021 11:30:12
How LIGO could help you understanding if the orbital object should spiral inwards or outwards?Because this
[ Invalid Attachment ]
looks different from this
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/07/2021 11:31:18
As it isn't a problem and you know the outcome, then why while Phobos spirals inwards, his brother - Deimos spirals outwards?Tidal drag pulls on one, but pushes on the other.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/07/2021 14:44:35
Is it real?As it isn't a problem and you know the outcome, then why while Phobos spirals inwards, his brother - Deimos spirals outwards?Tidal drag pulls on one, but pushes on the other.
1. Tidal force direction
How the same tidal force can pull one orbital object and push the other one?
Do you agree that if the a positive tidal force is needed in order to force one moon to spiral in one direction, then negative tidal force is needed to force the other moon to spiral in other direction?
Hence, we discuss about Positive tidal force and Negative tidal force.
However, tidal force is all about gravity.
Therefore, don't you agree that in order to get a positive/negative tidal force we must have Positive/Negative gravity?
How can you get that negative gravity?
If you think that the same positive gravity can generate positive and negative tidal forces - then please prove it by real formula.
2. Orbital radius/velocity.
Why do you ignore the orbital radius & Orbital velocity in your reply?
If both moons were orbiting exactly at the same radius & at the same velocity, is there any possibility for the tidal force to pull one and push the other?
If orbital radius/velocity are important for the tidal force direction, then please show the how the tidal forces direction is changing based on those elements.
If those elements are irrelevant, then how can you explain the different movement direction of each orbital object?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/07/2021 15:30:35
How the same tidal force can pull one orbital object and push the other one?
If one object is going clockwise, and the other anticlockwise then a clockwise force pushes one forward and pulls the other back.
This is not some complicated science.
It is just common sense that you are failing to understand.
Why do you ignore the orbital radius & Orbital velocity in your reply?I didn't.
Th orbital velocities are the reason why, from the PoV of someone stood on the equator, one moon goes forwards, while the other one goes backwards.
Again, this is nothing complicated.
Why don't you understand it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/07/2021 17:59:15
Would you kindly improve your common sense as both moons orbit in the same direction?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:44:35If one object is going clockwise, and the other anticlockwise then a clockwise force pushes one forward and pulls the other back.
How the same tidal force can pull one orbital object and push the other one?
This is not some complicated science.
It is just common sense that you are failing to understand.
https://www.geo.fu-berlin.de/geol/fachrichtungen/planet/press/archiv2018/phobos_deimos1/_bilder/bild_Flugbahn-Phobos-Skizze/Flugbahn-Phobos-Skizze.jpg
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/07/2021 18:04:33
Would you kindly improve your common sense as both moons orbit in the same direction?Learn to read.
from the PoV of someone stood on the equator, one moon goes forwards, while the other one goes backwards.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/07/2021 19:23:18
OkWould you kindly improve your common sense as both moons orbit in the same direction?Learn to read.from the PoV of someone stood on the equator, one moon goes forwards, while the other one goes backwards.
Is all about the point of view of someone that stood on the equator of mars?
The orbital velocity of Phobos is faster than Mars' spin. Therefore this someone would see that Phobos is moving clockwise.
However, Deimos orbital velocity is slower than Mars' spin. Therefore this someone would see that Deimos is moving anticlockwise.
So, it is all about the point of view (Pov).
Any time that the orbital velocity of the moon s faster than the planet's spin - clockwise, the moon would force to spiral inwards, while any time the planet's spin is faster than the orbital velocity - Anticlockwise, the moon would be forced to spiral outwards.
Is it correct?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/07/2021 19:52:05
I only needed to explain it 3 times.
You might find this helpful.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phobos_(moon)#Orbital_characteristics
In future you will never find this sort of stupid comment to be helpful.
Would you kindly improve your common sense
Do you realise that, if you were as clever as you think, I would not have to repeatedly explain the same ting to you?
Why do you need repeated explanations?
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/07/2021 20:43:09
You are begiining to understand it.Thanks
Now we all agree that:
Any time that the orbital velocity of the moon s faster than the planet's spin - clockwise, the moon would force to spiral inwards, while any time the planet's spin is faster than the orbital velocity - Anticlockwise, the moon would be forced to spiral outwards.
Based on that understanding, let's go back to the SMBH - S2 orbital system.
S2 set one full orbital cycle in about 15 Years.
Our scientists call the SMBH as a rotatable object.
Hence, do you confirm that the SMBH' spin is much faster than one single cycle per 15 years.
Therefore, with regards to the Pov, S2 and actually any other S star or gas cloud must move anticlockwise with reference to the SMBH' spin.
So, how can you expect that one of those stars or gas clouds would spiral inwards while the Pov proves that it is anticlockwise?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/07/2021 20:57:58
Hence, do you confirm that the...
I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/07/2021 21:13:55
I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.Well, now we all know that you don't care about real science
If your explanation about the clockwise/anticlockwise is incorrect then by definition your hope for falling/spiraling star/ gas cloud into the SMBH is incorrect.
It's time for you to understand that your hope that somehow orbital objects around the SMBH would spiral/fall inwards is just IMAGINATION.
You have lost the game!
Therefore, you and all the 100,000 scientists including any moderator that support your imagination should understand that Nothing spirals into the SMBH' accretion disc.
It's also time for you to apologize!
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/07/2021 21:23:40
If your explanation about the clockwise/anticlockwise is incorrectThere is no reason to suppose that I am incorrect.
But there is a very good reason to suppose that you are incorrect.
You have lost the game!It's not a game, but you have lost the plot.
You asked about an explanation for one specific case- the moons of Mars and I gave you the explanation.
You now somehow imagine I think that exactly the same thing will apply to a supermassive black hole, even though what I repeatedly said was this:
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 18:19:56
I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.
You are not rational.
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/07/2021 09:36:22
You asked about an explanation for one specific case- the moons of Mars and I gave you the explanation.The Moons of mars is not a specific case.
You now somehow imagine I think that exactly the same thing will apply to a supermassive black hole, even though what I repeatedly said was this:
I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.
It is an ultimate example for spiraling inwards and outwards in orbital system.
You have clearly explained the requested conditions for a relatively small orbital object as a moon to spiral inwards in the direction of a massive object as a planet.
Mars and its moons is the ultimate example for this kind of orbital system.
You should clearly know that based on the anticlockwise - Nothing from the Bulge could spiral inwards into the SMBH accretion disc
Therefore, you claim that:
I'm saying it's more complicated than thatSorry, there is nothing complicated in SMBH-S2 orbital system.
It is very clear and simple.
Based on the anticlockwise - nothing can spiral inwards.
However, that understanding could kill your lovely BBT imagination.
So, you try to find some other "complicated" solution (as gravity wave) for your imagination.
However, Gravity wave is all about BHs/Neutron stars with relatively similar mass size.
I have already proved it by a clear message from our scientist (by real article).
Therefore, gravity wave is not applicable for an orbital system as SMBH-S2.
There are billions of SMBH in the Universe.
We have the technology to observe the SMBH' accretion discs that are located even at 1BLY away.
Around each SMBH there are millions of stars.
Surprisingly, with so many opportunities for falling/spiraling stars - Our scientists have totally failed to find in the entire Universe even just one star as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
But you don't care.
Your imagination tells you that stars should fall in - and you have no intention to accept No as an answer from the Universe.
You claim that you are the master of Knowledge.
You think that you have the power to force the SMBH to eat all of those stars around it.
However, I wonder how many more years is needed for you and for all the other 100,000 BBT scientists to accept the clear observation and clear data that nothing from outside (Bulge) could spiral into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Not even a single atom!
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/07/2021 09:44:29
The Moons of mars is not a specific case.It is the specific case which you asked about.
Based on the anticlockwise...All rotations are anticlockwise.
So,as I said, it can't be that simple.
You claim that are the master of Knowledge.No, I don't.
But you already told us you are a troll, so there's no real point in you being here.
You have lost the game!
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/07/2021 10:42:17
All rotations are anticlockwise.It is very simple!
So,as I said, it can't be that simple.
As all the orbital rotations in the solar system (except of Phobos) are anticlockwise, then all those orbital objects must spiral outwards.
We have 100% confirmation for that activity.
Therefore - the Anticlockwise/clockwise is the Ultimate indication for any orbital object to spiral outwards or inwards.
The Anticlockwise of S2 around the SMBH proves that it spirals outwards.
Hence, based on real science S2 is anticlockwise around the SMBH.
Therefore it Must spiral outwards!
But you already told us you are a troll, so there's no real point in you being here.You and all the other 100,000 scientists that refuse to accept your own 100% correct theory about anticlockwise/clockwise - are the current real trolls of the modern science!
There is no difference between you to those scientists that claim 500 years ago that the Earth is the center of the Universe.
They were sure that they are correct - and they refuse to accept any observation that contradicts their imagination.
At that time - anyone that refused to accept their imagination had been set in jail.
You can't set me in jail as they did in the old good time.
However, you have set this discussion in the desert that is called - "It can't be true" while you and all the other moderators know that due to the anticlockwise Nothing really falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Sorry, its better for all of you to set the BBT at this desert and offer me a reward for my discovery.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/07/2021 11:00:20
As all the orbital rotations in the solar system (except of Phobos) are anticlockwise,They are actually all clockwise.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/07/2021 11:00:54
But you already told us you are a troll, so there's no real point in you being here.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:13:55
You have lost the game!
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/07/2021 11:29:48
Is it?As all the orbital rotations in the solar system (except of Phobos) are anticlockwise,They are actually all clockwise.
Our moon sets one full orbital cycle around the earth in 28 Days while the earth set full spin cycle in one day.
Hence, the spin of the earth is faster than the orbital cycle of the moon. Therefore, it is anticlockwise.
Can you please show any other moon that moves faster than its planet spin?
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/07/2021 11:42:55
The hands of a clock rotate anticlockwise.
https://unsplash.com/photos/uxg_B44me1E
It depends where you look from.
But you already told us you are a troll, so there's no real point in you being here.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:13:55
You have lost the game!
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/07/2021 17:40:26
It is very clear that BC is doing whatever it takes to confuse me with uncorrected and contradicted answers.
He had confirmed the impact of Clockwise/Anticlockwise on orbital object:
Is all about the point of view of someone that stood on the equator of mars?
The orbital velocity of Phobos is faster than Mars' spin. Therefore this someone would see that Phobos is moving clockwise.
However, Deimos orbital velocity is slower than Mars' spin. Therefore this someone would see that Deimos is moving anticlockwise.
So, it is all about the point of view (Pov).
Any time that the orbital velocity of the moon s faster than the planet's spin - clockwise, the moon would force to spiral inwards, while any time the planet's spin is faster than the orbital velocity - Anticlockwise, the moon would be forced to spiral outwards.
Is it correct?
You are begiining to understand it.
I only needed to explain it 3 times.
However, once he understood that this indication could kill his hope for falling stars into the SMBH' accretion disc, his reply was:
All rotations are anticlockwise.And then:
So,as I said, it can't be that simple.
They are actually all clockwise.and even:
Have you really not recognised that "clockwise" and"anticlockwise" don't actually tell you which way something rotates?
Is it Ok with you to let BC offering those kind of uncorrected and contradicted answers just in order to overcome the understanding that Stars can't fall/spiral inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc?
So, do you agree with BC approach in order to protect the mainstream hope that the SMBH must eat matter from outside – Although we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc?
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/07/2021 17:47:34
My reply was that they orbit in (from the point of view of an observer on the ground) different directions- one clockwise and the other counterclockwise.
But I didn't say which was which.
I couldn't have done so.
As I have pointed out, there is no absolute way to say if something rotates one way, or teh other.
Even clocks rotate anticlockwise.
But the important thing is that they orbit in different directions.
If you were half as clever as you claim to be, you would have realised this,
So there's nothing contradictory in what I wrote.
The problem, as usual, is your lack of understanding.
But I guess that's what we expect from a troll.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/07/2021 18:04:02
Although we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc?
Although we have NEVER EVER observed any black cat in a dark coal cellar?
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/07/2021 14:32:15
You seem not to have understood that what you asked for was a difference between photos and Demos which explained why they acted differently.So you confirm that the clockwise/anticlockwise idea was just your personal manipulation of science?
My reply was that they orbit in (from the point of view of an observer on the ground) different directions- one clockwise and the other counterclockwise.
But I didn't say which was which.
I couldn't have done so.
As I have pointed out, there is no absolute way to say if something rotates one way, or the other.
Even clocks rotate anticlockwise.
I had the impression that your messages are based on real science.
Now we all understand that you offer ideas that are not connected to science.
How do you dare to manipulate the science in order to sell your wish?
Do you really have a certificate that confirms your position as a scientist?
Sorry - I have no intention to waste my time on someone that tries to sell me his personal manipulation of science or MOS (with or without certificate).
I have no intention to buy any sort of MOS from anyone!
From now on, if you wish to say something - you must backup your MOS by real article.
However, not just set an article and let me read all of it just in order to verify that you have just offered your MOS.
From now on it is your obligation to highlight the message in the article that supports your Idea.
In real science there must be a clear explanation why Phobos spiral inwards while Demos spirals outwards.
Our scientists have all the information about Phobos/demos orbital movements.
Therefore, Our science must offer clear explanation why each moon spirals to each direction.
Not just MOS, but real science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/07/2021 18:36:41
So you confirm that the clockwise/anticlockwise idea was just your personal manipulation of science?I never said anything like that.
Do these hallucinations trouble you in other aspects of your life?
In real science there must be a clear explanation why Phobos spiral inwards while Demos spirals outwards.There is a clear explanation. It is because one goes forwards and the other goes backwards.
They behave differently because they are in different circumstances.
For some reason you seem not to understand that.
Which bit do you not understand?
Is it that you do not understand that forwards and backwards are different?
Or do you not understand that different circumstances will lead to different outcomes?
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/07/2021 04:15:11
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:32:15There is a clear explanation. It is because one goes forwards and the other goes backwards.
In real science there must be a clear explanation why Phobos spiral inwards while Demos spirals outwards.
They behave differently because they are in different circumstances.
OK
Now you are using Forwards/Backwards instead of Clockwise/Anticlockwise.
Can you please confirm the following understanding with regards to the impact of Forwards/backwards on spiraling Inwards/Outwards:
Spiraling Inwards - Phobos orbital velocity is forwards/faster than Mars' spin, Therefore it spirals inwards.
Spiraling Outwards - Demos orbital velocity is backwards/slower than Mars' spin, Therefore it spirals outwards.
Did I understand you correctly?
If the whole idea of Moon' spiraling Inwards/outwards is based on Forwards/backwards (Orbital velocity with regards to the planet' spin), then why did you use Clockwise/Anticlockwise?
Is it just to confuse me?
How happy you are after confusing me with your MOS and highlighting my poor understanding?
Is it that you do not understand that forwards and backwards are different?
Or do you not understand that different circumstances will lead to different outcomes?
Can you please backup this Forwards/backwards impact on orbital spiraling by real article or is it one more aspect of your MOS that you are going to change in your next reply?
Post by: Kryptid on 29/07/2021 04:44:54
Is it Ok with you to let BC offering those kind of uncorrected and contradicted answers just in order to overcome the understanding that Stars can't fall/spiral inwards into the SMBH' accretion disc?
So, do you agree with BC approach in order to protect the mainstream hope that the SMBH must eat matter from outside – Although we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc?
Clockwise and counter-clockwise are relative to your point of view.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/07/2021 08:33:21
Clockwise and counter-clockwise are relative to your point of view.Yes, that is very clear.
However, why BC couldn't offer the forward/backwards instead of Clockwise/anticlockwise at the first time?
I have an impression that even Forward/backward is another MOS.
Later on he might claim that this one also has double meaning.
Please be aware that he didn't offer an article to backup any of his ideas.
Why he offers that kind of MOS with double meaning just to confuse me and waste my time?
How can we set any sort of real discussion when his main task is to confuse me with his MOS?
Is it OK with you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/07/2021 08:50:37
Clockwise/Anticlockwise?No.
Is it just to confuse me?
I used clockwise and anticlockwise because those are the words we use to describe rotations.
Things like rotating bodies such as Mars, and orbits like the two moons rotate; and the rotations are described as clockwise or anticlockwise.
Your not understanding these words is not my fault.
How happy you are after confusing me with your MOS and highlighting my poor understanding?If you want me to stop highlighting your misunderstandings then either stop posting them or learn more. That is your decision. If you keep on posting stuff that is wrong, I will keep pointing it out. How else will you learn any better? How else would others reading this know that you post nonsense?
I would be happy if you understood things, but you keep refusing to learn.
If you learned that things fall down, rather than up that would be good.
If you learned that energy conservation is a fundamental law of the universe, that would be good.
But you do not learn, because you are a troll.
You proved this.
You said
You have lost the game!
This isn't a game, but if you are just pretending, then you are a troll.
That would explain why you keep pretending that things fall up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/07/2021 08:51:07
I have an impression that even Forward/backward is another MOS.Most of your impressions turn out to be wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/07/2021 08:55:41
Please be aware that he didn't offer an article to backup any of his ideas.Why are you obsessed with articles?
I can not find an article that says "Things fall down".
Nobody would write such an article because anyone old enough to learn to read already knows that things fall down.
I suppose, if I had time, I could write an article that says things like "things fall down" and " the conservation of mass/ energy is true", and get it published.
There are vanity publishing sites that will publish anything- for a fee.
If you wanted, you could write an article that says grass is red, sunshine makes things cold, things fall up and the conservation laws are wrong.
And you could get that published.
But it would still be wrong, wouldn't it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/07/2021 08:58:34
his main task is to confuse me with his MOS?You were more nearly right when you said
How happy you are after confusing me with your MOS and highlighting my poor understanding?
It is the job of people who know things to try to correct the mistakes of people who do not.
And the way to do that- what you call my "main task" is to highlight your misunderstandings so that you can learn a better understanding.
Unfortunately, you refuse to learn.
I think it is because you are a troll.
So, you need to convince me that you are not a troll.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/07/2021 09:08:01
Can you please confirm the following understanding with regards to the impact of Forwards/backwards on spiraling Inwards/Outwards:
Spiraling Inwards - Phobos orbital velocity is forwards/faster than Mars' spin, Therefore it spirals inwards.
Spiraling Outwards - Demos orbital velocity is backwards/slower than Mars' spin, Therefore it spirals outwards.
Did I understand you correctly?
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/07/2021 10:48:17
Unfortunately, you refuse to learn.
I think it is because you are a troll.
So, you need to convince me that you are not a troll.
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/07/2021 12:25:09
Unfortunately, you refuse to learn.
I think it is because you are a troll.
So, you need to convince me that you are not a troll.
Yes, this is your comfort zone.
Instead of dealing with difficult questions it is always better to claim that other one is a troll without a basic understanding of "real science" that is called BBT.
There is a reason why you ignore my question:
Can you please confirm the following understanding with regards to the impact of Forwards/backwards on spiraling Inwards/Outwards:You know that Mars and its moons is an ultimate example for orbital system with spiraling Inwards and outwards Moons.
Spiraling Inwards - Phobos orbital velocity is forwards/faster than Mars' spin, Therefore it spirals inwards.
Spiraling Outwards - Demos orbital velocity is backwards/slower than Mars' spin, Therefore it spirals outwards.
Did I understand you correctly?
You know that this system proves that in order to spiral inwards, the orbital object must move faster/forwarder than the spin of the main object.
You know that S2 orbital time is 15 years and there is no chance that the SMBH (as a rotatable object) sets one spin in so long time.
You know that S2 can't spiral inwards.
You and all your 100,000 "BBT scientists" know that Nothing really falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Therefore, you have tried to confuse me with your clockwise/anticlockwise and then with Forward/backwards.
Why don't you try the Elephant/Ant or Fofo/Fifi?
Please be aware that anyone that know by 100% that his answer is incorrect and still offer that answer can't claim that his message is true!
If you wish to continue the discussion - it is your obligation to explain why the same gravity/tidal forces that spiral Demos outwards from Mars, can't also spiral S2 away from the SMBH?
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/07/2021 12:34:37
I can not find an article that says "Things fall down".This message is another indication for your imagination.
Nobody would write such an article because anyone old enough to learn to read already knows that things fall down.
There are no "free objects" around the SMBH that are waiting to be eaten.
Any object there MUST orbit around the SMBH.
Therefore, nothing really falls.
It is just an issue of spiraling inwards or outwards - in orbital system.
Mars gave us the key understanding points for spiraling inwards & outwards.
It is your obligation to use those points in the S2 - SMBH as this is an orbital system.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/07/2021 13:12:42
There is a reason why you ignore my question:Yes.
The reason is that the evidence shows you to be a troll.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/07/2021 13:14:05
You know that S2 orbital time is 15 years and there is no chance that the SMBH (as a rotatable object) sets one spin in so long time.SMBH has no tide.
So the point is moot.
I already explained this.
Why are you going on about it?
Is it because you are a troll?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/07/2021 00:07:52
How can we set any sort of real discussion when his main task is to confuse me with his MOS?
I don't think his intention is to confuse you.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/07/2021 02:30:05
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:25:09What do we really know about the internal structure of a SMBH?
You know that S2 orbital time is 15 years and there is no chance that the SMBH (as a rotatable object) sets one spin in so long time.
SMBH has no tide.
So the point is moot.
Have you ever been inside a SMBH in order to claim if it has tide or not?
So based on what evidence do you claim such imagination?
The reason is that the evidence shows you to be a troll.What kind of evidence supports your manipulation that matter from the Bulge falls into the SMBH' accretion disc?
Actually - all the evidences that you are using are pure imagination as follow:
1. Spiral inwards - Mars and its moon show us clearly all the evidences that are needed for orbital object to spiral inwards or outwards. Based on those evidences, S2 that orbits around the SMBH would never spiral inwards.
2. Falling inwards - As I have already stated, There are no stars around the SMBH that are waiting to be eaten by falling in. All the objects orbit around the SMBH are in orbital motion. Therefore, they can only spiral in and not falling in. However, we have already verify that S2 can't spiral in. Never and ever.
Therefore - By real law of gravity and the requested conditioned for orbital objects to spiral inwards - stars do not spirals inwards.
3. Observation - We all agree that we have never ever observed any star as it spiral inwards.
You try to justify the missing observation for falling star by the following answer:
So, let's deal with that nonsense:Although we have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls into the SMBH' accretion disc?Although we have NEVER EVER observed any black cat in a dark coal cellar?
The plasma at the accretion disc is very observable as its temp is 10^9c
You wish to believe that the source for that plasma is a falling star. However, if that was correct, then as the star falls in, it is expected that it would break down to its atoms and it would grain the requested. Therefore it is expected to observe fireworks during that falling in and break down process.
There is no way that a star would fall all the way from the Bulge up to the accretion disc, break down to its atoms, increase its temp to 10^9 collide with the plasma at the accretion disc - without any sort of signs that we could observe.
So, your idea about the Back cat is just nonsense. Any star that falls in must end its life with Ultra high observable fireworks.
Please remember that we can observe millions of SMBH' accretion discs. Around each SMBH there are Millions of stars. So there are Billions of cats over there to be eaten by the SMBH.
How could it be that we don't observe even one cat?
If I would tell you that there are Billions of cats in LA but you can't see them all as they are all black and at any given moment they all are located at a black cellar would you believe me?
Don't you agree that some of them could be white or gray?
Don't you agree that from time to time they might jump out the blacj cellar?
So, even if there were just one million instead of one billion it is expected to observe some of them.
However, we do not observe even one star as it falls in.
Not as it gain ultra gigh temp as it falls. Not when its end its life with ultra strong fireworks and not when its atom collide with the plasma at the accretion disc.
We clearly observe the accretion disc of M87.
We see significant changes in its shape every year.
So, as it lose matter in so short time - new matter must come in.
Surprisingly, we don't observe any signs of falling stars/matter from outside.
All we see is a constant OUTFLOW from that disc.
So how can you continue to believe in a falling star while all the evidences prove that we should observe that falling in process - if it was real?
Therefore - anyone that claims that stars should fall into the SMBH' accretion disc without clear observation for that activity while it contradict our understanding for the requested conditions for spiraling inwards - is the real troll of the modern science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/07/2021 03:02:49
Yes he is.How can we set any sort of real discussion when his main task is to confuse me with his MOS?
I don't think his intention is to confuse you.
He confused me with his imagination of Clockwise/anticlockwise and then with Forward/backward while he refused to use his own ideas for the S2-SMBH system.
He offered the black cat example, while he knew that if there were cats over there, than the chance that all of them are black and all of them are constantly living on a black cellar is less than zero. Somehow we must observe at least one. In the same token as we have never observed a falling star - then it is the ultimate observation that NOTHING falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Please also be aware that he normally doesn't offer any article to support his imagination.
In the very rare times that he offered an article - he didn't highlight the important message that should support his idea.
Is it OK with you?
Sorry - He can't just sell us his personal imagination without any backup by real article and then claim that my understanding is poor.
He is wasting our time.
Therefore, I request you to force him to backup his imagination/ideas by real observation, real data and real article.
Any message that I have offered is backup by real article and real observation.
Hence, would you kindly set back this discussion at "new theories".
Post by: Kryptid on 30/07/2021 03:42:37
He confused me
There's a difference between him confusing you accidentally and confusing you intentionally.
Please also be aware that he normally doesn't offer any article to support his imagination.
In the very rare times that he offered an article - he didn't highlight the important message that should support his idea.
Is it OK with you?
Sorry - He can't just sell us his personal imagination without any backup by real article and then claim that my understanding is poor.
He is wasting our time.
Therefore, I request you to force him to backup his imagination/ideas by real observation, real data and real article.
Dave...
You do understand by now that's exactly what most of us, moderators included, think you are doing and not him, right? I know you strongly disagree with our view on that, but surely you at least acknowledge that pretty much everyone here who has taken the time to speak with you has opposed your idea?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2021 08:46:58
So based on what evidence do you claim such imagination?It's not my imagination.
You keep trying to pretend that it is just me who thinks this.
The science, while largely theoretical, is quite clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem
Why he offers that kind of MOS with double meaning just to confuse me and waste my time?I'm not "manipulating" science; I'm not even sure that's possible.
I'm just telling you what the science says.
Only you thinks they have more than one meaning.
They are clear to everyone else.
The only person here wasting your time is you.
You could stop posting this nonsense any time you chose.
But you keep trolling- as you said, you think it's a game.
But your decision to try to mislead people isn't a game; it's dangerous.
Frankly, I don't see why you have not been banned for it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2021 08:52:05
Therefore, they can only spiral in and not falling in.This is an example of your poor understanding.
And object which falls from orbit will almost always follow a spiral path.
"Falling in" and "spiraling in" mean the same thing.
So when you say "Therefore, they can only spiral in and not falling in.", we look at that and see this
"therefore, they can only fall in and not falling in.".
Do you realise it's not me pointing that out which makes you look a fool?
Everyone who read what you said knows that you do not understand that they mean the same thing and that you are a fool for saying they don't.
You keep making a fool of yourself, and then you try to blame me.
So there is no difference between "falling in" and "spiraling in".
So what you have said there is
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2021 08:56:22
In the very rare times that he offered an article - he didn't highlight the important message that should support his idea.If you were really more clever than the rest of the world's scientists, you would be able to find the important bit, wouldn't you?
None of the other scientists here had any problem.
Do you see now that they are the clever ones, and you are a fool?
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/07/2021 13:24:56
What kind of imagination do you wish to prove with this article?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 02:30:05It's not my imagination.
So based on what evidence do you claim such imagination?
You keep trying to pretend that it is just me who thinks this.
The science, while largely theoretical, is quite clear.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem
Can it be used to prove that orbital object (S2 for example) from outside (Bulge) should spiral inwards?
You keep making a fool of yourself, and then you try to blame me.Yes, there is a big difference.
So there is no difference between "falling in" and "spiraling in".
1. Spiraling inwards - Phobos spirals inwards and decreases its average radius by two meter per year. It is expected that it would take it about 40 M Years before it would break down due to the closest approach to Mars. It also has a circular orbital shape. this is a key factor for any spiraling in object. We also see that activity in the gravity wave when the objects spiral inwards in a circular way around their common center of mass until they finely merge.
Hence - spiraling inwards means that the orbital object orbits at a circular shape, decreases its average radius, decreases its orbital cycle time and increases its orbital velocity over time. That process takes time. Therefore, although Phobos is located now just three times the radius of mars, it could take it 40 million years to get inwards. However, if there is a friction (As atmosphere friction) it could merge with the main object after few months or even days.
2. Falling inwards - This is a different scenario. In this case, the object falls at accelerated velocity and merge with the main object without setting even one single orbital cycle. As an example we can use the meteorites that collide with our planet and merge with it. Those objects do not orbit about the planet but around the Sun. Therefore, falling inwards objects are not orbital objects with reference to the object that they collide with.
In this case, we can use the examples: falling apple, falling air-plan & falling meteorite.
None of them sets even one natural orbital cycle around the planet before it merge with it.
So, in spiraling inwards and in falling inwards the final stage is merging with the main mass.
There is no way for the orbital object to spiral inwards decreases its average orbital radius up to almost a circular shape at the event horizon and then suddenly change the spiraling/falling from inwards to outwards or outflow.
This is the biggest mistake of the modern science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2021 13:44:16
Moving under the influence of gravity (without much other influence) is falling.
So spiraling in is falling.
You then posted about 350 words of stuff that must be wrong.
It also has a circular orbital shape. this is a key factor for any spiraling in object.That can not possibly be true.
A spiral is not a circle.
What did you think you were talking about?
the object falls at accelerated velocity and merge with the main object without setting even one single orbital cycleYou made that up, and it's bollocks.
Or, as you would put it.
Provide an article that shows this definition.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2021 13:54:13
What kind of imagination do you wish to prove with this article?Imagination has nothing to do with it.
I don't think you know what the word means.
"the ability of the mind to be creative or resourceful."
"the part of the mind that imagines things."
But the point I made is simple enough.
Tides happen when gravity of an orbiting body changes the structure of something; such as when teh Moon moves teh eas around.
So a thing with no structure can't have tides.
And the "No hair" theory says that a BH has no structure.
So it can't have tides.
If you were any good at science, you would have understood that.
But you didn't understand it, did you?
Because you don't know any science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/07/2021 20:06:31
Tides happen when gravity of an orbiting body changes the structure of something; such as when teh Moon moves teh eas around.Thanks
So a thing with no structure can't have tides.
And the "No hair" theory says that a BH has no structure.
So it can't have tides.
If you were any good at science, you would have understood that.
So the No Hair theorem should reject the idea of Tides as BH has no structure.
The science, while largely theoretical, is quite clear.This is incorrect due to the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem
1. Different kinds of BH's
In the article it is stated:
"A study by Stephen Hawking, Malcolm Perry and Andrew Strominger postulates that black holes might contain "soft hair", giving the black hole more degrees of freedom than previously thought.[13] This hair permeates at a very low-energy state, which is why it didn't come up in previous calculations that postulated the no-hair theorem.[14]"
So there is a possibility for soft hair. Therefore, not all the BH's are exactly the same. There are different kinds of BH's as there are different kinds of planets. Some planets have atmosphere around them and carry water while others have no atmosphere and no water.
2. Gravity wave -
Based on gravity wave theory two BHs/Neutron stars orbit around their common center of mass and spiral inwards. At the final stage, just before the final merging phase they gain ultra high orbital velocity. That velocity would set the spin/rotation velocity of the combined BH after the merging process. Let's call this combined BH a gravity wave' BH.
So, this gravity wave' BH rotates at ultra high velocity and therefore it should be able to generate ultra high Electromagnetic power. We clearly observe in our universe the Pulsar and Magnetar that are so unique with their ultra EM power.
Therefore, not all the BH's are the same. In some of them there will be no hair, no rotation and no any sort of EM. While on other (especially at those Gravity wave BHs) there is high rotation velocity, high EM and even soft (or higher) hair that is sensible to tides. Those kinds of BH's with their high ability of EM could generate high radiation around them. Therefore, we clearly observe the jet stream that is boosted away from them. There is high chance that the SMBH had been evolved from this kind of Gravity wave' BH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2021 20:14:38
black holes might contain...Or they might not.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/07/2021 18:19:56
I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/07/2021 20:21:15
If you accept the LIGO observation of the gravity wave' BH, you have to accept that it rotates at ultra high velocity and contain EM power. This kind of BH is absolutely different! Pulsar and Magnetar are good examples for other kinds of BHs.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 20:06:31Or they might not.
black holes might contain.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/07/2021 20:34:23
I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.I'm saying that it's not so complicated.
If you accept the gravity wave' BH and agree that a Pulsar has ultra high EM power, then you have to agree that it could generate new particles near its event horizon by its ultra high EM power/radiation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2021 20:48:39
You are ignoring the conservation laws again.I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.I'm saying that it's not so complicated.
If you accept the gravity wave' BH and agree that a Pulsar has ultra high EM power, then you have to agree that it could generate new particles near its event horizon by its ultra high EM power/radiation.
Blackholes can generate particles- via the Hawking radiation mechanism.
In doing so they must lose mass.
So they can not do it forever.
So they can not be the mechanism for a steady state universe.
That bit is not complicated.
The orbital mechanics of stuff falling into a black hole is also not really complicated.
On the whole, it falls down.
But the details of the path taken by different materials and objects is rather complicated.
Even with a simple system like Mars, Phobos and Demos, I had to explain it to you several times before you began to understand it.
Those details don't matter.
In the long run you only need t look at the big picture.
In the long run, things fall down.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/07/2021 20:59:22
You are ignoring the conservation laws again.Yes they can.
Blackholes can generate particles- via the Hawking radiation mechanism.
In doing so they must lose mass.
So they cannot do it forever.
So they can not be the mechanism for a steady state universe.
Please let me know if you agree with the following:
1. Do you agree that Pulsar has high EM energy/radiation?
2. Do you agree that based on this EM radiation it can generate new positive mass particle pair (with opposite charged to each other) around its event horizon?
3. Do you agree that due to Lorenz force under the magnetic field, as one new created particle falls into the Pulsar the other one is ejected outwards?
4. Do you agree that as a pulsar rotates and generates EM it should have at least soft hair. Therefore, it is affected by tides.
5. Do you agree that if there is an orbital object around it, then it could set tides that would generate new internal heat at that Pulsar which will compensate the lost of EM energy due to the new created particle pair?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2021 21:06:36
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/07/2021 21:17:01
Do you understand that when a star shines it loses mass?Sure
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/07/2021 21:25:55
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/07/2021 05:58:56
Do you understand that, as a pulsar or black hole shines it loses mass?
BH's & Pulsar are very dense objects.
They do not emit light from their core therefore they do not shine and do not lose mass (as the sun does)
However, Pulsar has Ultra high EM power/radiation.
Our scientists claim that this high EM power can generate new particle pair:
https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0205077
"We investigate the conditions required for the production of electron-positron pairs above a pulsar polar cap (PC) and the influence of pair production on the energetics of the primary particle acceleration."
In the following image it is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulsar#/media/File:Chandra-crab.jpg
"Composite optical/X-ray image of the Crab Nebula, showing synchrotron emission in the surrounding pulsar wind nebula, powered by injection of magnetic fields and particles from the central pulsar."
Hence, new particle pair are created By the ultra high Pulsar electromagnetic.
As they carry opposite charged, one is falling into the Pulsar while the other particle is ejected outwards.
Those particles that are emitted outwards make the Pulsar so visible.
Hence, the Pulsar does lose mass. Actually it gain one of the new created particle pair and increases its total mass.
However, it must lose EM energy in that process.
Never the less, if next to this Pulsar there is a massive planet or a white dwarf, it would get back new energy due to tides.
https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.20190916a/full/
"Astronomers have identified a handful of binary systems in which a pulsar is gravitationally and closely bound to a white dwarf."
Conclusion:
Pulsar core is invisible (as a BH). Therefore it doesn't emit any sort of particle and doesn't lose any mass.
It is losing EM energy in the process of creating new particle pairs above its polar cap (PC).
In that pair particle creation process, it will even increase its mass over time as one particle out of the pair falls inwards while the other one is ejected outwards.
However, due to a nearby white dwarf it will regain new Heat energy that would compensate its losing EM energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/07/2021 12:48:29
Our scientists claim that this high EM power can generate new particle pair:I remember telling you this.
Our scientists didn't observe any sort of pair production by pure energy.Why do you tell that lie?
I'm glad to see it has finally sunk into your brain.
Pulsar core is invisible (as a BH). Therefore it doesn't emit any sort of particle and doesn't lose any mass.What do you think stops it emitting Hawking radiation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/07/2021 12:50:02
. Therefore it doesn't emit any sort of particle and doesn't lose any mass.But losing EM radiation means losing mass
It is losing EM energy
You already seemed to accept this.
Do you understand that when a star shines it loses mass?Sure
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/07/2021 17:29:26
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:58:56Let's verify how Hawking radiation really works:
Pulsar core is invisible (as a BH). Therefore it doesn't emit any sort of particle and doesn't lose any mass.
What do you think stops it emitting Hawking radiation?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation
"Hawking radiation is black-body radiation that is theorized to be released by black holes because of quantum effects near the black hole event horizon. It is named after the physicist Stephen Hawking, who developed a theoretical argument for its existence in 1974.[1]"
So Hawking radiation is all about black-body radiation.
That radiation doesn't reduce the total mass of the BH itself.
In order to reduce the total energy of the black hole a pair particle (one with positive energy and the other with negative energy must be created:
" A pair of virtual waves/particles arises just outside the event horizon due to ordinary quantum effects. Very close to the event horizon, these always manifest as a pair of photons. It may happen that one of these photons passes beyond the event horizon, while the other escapes into the wider universe ("to infinity").[2] A close analysis shows that the exponential red-shifting effect of extreme gravity very close to the event horizon almost tears the escaping photon apart, and, in addition, very slightly amplifies it.[2] The amplification gives rise to a "partner wave", which carries negative energy and passes through the event horizon, where it remains trapped, reducing the total energy of the black hole."
As the negative energy particle falls into the BH it loses some of its energy.
The production of this pair is due to "to ordinary quantum effects".
So, it is not that the BH is losing energy/mass due to Hawing radiation, but it is due to the fact that a falling particle with negative energy/mass reduces the total energy of the BH.
Hence, the creation of the pair itself doesn't take energy from the BH as it is due to "ordinary quantum effects"
The losing energy comes just after the particle with negative mass/energy falls into the BH.
Therefore, it was incorrect to claim that due to the Hawking radiation the BH is losing energy or mass.
Based on Hawking the BH is losing energy/mass due to the falling particle with negative mass/energy.
However, the main question is: Do Negative energy (or negative mass) exists in our Universe?
We had long discussion about it.
So far our scientists could not offer any observation that could support this idea.
Therefore - without clear observation that there is negative particle, then this idea is just imagination.
Hence - a BH is not losing energy/mass due to Hawking radiation (But due to falling negative mass/energy) particle.
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/07/2021 17:50:31
But losing EM radiation means losing massLosing EM energy doesn't mean losing mass.
Our planet generates EM without losing even one particle.
The EM energy comes due to the internal rotational activity and heat.
So, Losing EM energy would potentially reduce the internal rotation and its heat over time.
However, the Tides help the BH to regain the lost energy due to the pair creation.
Over time the BH increases its mass (due to the falling positive particle/energy) and it is increasing its EM as the tides is stronger (due to increase mass in the BH and increased mass outside the BH as the other positive mass/particle had been ejected outwards).
Post by: Kryptid on 31/07/2021 20:39:44
Losing EM energy doesn't mean losing mass.
E=mc2 begs to differ.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/07/2021 20:48:23
Dave only reliably believes the bit of Einstein's work which Einstein himself described as "his greatest blunder"Losing EM energy doesn't mean losing mass.
E=mc2 begs to differ.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/08/2021 05:50:23
OKLosing EM energy doesn't mean losing mass.E=mc2 begs to differ.
If you consider the internal rotation and the internal Heat of a Pulsar as mass, then I fully accept your understanding that by losing EM energy to create the New particale pair, the Pulsar is losing mass.
However, in the same token, you have to agree that the nearby White dwarf' gravity Tides means an increasing in the internal heat and the internal rotation in that Pulsar.
Therefore, do you confirm that the nearby dwarf increases the energy/mass of the Pulsar by its tides force.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/08/2021 07:13:36
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/08/2021 12:33:39
If tides from the white dwarf do indeed heat up the neutron star, then the white dwarf has lost just as much energy (and mass) as the neutron star has gained in the process. Conservation of mass and energy won't allow anything different.Sorry, tidal increases the heat also at the orbital object.
Jupiter' moon (Io) is an excellent example for that activity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating
"The tidal heating produced by Io's forced orbital eccentricity has made it the most volcanically active world in the Solar System, with hundreds of volcanic centres and extensive lava flows."
Hence, the Tidal forces heat the main mass/Planet/Pulsar and the orbital objects/moons.
Therefore, while the Pulsar gains Tidal heating, its orbital object (the white dwarf) also gains Tidal heating.
I wonder what is the added heating energy that the Pulsar gain due to this Tidal forces with that white dwarf?
If we could estimate the total energy that it gains per orbital cycle, we could calculate the total particle pair that it could generate with that energy.
Please be aware, that while one particle falls into the Pulsar, the other one is ejected into the White dwarf.
Therefore, the Pulsar and the white dwarf gain more mass over time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/08/2021 12:45:42
But the conservation laws say that the total energy remains the same whatever the tides do.
On the other hand, the gravity waves produced mean that energy and therefore mass, is constantly lost from the system.
So, what you get is a system which has less mass as time goes on.
Eventually, the effects of tide etc will mean that the two objects collide.
If one of them was a BH then you end up with a bigger BH.
And in time, that evaporates by Hawking radiation.
And after a really long time, there's nothing left.
So it can not possibly be a basis for a steady stated universe.
So Dave the troll is still wrong.
Post by: Kryptid on 01/08/2021 14:18:33
Therefore, the Pulsar and the white dwarf gain more mass over time.
That violates conservation of mass.
Post by: Origin on 01/08/2021 16:48:58
That violates conservation of mass.That is something you learn in your first semester of physics and Dave hasn't made it that far yet.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/08/2021 17:02:17
He doesn't seem to science well.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/08/2021 19:42:50
Tides allow energy to be transmitted in both directions.Gravity force formula is as follow:
https://www.toppr.com/guides/physics-formulas/gravitational-force-formula/
F1 = F2 = G * m1 * m2 / r^2
That gravity force is absolutely identical for the main mass (F1) and for the orbital object (F2) and it is for free. No one really pays for that force.
Normally, in order to get a force you must invest energy, while force can be transfored back to work and energy.
However, Gravity force is there without any investment of energy.
Hence, gravity force is for free. As force can be transformed into work or energy, then also gravity force can be transforemd into work and energy.
Therefore, the Tidal heat is the energy that is created due to the free gravity force. As the gravity force is for free than the tidal heat is also for free.
Hence, Tides allow (heat) energy to be transmitted in both directions.
So, the tidal heat energy in both objects doesn't contradict the conservation laws as the gravity force is for free and it adds heat energy to both objects in the orbital system.
But the conservation laws say that the total energy remains the same whatever the tides do.That is incorrect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
"In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time."
So, the conservation law is related to isolated physical system without any external forces on it.
However, although the gravity force is due to the mass/radius of the objects in that isolated physical orbital system it is actually an external force.
It comes for free as it doesn't reduce the mass of any object in the system.
Hence, the gravity force should be considered as a force that comes externally into the isolated system.
As this gravity works the same on both orbital systems, it increases the Tidal heat of each object without any reduction of mass in any of the objects.
Therefore, we see the great impact of tidal heat on our planet and also on Io moon (without losing mass).
On the other hand, the gravity waves produced mean that energy and therefore mass, is constantly lost from the system.I disagree
So, what you get is a system which has less mass as time goes on.
I still think that mass is mass and energy is energy.
So, please, for this discussion let's separate between the two.
Let's assume that in this gravity wave we discuss about BH + Neutron star.
Let's also assume that the internal energies (heat + rotation +..) in both objects is zero.
So, we only have their pure mass.
As those objects spirals inwards to each other they do not lose any mass. However in this process they are increasing their orbital velocity around their common center of mass. Just one moment before the last merging activity, their orbital velocity is Ultra fast, their internal heat is high while there is no change in their pure mass.
Therefore, this is an example of increasing the total mass energy of the objects due to gravity.
However, I can agree with you that at the merging moment, due to the impact between the two objects, some mass/energy might be dissipated.
In any case, the tidal heat increases the total Mass/energy in the orbital system.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/08/2021 20:07:22
I disagreeThen you are not doing science, are you?
I still think that mass is mass and energy is energy.
The only question left is, are you a fool or a troll?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/08/2021 20:54:15
I still think that mass is mass and energy is energy.
So you reject E=mc2?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/08/2021 21:15:38
Dave has spent 24 pages steadfastly ignoring science and claiming that all the scientists who accept the BBT are liars.I still think that mass is mass and energy is energy.
So you reject E=mc2?
Did you expect him to suddenly change his policy ?
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/08/2021 01:06:46
No.I still think that mass is mass and energy is energy.
So you reject E=mc2?
I discuss from the Gravity point of view.
Gravity formula is purely based on mass & radius..
F1 = F2 = G * m1 * m2 / r^2The internal energies of the object as rotation and heat are just irrelevant when it comes to the gravity force.
There is no change in the gravity force if the rotation of the object or its heat are increasing or decreasing.
Tidal & gravity wave are direct outcome from gravity.
Therefore, as we focus on gravity, we must distinguish between mass and energy.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/08/2021 01:23:17
There is no change in the gravity force if the rotation of the object or its heat are increasing or decreasing.
Actually, it does. Rotational kinetic energy and heat energy are, of course, energy. That energy has mass as per E=mc2. So if it loses rotational kinetic energy or heat energy, the mass associated with that energy is lost as well.
Post by: Dave Lev on 02/08/2021 06:37:43
Do you mean that if the internal heat of the Moon would be increased then its gravity force with the earth would also be increased?There is no change in the gravity force if the rotation of the object or its heat are increasing or decreasing.
Actually, it does. Rotational kinetic energy and heat energy are, of course, energy. That energy has mass as per E=mc2. So if it loses rotational kinetic energy or heat energy, the mass associated with that energy is lost as well.
Even if that is correct, don't you agree that the gravity comes for free?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_lawAs the isolated orbital system doesn't lose energy due to gravity force, then why that force that comes for free can't set a work and increase the heat in the Earth or Io Moon without losing mass/energy somewhere else for that specific work?
"In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time."
So, the conservation law is related to isolated physical system without any external forces on it.
However, although the gravity force is due to the mass/radius of the objects in that isolated physical orbital system it is actually an external force.
It comes for free as it doesn't reduce the mass of any object in the system.
Hence, the gravity force should be considered as a force that comes externally into the isolated system.
As this gravity works the same on both orbital systems, it increases the Tidal heat of each object without any reduction of mass in any of the objects.
Therefore, we see the great impact of tidal heat on our planet and also on Io moon (without losing mass).
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/08/2021 10:00:14
Therefore, as we focus on gravity, we must distinguish between mass and energy.Gravity does not make that distinction.
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/08/2021 10:02:03
don't you agree that the gravity comes for free?No.
it is "paid for" by whatever produces this
the internal heat of the Moon would be increased
Again, you are ignoring established experimental results.
You need to stop trolling.
Post by: Kryptid on 02/08/2021 15:03:42
Do you mean that if the internal heat of the Moon would be increased then its gravity force with the earth would also be increased?
Yes.
Even if that is correct, don't you agree that the gravity comes for free?
Yes, but gravity is a force, not energy. The energy that a gravitational field can transfer has to come from somewhere. It isn't for "free".
As the isolated orbital system doesn't lose energy due to gravity force, then why that force that comes for free can't set a work and increase the heat in the Earth or Io Moon without losing mass/energy somewhere else for that specific work?
Because that would violate conservation of energy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/08/2021 06:41:31
ThanksDo you mean that if the internal heat of the Moon would be increased then its gravity force with the earth would also be increased?Yes.Even if that is correct, don't you agree that the gravity comes for free?Yes, but gravity is a force, not energy. The energy that a gravitational field can transfer has to come from somewhere. It isn't for "free".
Do appreciate your explanation and confirmation:
So you confirm that the gravity force is free but you also claim that: " but gravity is a force, not energy. The energy that a gravitational field can transfer has to come from somewhere. It isn't for "free"."
However, we know that force can set work.
For example, the car' eneine sets force that forces the car to set work. that work moves the car forwards or backwards.
Theoretically, if we could get a car engine that could set a force without any sort of external energy, then we could move the care for free.
In the same token the gravity force moves two objects around each other.
That force sets work as it holds those objects in that orbital path.
Try to eliminate the free gravity force and calculate the energy that is needed to hold those massive objects in their orbital path.
Do you confirm that the gravity force formula is as follow:
F1 = F2 = G * m1 * m2 / r^2Do you confirm that there is no reduction in m1 & m2 mass or energy over time due to that gravity force?
So, we have gravity force free of charge and it also sets work free of charge.
If we have to set that work without gravity force, than we had to invest energy.
Therefore, the force that holds the objects is equivalent to energy that must be invested if the gravity force was not there.
In the same token, when an object is falling on earth it gain kinetic energy.
So, the potential gravity force is transformed into real kinetic energy.
Try to calculate the energy that a falling satellite is needed at its collision impact with the earth.
So, as gravity force is for free, the work that it generates is for free.
That work means energy. Hence, the gravity force generates energy for free.
If you still don't agree with that, then please show how much energy/mass m1 and m2 are losing due to the gravity force.
Please also show the energy that was needed in order to force/hold the earth in orbital path around the Sun (if there was no gravity force).
No it doesn't.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:37:43Because that would violate conservation of energy.
As the isolated orbital system doesn't lose energy due to gravity force, then why that force that comes for free can't set a work and increase the heat in the Earth or Io Moon without losing mass/energy somewhere else for that specific work?
I have already explained it.
As gravity force is for free, it is edded as an external force into the isolated physical system:
That is incorrect.Therefore, as the gravity force is for free, its equivalent impact of work/energy is also for free.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law
"In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves over time."
So, the conservation law is related to isolated physical system without any external forces on it.
However, although the gravity force is due to the mass/radius of the objects in that isolated physical orbital system it is actually an external force.
It comes for free as it doesn't reduce the mass of any object in the system.
Hence, the gravity force should be considered as a force that comes externally into the isolated system.
As this gravity works the same on both orbital systems, it increases the Tidal heat of each object without any reduction of mass in any of the objects.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/08/2021 06:44:07
So, as gravity force is for free, the work that it generates is for free.
Where does gravity get that energy from?
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/08/2021 06:55:24
It is for free.So, as gravity force is for free, the work that it generates is for free.
Where does gravity get that energy from?
We have to ask Newton why the gravity force doesn't need any energy for its work and why the gravity formula is as follow:
F1 = F2 = G * m1 * m2 / r^2If energy was needed for the gravity force then the works/energy due to that force was not free of charge.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/08/2021 06:56:37
It is for free.
I didn't ask if it was for free or not, I asked where it came from.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/08/2021 10:04:57
It is for free.There is no such thing as free energy in science.
So, once again, are you a foll who believes in in it, or a troll who pretends to?
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/08/2021 10:07:15
We have to ask Newton why the gravity force doesn't need any energy for its workGravity doesn't usually do work, so it does not need energy.
If you want to use the energy of a rock rolling don a mountain, you have to start bu putting the work in to take the rock to the top of the mountain.
This is fundamental, high-school physics you do not understand.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/08/2021 20:29:13
The mass of an object causes the space around it to essentially bend and curve.It is for free.I didn't ask if it was for free or not, I asked where it came from.
https://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/
Albert Einstein explained how gravity is more than just a force: it is a curvature in the space-time continuum. That sounds like something straight out of science fiction, but simply put, the mass of an object causes the space around it to essentially bend and curve."
Hence, there is no need for any sort of energy to set that gravity force. Therefore, the gravity force is for free.
As the gravity force is for free, then the work due to gravity force is also for free.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:55:24There is no such thing as free energy in science.
It is for free.
In our real Universe, in order to set a work, energy is needed.
As the Gravity force comes for free then the gravity work also comes for free and therefore, the energy for that work comes for free.
Gravity doesn't usually do work, so it does not need energy.You use the word - Usually.
If you want to use the energy of a rock rolling don a mountain, you have to start bu putting the work in to take the rock to the top of the mountain.
I prefer to use - sometimes.
Hence, sometimes, if there is already a rock at the open space (asteroid) and let it fall in the direction of Earth, it would set a work due to gravity force.
We can easily calculate the energy at the moment of the collision. That energy is for free as it is due to a free gravity force.
However, I fully agree that once the rock is in the valley, we won't gain new energy by taking it to the top of the mountain.
Theoretically, we can gain energy from orbital objects free of charge.
If we could set a wire all the way to the moon, then as the moon orbits around the earth, the movement of this wire could generate electricity - free of charge.
Therefore, any energy that comes due to gravity is a free energy.
Hence, as the tidal heat comes due to gravity force, it is a free energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/08/2021 20:48:23
You use the word - Usually.Well, let's go with the word "Always" .
I prefer to use - sometimes.
Because it is always the case that someone, or something had to put the rock up there.
Hence, as the tidal heat comes due to gravity force, it is a free energy.In that case, the energy isn't "free" it comes from whatever created the Moon.
This is fundamental, high-school physics you do not understand.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/08/2021 20:54:36
Therefore, the gravity force is for free.
Again, I didn't ask if it was for free or not. I asked where it came from. "Free" is not a location. You can't find "free" on a map.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/08/2021 20:55:59
Theoretically, we can gain energy from orbital objects free of charge.No,
You "harvest" the kinetic energy of the object and change its orbit.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/08/2021 20:56:52
Therefore, the gravity force is for free.Yes.
But energy is not.
Do you understand the difference?
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/08/2021 06:08:24
Are you sure about "Always"?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:29:13Well, let's go with the word "Always" .
You use the word - Usually.
I prefer to use - sometimes.
Because it is always the case that someone, or something had to put the rock up there.
Lets assume that this rock is located at a star that orbits around the SMBH.
Based on your explanation as this star falls inwards, it should break down and its temp should be increased. As its matter gets to the accretion disc, the temp would be increased to 10^9c and the orbital velocity would be close to the speed of light.
If I understand you correctly, that added energy is due to gravity force.
However, the same gravity force that pulled inwards that star, breaks it down and increases so dramatically the energy in that matter, would change the falling direction of the matter and suddenly push outwards most of the heated plasma.
Hence, based on the wisdom of our scientists the gravity force around the SMBH works as follow:
It grabs star that orbits around it.
It breaks it down to its particles, increases the temp, orbital velocity and the energy.
As the matter gets very close to the event horizon, the gravity force makes a unique movement.
Instead of just dump that ultra energetic matter into the SMBH, it suddenly push it outwards as the observable UFO.
So, you fully confirm that the gravity force is for free.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:29:13Yes.
Therefore, the gravity force is for free.
But energy is not.
Do you understand the difference?
However, you claim that the gravity force can't be converted into energy.
How can you use double standard when it comes to the conservation law?
When you need an extra energy free of charge - then the gravity force is there to contribute unlimited energy for free.
When you don't need it - then the same gravity force can't do so.
Is it real?
Are you sure that this forum is all about real science?
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/08/2021 06:24:55
Theoretically, we can gain free of charge energy from a free gravity force.
All we need is to come close enough to the SMBH.
Dump a cold rock into the SMBH and get it back as a supper heated plasma at 10^9c.
Use the energy in that plasma and then dump it gain into the SMBH.
Hence, free gravity force offers free of charge energy.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/08/2021 06:58:17
Again, I didn't ask if it was for free or not. I asked where it came from. "Free" is not a location. You can't find "free" on a map.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/08/2021 10:52:17
If I understand you correctly,You don't understand anything.
that added energy is due to gravity force.The energy was stored there by the BB.
As the matter gets very close to the event horizon, the gravity force makes a unique movement.No
I already explained this.
NEVER and EVER.We actually use this effect.
We send a spacecraft falling towards the Sun in order to launch it into interstellar space/.
It's called "gravity assist"
And it doesn't matter if you use capital letters, it is still observed to be true.
Exactly the same orbital mechanics could launch a small fraction of the incoming material away from a BH.
Why do you not remember things you are taught?
So, you fully confirm that the gravity force is for free.No.
However, you claim that the gravity force can't be converted into energy.
How can you use double standard when it comes to the conservation law?
When you need an extra energy free of charge - then the gravity force is there to contribute unlimited energy for free.
When you don't need it - then the same gravity force can't do so.
Is it real?
It's not real, its tosh you made up.
Only you think that there is unlimited energy.
We scientists know better.
If you don't believe that, please show a post where anyone but you has said that there's unlimited energy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/08/2021 19:56:45
Do you plan on answering this?I have already did:Again, I didn't ask if it was for free or not. I asked where it came from. "Free" is not a location. You can't find "free" on a map.
The mass of an object causes the space around it to essentially bend and curve.I can't offer an answer better than Einstein.
https://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/
Albert Einstein explained how gravity is more than just a force: it is a curvature in the space-time continuum. That sounds like something straight out of science fiction, but simply put, the mass of an object causes the space around it to essentially bend and curve."
Hence, there is no need for any sort of energy to set that gravity force.
We send a spacecraft falling towards the Sun in order to launch it into interstellar space/.Gravity assist doesn't explain the accretion disc.
It's called "gravity assist"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist
A gravity assist around a planet changes a spacecraft's velocity (relative to the Sun) by entering and leaving the gravitational sphere of influence of a planet.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist#/media/File:GravAssis.gif
*
Therefore, Gravity assist is all about eccentricity of the orbital shape.
as eccentricity is close to one than the orbital shape is ellipse and the orbital object get closer to the main mass:
https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/O/Orbital+Eccentricity
If the eccentricity is higher than 1 the orbital shape is hyperbola.
That hyperbola represents the Gravity assist.
In that case, the "falling object" can't set even one circular orbital cycle around the main mass.
It just comes close enough to the main object and then boosted away into the space.
However, the accretion disc has a circular orbital shape.
We clearly see it in the image of M87 accretion disc.
Hence, any person that claims that an object from the bulge could fall inwards into the accretion disc, once it get near the event horizon it would sets many circular cycles and after some time it would be ejected outwards due to Gravity assist., doesn't represents real science.
It is just science fiction.
If you still hold the imagination of the Gravity assist to help you in the activity at the accretion disc, then please explain how an orbital object with high eccentricity would suddenly change its eccentricity almost to zero as it gets to the event horizon, and after many circular orbits at that radius - it will change its eccentricity back to over than one.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/08/2021 20:27:52
Let's make it clear.
Orbital objects do not fall in.
It is all about eccentricity.
If the eccentricity is zero than the orbital shape is circular.
Hence, the object keeps exactly the same radius in full orbital cycle.
If the eccentricity is higher than zero but less than one, then the orbital shape is ellipse.
In each full orbital cycle there is a point when the orbital object comes closer to the main mass.
However, it is a fatal mistake to call it as "falling object" when it comes closer to the main object.
It is not falling. It is orbiting.
The last issue is that the orbital object does not change its eccentricity so dramatically in one moment.
Hence, an orbital object with high eccentricity (close to one) would never change its eccentricity to zero (or close to zero) as it gets to the event horizon of the main mass.
In the same token, an orbital object with eccentricity of almost zero at the accretion disc, would never ever change its eccentricity to over than one in one moment..
Our scientists don't have a basic clue how the accretion disc really works.
Its time to set their imagination of falling stars deep in the garbage.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/08/2021 20:58:58
I have already did:
Quote the part of your post that states the location where gravity got the energy from.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/08/2021 22:03:22
Gravity assist doesn't explain the accretion disc.Nobody said it did.
But it does explain the thing you actually asked about.
Did you know that, if you have forgotten what question you asked, you can look back through the thread and read it again?
the gravity force makes a unique movement.
Instead of just dump that ultra energetic matter into the SMBH, it suddenly push it outwards as the observable UFO.
The small amount of stuff that followed the right path got flung out by a mechanism that looks like a gravity assist.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/08/2021 22:04:22
Let's make it clear.One of the moons of Mars is doing.
Orbital objects do not fall in.
Why do you post something when you know it is wrong, and then say everyone else is a liar?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/08/2021 22:05:03
I can't offer an answer better than Einstein.It seems you can't offer any answer at all.
Why is that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/08/2021 02:38:48
The small amount of stuff that followed the right path got flung out by a mechanism that looks like a gravity assist.This is not realistic due to the following:
1. If that was the case, than we have to observe also that matter as it comes in.
There is no way that due to gravity assist we can observe the matter as it goes out but we can't see it as it comes in.
2. . Eccentricity for gravity assist
You ignore my explanation about eccentricity.
I have already proved that in gravity assist the eccentricity is higher than one.
Therefore, in this case the object doesn't orbit around the main mass.
So, it is not realistic to claim that an orbital star with eccentricity lower than one would "fall in" (let's say at eccentricity of 0.7) , as it gets near the event horizon it would change its eccentricity to almost zero (in order to set the circular orbital shape of the matter over there) and after some time it would shift its eccentricity to higher than one just to be ejected outwards.
Sorry - this is pure imagination.
3. Collision
The accretion disc is very thin and located at a very specific location which is orthogonal to the magnetic poles of the SMBH. The chance that the orbital plan of a random star is identical to the accretion disc plan is almost zero. Hence, the chance that an orbital object (or imagination falling object) would fall exactly at that orbital plan of the accretion disc and collide with the plasma over there is also almost zero.
Even if a falling star would fall exactly at the accretion plan and collide with the plasma, then we have to observe it as it falls/comes in and we also have to observe the impact of the collision at the accretion disc.
Therefore, a collision is also imagination.
Well, it is absolutely incorrect to claim that Phobos is falling inwards.Let's make it clear.One of the moons of Mars is doing.
Orbital objects do not fall in.
Why do you post something when you know it is wrong, and then say everyone else is a liar?
It is expected that you would know by now that Phobos is spiraling inwards and not falling inwards and also understand the difference between the two.
That moon orbits around Mars at eccentricity which is close to zero. However, it spirals in by only 2 meter per year. Therefore, it should take it 40 million years to come closer to mars. There is big difference between spiraling in activity (at eccentricity close to zero) which could take 40 Million years and is very observable to a falling in (at eccentricity higher than one) which is very fast but should also be observable.
In our case the falling matter isn't observable at all. Therefore, it isn't spiraling inwards and even not falling inwards.
You can continue to dream on your imaginary falling stars but you would NEVER & EVER observe any star in the entire Universe that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc. With all the advanced technology that we have, we didn't find it in the last 50 years and we won't find it in the next million years.
But you can continue to dream on falling stars forever and ever.
Dreaming is free of charge (even more than gravity force).
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/08/2021 12:14:37
It is expected that you would know by now that Phobos is spiraling inwards and not falling inwards and also understand the difference between the two.Only you imagine that there's a difference.
If I throw a ball and it traces a parabola on its way to the ground, do you say it isn't falling because it's not straight down?
Since you don't understand that the words mean the same thing, it isn't likely that you understand much else.
Why do you refuse to learn science?
If that was the case, than we have to observe also that matter as it comes in.How many times do I have to explain this?
You do not see it because it's dark.
You will only see any of it in unusual circumstances.
You ignore my explanation about eccentricity.I ignore a lot of things that are wrong; you just added one more to the list.
So, it is not realistic to claim that an orbital star with eccentricity lower than oneDo you understand eccentricity?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity
If it's greater than one, you don't have what most people would call an orbit; you have a "flypast" or a miss.
Between zero and one you get the elliptical orbits- essentially everything "in orbit" is in the category.
And if the eccentricity is zero you get a perfectly circular orbit.
But as soon as the thing in orbit gets hit by so much as a photon (or the recoil from emitting a photon) that orbit will become elliptical.
So everything we are concerned with is in the category
What you seem to miss is that many of the things that fall in are not single solid bodies (indeed,nothing is "solid" when it faces the gravity of a BH).
So, when a lump of rock, (which will typically be spinning about its own axes) falls in and breaks up, some bits will be sent into orbits with eccentricities grater than one.
And those are the ones which, having just been kicked out of a shattering rock, are hot enough to glow- so we see them.
I already explained this to you ages ago.
Why do you not learn?
would fall exactly at that orbital plan of the accretion disc and collide with the plasma over there is also almost zero.Nobody said it would.
The accretion disc is very thin and located at a very specific location which is orthogonal to the magnetic poles of the SMBH.Yes and no.
The magnetic field and the accretion disk are both aligned (parallel or perpendicular) to the angular momentum of the object.
And if you drop something in at some random angle you will change the orientation slightly.
So the plane is not a requirement for stuff to hit it edge on.
The plane of the accretion disk is just the average of the angles at which everything has hit it in the past.
If something comes in at the "wrong angle"- as almost everything will, it either misses completely (or falls into orbit) or it is caught and "hits" the ring but the ring just wobbles, sheds the extra energy as thermal radiation and settles down again on a slightly different angle.
The rings ring, just like Saturn's.
https://www.space.com/saturns-rings-ring-like-bell.html
There is big difference between spiraling in activity (at eccentricity close to zero) which could take 40 Million years and is very observable to a falling in (at eccentricity higher than one) which is very fast but should also be observable.There's a very big difference between Mars and a SMBH, isn't there?
Also, there's a better mechanism for matter in the accretion disk to shed energy and fall in.
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/08/2021 12:23:36
So, when a lump of rock, (which will typically be spinning about its own axes) falls in and breaks up, some bits will be sent into orbits with eccentricities grater than one.Ok
And those are the ones which, having just been kicked out of a shattering rock, are hot enough to glow- so we see them.
Let me focus on that Lump of Rock.
I have a perfect example for that Lump of Rock. It is called comet and it orbits around the Sun
Halley’s comet has a semimajor axis of about 18.5 AU, a period of 76 years, and an eccentricity of about 0.97.
Evey 76 years it comes very close to the sun and it also has a dust tail.
Please look at the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#/media/File:Cometorbit01.svg
We clearly see that the tail is kept outwards from the orbital cycle.
This is very important issue.
It proves that nothing from this comet really falls inwards into the sun even if that Lump of Rock comet arrives very close to the Sun.
You can also claim that this comet seems as it falls into the Sun but in reality it does not fall. (even if it comes very close to the Sun). Not the comet itself and not even one tinny dust from that comet tail
The comet is not going to change its eccentricity to zero as it comes to that minimal distance in order to set a circular path over there.
Therefore, any object that orbits around the SMBH at high eccentricity would keep its eccentricity.
Our scientists even claim that in future it should be ejected from the Sun.
So, it is expected that the eccentricity would be increased in the future.
Once the eccentricity would be increased just by above 0.03 (from 0.97 to one) this comet would be ejected into the open space.
Therefore, as this comet would never ever decrease its eccentricity at the minimal radius, S2 star that orbits around the SMBH would do exactly the same.
It would come very close to the SMBH, but it won't change its eccentricity to zero at the minimal distance.
Even if it would break to Lump of rock and carry a dust tail, the matter in the tail would be kept outwards from the orbital cycle.
As the tail goes with the comet wherever it goes, then if there was a tail for S2 it would go with it and keep the eccentricity of the orbital path.
We clearly see the tail of the comet as it comes into the direction of the Sun and as it goes out.
In the same token If S2 has a tail we should observe this tail as it comes in and as it goes out.
So, please from now on
Do not claim again that the orbital star with high eccentricity (let's say higher than 0.2) around the SMBH falls in.
They do not Fall in – They orbit!!!.
They could come very close to the main object (if their eccentricity is close to one) but they do not fall in.
NEVER and EVER.
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/08/2021 12:31:02
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 02:38:48How many times do I have to explain this?
If that was the case, than we have to observe also that matter as it comes in.
You do not see it because it's dark.
I totally reject your example about the black cat over the black cellar.
The chance that all cats in our planet are black is absolutely zero.
The chance that the entire planet is covered by black cellar is also zero.
So, if there are cats at least some won't be black.
If there is a planet, at least some of it won't be covered with black cellar.
Hence, if there are cats on our planet we should see them – sooner or later
Therefore, we don't see any falling star into the SMBH as orbital star do not fall in but orbit around the SMBH.
None of them falls in.
NEVER and EVER.
Over time, all the S stars and G gas clouds around the SMBH would be ejected outwards from the Bulge into the Bar.
This is real science!
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/08/2021 12:36:21
You just posted a page of nonsense because you do not realise thatSo, when a lump of rock, (which will typically be spinning about its own axes) falls in and breaks up, some bits will be sent into orbits with eccentricities grater than one.Ok
And those are the ones which, having just been kicked out of a shattering rock, are hot enough to glow- so we see them.
Let me focus on that Lump of Rock.
I have a perfect example for that Lump of Rock. It is called comet and it orbits around the Sun
Halley’s comet has a semimajor axis of about 18.5 AU, a period of 76 years, and an eccentricity of about 0.97.
Evey 76 years it comes very close to the sun and it also has a dust tail.
Please look at the following image:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#/media/File:Cometorbit01.svg
We clearly see that the tail is kept outwards from the orbital cycle.
This is very important issue.
It proves that nothing from this comet really falls inwards into the sun even if that Lump of Rock comet arrives very close to the Sun.
You can also claim that this comet seems as it falls into the Sun but in reality it does not fall. (even if it comes very close to the Sun). Not the comet itself and not even one tinny dust from that comet tail
The comet is not going to change its eccentricity to zero as it comes to that minimal distance in order to set a circular path over there.
Therefore, any object that orbits around the SMBH at high eccentricity would keep its eccentricity.
Our scientists even claim that in future it should be ejected from the Sun.
So, it is expected that the eccentricity would be increased in the future.
Once the eccentricity would be increased just by above 0.03 (from 0.97 to one) this comet would be ejected into the open space.
Therefore, as this comet would never ever decrease its eccentricity at the minimal radius, S2 star that orbits around the SMBH would do exactly the same.
It would come very close to the SMBH, but it won't change its eccentricity to zero at the minimal distance.
Even if it would break to Lump of rock and carry a dust tail, the matter in the tail would be kept outwards from the orbital cycle.
As the tail goes with the comet wherever it goes, then if there was a tail for S2 it would go with it and keep the eccentricity of the orbital path.
We clearly see the tail of the comet as it comes into the direction of the Sun and as it goes out.
In the same token If S2 has a tail we should observe this tail as it comes in and as it goes out.
So, please from now on
Do not claim again that the orbital star with high eccentricity (let's say higher than 0.2) around the SMBH falls in.
They do not Fall in – They orbit!!!.
They could come very close to the main object (if their eccentricity is close to one) but they do not fall in.
NEVER and EVER.
The Sun shines
Black holes do not shine.
Is there any reason we should take you seriously?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/08/2021 12:37:19
The chance that all cats in our planet are black is absolutely zero.The cats are floating in space, only warmed by the CMBR and distant stars.
Do you really not understand that they will all be too cold to glow?
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/08/2021 12:51:58
You just posted a page of nonsense because you do not realise thatThe idea that it shines or not, do not change the mechanism of any orbital cycle.
The Sun shines
Black holes do not shine.
Therefore, as the comet keeps its eccentricity while it path very close to the sun, S2 behaves exactly the same.
Hence, it was a severe mistake from you to claim that S2 or any other star or gas cloud falls in.
They just orbit around the SMBH with high eccentricity.
I would like to remind you that you have stated that S2 star should be broken as it falls in the direction of the SMBH.
The following image proves that even if S2 would be broken to dump rocks and would have a tail, its tail would be kept outwards from the orbital cycle and should be observabale.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comet#/media/File:Cometorbit01.svg
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/08/2021 13:09:46
Is there any reason we should take you seriously?
I would like to remind you that you have stated that S2 star should be broken as it falls in the direction of the SMBH.Do you think that there's anything which wouldn't get broken?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification
Post by: Kryptid on 06/08/2021 17:03:31
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/08/2021 18:07:22
Since you can't tell me where the energy comes from, it seems you do not know.I have already answered your question and I'm ready to explain it again.
There is no need for any sort of energy in order to get the gravity force.
https://www.universetoday.com/75705/where-does-gravity-come-from/So, there is no need to invest any energy in order to get the gravity force.
Albert Einstein explained how gravity is more than just a force: it is a curvature in the space-time continuum. That sounds like something straight out of science fiction, but simply put, the mass of an object causes the space around it to essentially bend and curve."
Hence, there is no need for any sort of energy to set that gravity force. Therefore, the gravity force is for free.
Is this issue clear to you or we need to continue the discussion how the gravity force gets its power?
If that is clear to you, then do you confirm that force perform works?
Principles of energy and work
http://www.auburn.edu/academic/classes/scmh/1010/Energy%20and%20Work.php
In equation form: work (joules) = force (newtons) x distance (meters),
where a joule is the unit of work, as defined in the following paragraph.
In symbols: W = F x d
However:
"Energy is defined as the ability to do work. If a system is capable of exerting a force over a distance, then that system possesses energy. The amount of a system’s energy, which can be recorded in joules or foot-pounds (the same units used for work), is a measure of how much work the system might do."
Hence, the amount of energy that we can get from the gravity force is based on how much work we can gain from that force.
Therefore, although the gravity force is there without any investment in energy, once it is there it can set work which means - new energy.
So gravity force contribute new work and new energy to our universe.
The eccentricity of S2 is 0.88.
G2 gas cloud eccentricity is 0.94
As they come closer to the SMBH, the impact of the tidal forces (due to gravity force) is higher.
The tidal increases the heat/spin/energy in both objects.
Due to that tidal force, G2 increases its heat and spin that are vital to form new stars activity.
In the same token the SMBH also increases its internal heat and spin that are needed for its EM energy.
That EM energy would create new particle pair near its event horizon.
Therefore, any particle in the Universe is created at the SMBH' accretion disc. Its energy comes from the SMBH EM energy that is based on the tidal heat/spin of the gravity force.
Hence, the entire energy of our Universe comes from the gravity force.
Without that force, not even one particle would be created.
There is no need for a big bang in order to get the requested energy for our Universe.
The gravity force is good enough.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/08/2021 18:55:27
In the same token, when an object is falling on earth it gain kinetic energy.
So, the potential gravity force is transformed into real kinetic energy.
Try to calculate the energy that a falling satellite is needed at its collision impact with the earth.
So, as gravity force is for free, the work that it generates is for free.
That work means energy. Hence, the gravity force generates energy for free.
At no point has Dave explained where the energy comes from.
But the one thing we know for sure is that it isn't "free".
That would be a breech of the laws of physics.
So Dave is wrong.
He does not seem to understand the difference between force - which is free and energy which is not.
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/08/2021 19:38:51
He does not seem to understand the difference between force - which is free and energy which is not.As we all agree that the gravity force is free, Let me ask you the following:
1. Do you confirm that force can set work?
2. Do you confirm that "Energy is defined as the ability to do work"?
3. If so do you confirm that.works means energy?
4. If gravity force can set work, then why as it is free it can't set a work for free?
5. If the work due to gravity force is for free, then why the energy that is needed for that work isn't for free?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/08/2021 19:55:34
1. Do you confirm that force can set work?Only if there is something for it to use.
For example, if there is a rock on top of a mountain, it can roll down and do work.
We keep asking you what put the rock at the top of the mountain.
You keep not answering, and then saying you already answered.
Why do you do that?
Post by: Kryptid on 06/08/2021 23:10:57
I have already answered your question
Quote the part of your post that states the location where gravity got the energy from.
Until you tell me the location, you haven't answered the question. Do I need to go get the dictionary definition of "location"?
Therefore, although the gravity force is there without any investment in energy, once it is there it can set work which means - new energy.
Where did that "new energy" come from, Dave? Tell me an actual location this time. No more dodging and weaving.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/08/2021 03:23:56
Quote the part of your post that states the location where gravity got the energy from.Dear Kryptid
Until you tell me the location, you haven't answered the question. Do I need to go get the dictionary definition of "location"?
Where did that "new energy" come from, Dave? Tell me an actual location this time. No more dodging and weaving.
Your request for the location where gravity got the energy from is absolutely irrelevant as the gravity doesn't need any energy for its existence.
Let me offer you the following example:
Why Storks Bring Babies?
https://historydaily.org/special-delivery-why-storks-bring-babies
If I will ask you for the location where stork got the babies from, what would you answer?
Won't you tell me that there is no need for a stork to get babies?
If I will ask you: "No more dodging and weaving", won't you reply with the same answer that there is no need for a stork to get babies and therefore the location is irrelevant?
In the same token.
There is no need for any sort of energy to get the gravity force. Therefore, the location where gravity got the energy from is absolutely irrelevant.
If you can prove that stork is needed to get babies and energy is needed to get gravity force, then we can discuss about the location.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/08/2021 07:06:45
Your request for the location where gravity got the energy from is absolutely irrelevant as the gravity doesn't need any energy for its existence.
So you are saying that the new energy popped up out of nowhere, is that right? Either it came from somewhere or it didn't. If it did, then you could tell me from where. If not, then that means conservation of energy is violated because energy appeared out of nowhere.
If I will ask you for the location where stork got the babies from, what would you answer?
I'm not the one claiming that storks bring babies. You, on the other hand do claim that gravity can make energy.
Quote
If you can prove that stork is needed to get babies and energy is needed to get gravity force, then we can discuss about the location.
The problem is not that you are claiming energy is needed to make gravity, it is that you are claiming just about the opposite (that gravity makes energy). Please don't confuse these two different ideas in the future.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/08/2021 07:43:32
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:38:51Only if there is something for it to use.
1. Do you confirm that force can set work?
For example, if there is a rock on top of a mountain, it can roll down and do work.
I fully agree with this explanation.
In this example we consider a rock that is located at the top of mountain in a planet (for example)
Therefore, the Planet' gravity force on that rock can only set work for only one time when it rolls it down from the top of a mountain down to the valley.
As the rock gets to the valley, the planet' gravity force can't set any more work on that specific rock.
We keep asking you what put the rock at the top of the mountain.There is no need to put it back at the top of the mountain.
You keep not answering, and then saying you already answered.
Instead of looking on a specific rock in the planet, let's look at the whole crust on the planet.
Let's verify the impact of other orbital object on that crust.
We know that the gravity force of the Moon can set tidal forces on the planet crust.
Those tidal forces can lift water by several meters and rocks by several cm.
That lift is also "work" and it is a repeatable work.
Every time that the moon comes above the ocean it lifts its water.
That works means new energy that comes due to gravity force from the other orbital object.
If we can calculate the energy that is needed to lift the ocean water, we can verify the contribution of the new energy due to the tidal forces.
Therefore, Tidal forces that are based on gravity forces contribute unlimited new energy to our planet and Universe.
Hence, in order to gain unlimited new energy in an object (as a planet or a SMBH), tidal forces from a nearby orbital objects are needed to lift its crust.
Once you set the correct conditions, an unlimited new energy is delivered to that object and it is free of charge.
Our planet is protected from the solar wind by its EM energy.
That energy is based on the new energy that it gets due to tidal forces.
Without tidal forces our planet couldn't create the requested EM that is needed to protect it from the solar wind.
So you are saying that the new energy popped up out of nowhere, is that right? Either it came from somewhere or it didn't. If it did, then you could tell me from where. If not, then that means conservation of energy is violated because energy appeared out of nowhere.The new energy popped up from Tidal force which is based on gravity force between orbital objects.
I'm not the one claiming that storks bring babies. You, on the other hand do claim that gravity can make energy.Tidal force that is based on gravity force can make new energy.
That New energy is unlimited as the tidal force is unlimited.
The problem is not that you are claiming energy is needed to make gravity, it is that you are claiming just about the opposite (that gravity makes energy)That is correct
Gravity is for free.
Gravity between orbital objects sets tidal forces
Hence, Tidal forces generate new energy for free!
Post by: Kryptid on 07/08/2021 07:45:24
Tidal force that is based on gravity force can make new energy.
That New energy is unlimited as the tidal force is unlimited.
So you claim that gravitational fields contain an infinite amount of energy. Is that right?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/08/2021 08:30:34
As tidal energy is unlimited and as it is based on gravity force, then this energy is unlimited.Tidal force that is based on gravity force can make new energy.So you claim that gravitational fields contain an infinite amount of energy. Is that right?
That New energy is unlimited as the tidal force is unlimited.
Our planet is protected from the solar wind by its EM energy.I know why Mars had lost its Atmosphere, Its water and all the life that existed over there.
That energy is based on the new energy that it gets due to tidal forces.
Without tidal forces our planet couldn't create the requested EM that is needed to protect it from the solar wind.
It currently has two small moons.
One is spiraling inwards while the other one spiraling outwards.
Hence, if we go back on time, then at some point of time (75M years ago?) those two moons were actually one massive moon.
That moon contributes the requested tidal energy that was needed for Mars to create enough EM energy to protect itself from the solar wind.
Unfortunately for Mars, a massive object collides with that massive moon and breaks it.
At the end those two tinny objects that we call today as Mars moons could hold themselves at the orbital path around Mars. Unfortunately, due to their tinny size, they couldn't deliver Mars the requested energy that is needed for it to protect itself from the solar wind.
Therefore, over time it lost its atmosphere, its water and all the life.
There is good chance that the object that collide with our planet and killed the dinosaurs came from that collision.
If that is correct, then the same collision which killed the life at Mars was also responsible to clear the Earth for our evolvement.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 11:26:04
As tidal energy is unlimitedThat's wrong.
Tidal energy is limited.
I already explained that.
Theoretically, we can gain energy from orbital objects free of charge.No,
You "harvest" the kinetic energy of the object and change its orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
Why do you not learn?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/08/2021 17:41:12
As tidal energy is unlimited and as it is based on gravity force, then this energy is unlimited.
So you think gravitational fields contain an infinite amount of energy. If that were so, then they would also have infinite mass (as per E=mc2). That would cause it to collapse into a black hole of infinite mass as well. Since that does not happen, gravitational fields must not contain infinite energy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/08/2021 20:14:05
In the article it is stated:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on 03/08/2021 20:29:13No,
Theoretically, we can gain energy from orbital objects free of charge.
You "harvest" the kinetic energy of the object and change its orbit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_acceleration
Why do you not learn?
"Tidal acceleration is an effect of the tidal forces between an orbiting natural satellite (e.g. the Moon) and the primary planet that it orbits (e.g. Earth). The acceleration causes a gradual recession of a satellite in a prograde orbit away from the primary, and a corresponding slowdown of the primary's rotation. The process eventually leads to tidal locking, usually of the smaller body first, and later the larger body. The Earth–Moon system is the best-studied case."
Therefore, based on our scientists the tidal energy is there due to the recession of the satellite in a prograde orbit away from the primary, and also due to a corresponding slowdown of the primary's rotation.
However, how do we know for sure that all the 100% tidal energy is due to those activities?
We Know that the Moon is drifting/spiraling away from Earth by about 1.5 cm every year.
How do we know for sure that this drifting is a compensation for the Tidal energy?
Did we ever try to calculate the total energy that is transformed to earth by tidal in one day or in one year?
Did we try to fit it with that drifting activity?
We have already discussed about the conditions that force the orbital object to spiral inwards or outwards.
Tidal wasn't one of those conditions.
So, if there was no Tidal forces on earth, do you claim that the moon would drifts differently?
In the article they also discuss about the eccentricity:
" Another effect, which will not be dealt with here, is the changes in the eccentricity and inclination of the orbit."
Please be aware that there are many of orbital objects (stars, gas clouds BHs) around the SMBH.
Our scientists claim that just at the center of the galaxy there are more than 10,000 BHs.
Most of the orbital objects around the SMBH have quite high eccentricity.
Do we really know the impact of the high eccentricity of all of those orbital objects on the tidal energy at the SMBH?
They also claim that there is also significant amount of dark matter over there.
Do we really know the impact of the dark matter on the tidal energy at the SMBH?
Even if the contribution of the eccentricity of each orbital object is relatively neglected, when we add the total impact of all the orbital objects + the total dark matter around the SMBH then the tidal energy could be quite high.
Therefore, it is our obligation to understand the impact of any matter (real or dark) there on the tidal energy and not just claim that the tidal energy is just some sort of energy transformation.
Could it be that in any orbital system the orbital objects would drifts exactly the same way with or without tidal forces?
If that is the case, then it is an indication that the tidal force can inject new energy to the orbital system.
Mars could be a perfect example.
Due to its small Moons, the energy that it gets from tidal forces with those moons are neglected.
Even so, one moon is drifting outwards and the other is drifting inwards.
Hence, there is good chance that tidal forces do not have any impact on the drifting/spiraling of the orbital object.
So, if the tidal forces do not impact the orbital path of the objects, then the energy that it generates does not taken from the orbital movement of those objects as our scientists claim.
Therefore, the tidal force represents new energy.
Even if we assume that the Heat Tidal energy in the SMBH is only a transformation of energy form the orbital objects as they drift away from the SMBH, then they still contribute new energy into the SMBH.
That new energy that is transformed by tidal force into the SMBH increases its heat and increases its EM energy which will be used for the creation of new particle pair near the event horizon.
As one particle from the pair falls in, it increases the mass of the SMBH while the other one is ejected into the accretion disc and increases the total mass around it.
Eventually, the particles in the Accretion disc would be transformed into real molecular and be used to form new stars.
Those new stars contribute new tidal energy to the SMBH as they drifts away from it.
Their tidal energy will be used to increase the SMBH EM energy in order to generate new particle pair and so on.
Therefore, there is a loop of energy transformation and new particles creation.
That loop proves that all the stars around the SMBH are drifting outwards.
As they drift outwards they contribute tidal energy to the SMBH.
That also show how Spiral galaxy really works.
All the stars in the galaxy had been formed by the matter that had been created at the SMBH' accretion disc.
The spiral shape is a direct outcome from the spiraling/drifting outwards of stars.
Not even a single star had been penetrated to the galaxy from outside.
All the 250 Billion stars of the MY have been created hear in our galaxy.
All the dwarf galaxies around us had been ejected from the galaxy.
If there is a MBH at their center, this MBH would generate new matter and new stars.
As those stars drift outwards, they transform new tidal energy to that MBH.
Over time each dwarf galaxy would be transformed into massive galaxy.
We have perfect example for that.
It is called The Triangulum Galaxy and It is the baby of Andromeda galaxy.
As it is drifting away from Andromeda, it proves that in the past it was very close to it.
However you can't just fit that relatively big spiral galaxy next to Andromeda without break it down by the mighty gravity force of Andromeda.
Therefore, it proves that this Triangulum Galaxy had created new matter and new stars as it drifts away from Andromeda.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/08/2021 20:14:33
So you think gravitational fields contain an infinite amount of energyI didn't claim for infinite amount of energy.
I claimed that as long as there are orbital objects, there are tidal forces/energies.
As the orbital objects are unlimited, then the tidal forces/energies are also unlimited.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 20:34:17
I didn't claim for infinite amount of energy.
I claimed that as long as there are orbital objects, there are tidal forces/energies.
As the orbital objects are unlimited, then the tidal forces/energies are also unlimited.
Pick which one you want.
You can not have both.
Earther there is a limit- in which case you are wrong, or you say there is no limit, in which case you are wrong,
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/08/2021 20:36:16
In the article it is stated:Why waste time telling me what it says?
I cited it because I know what it says.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/08/2021 21:09:47
I didn't claim for infinite amount of energy.
"Infinite" and "unlimited" are synonyms.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/08/2021 16:18:13
So you think gravitational fields contain an infinite amount of energy. If that were so, then they would also have infinite mass (as per E=mc2). That would cause it to collapse into a black hole of infinite mass as well. Since that does not happen, gravitational fields must not contain infinite energy.OK
Let me explain it clearly.
Gravity force is a force.
Force by itself isn't energy.
However if that force sets work then this work represents energy.
In our case, the gravity force is transformed into real energy by tidal force/heat.
That new Tidal heat is transformed by the SMBH to EM Energy.
The EM energy is transformed to real particle pair.
Therefore, the Gravity force has no Infinite energy.
Even the Tidal heat isn't infinite.
At any given moment, that tidal heat/energy is quite limited and very finite.
However, as long as the orbital system exists, then the tidal heat also exists.
We can claim that as the tidal heat is there in any orbital system in the Universe then we can consider it as unlimited.
However, any specific orbital system is limited by time and therefore any specific tidal heat is also limited.
As an example - we know that all the planets and moons in the solar system are spiraling/drifting outwards (except of Phobos which should collide with Mars in about 40 MY from now).
So, when all those orbital objects would be ejected outwards from each other and from the sun into space, the gravity force between the objects would get to zero and the tidal energy in that system would get to zero.
"Infinite" and "unlimited" are synonyms.When it comes to the SMBH there is a twist in the story.
The SMBH generates finite quantity of new particles at any given moment (by its finite EM energy due to the finite tidal Heat/energy)
Those new particles would be transformed to finite new stars at a finite G gas clouds.
Each star would contribute some finite Tidal heat to the SMBH as it drifts outwards at relatively high eccentricity.
After finite/limited time frame any new star would be ejected from the SMBH.
So, we can claim that although the SMBH could gain a finite tidal energy from any new star that had been formed over there, but as new particles/stars would always be created (infinite), then technically, the SMBH would get a limited/finite tidal energy for unlimited/infinite time.
Conclusion:
Gravity force generates finite Tidal heat/energy for infinity.
Therefore, although there is a finite matter in a finite size of space, our Universe is infinite in its space and it its total matter.
All of that wonderful infinite universe is due to gravitational force.
There is no need for special energy delivery by any imaginary Big Bang or Big Boss.
Gravity force can do the Job.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/08/2021 16:48:14
However, as long as the orbital system exists, then the tidal heat also exists.Yes.
And if you extract all the energy from it, the orbital system ceases to exist.
Either the moon hits the planet or the moon is flung out so far that the tide it creates is negligible.
So the energy is not "free" it either costs the planet, or it costs the moon.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/08/2021 17:29:26
So far our scientists couldn't prove by real math and real observation that all the 100% of the tidal energy comes out from the orbital energy and not from the gravity force.However, as long as the orbital system exists, then the tidal heat also exists.Yes.
And if you extract all the energy from it, the orbital system ceases to exist.
Either the moon hits the planet or the moon is flung out so far that the tide it creates is negligible.
So the energy is not "free" it either costs the planet, or it costs the moon.
Our Moon is drifting outwards from earth by 1.5 cm per year.
Can you please prove that with or without the transformation of tidal energy, it wouldn't drift outwards exactly at the same rate?
However, even if all the tidal energy comes from the orbital movement of objects around it (as you hope), please be aware that the SMBH generates constantly new particles and new stars. As those stars drift away they contribute new tidal energy to that SMBH to continue the creation particles/stars forever and ever.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/08/2021 17:43:37
So far our scientists couldn't prove by real math and real observation that all the 100% of the tidal energy comes out from the orbital energy and not from the gravity force.Yes they can.
Very easily.
Force is not energy.
Energy is energy.
So the energy for one thing can come from the energy of another thing, but it can not come from a force.
Can you please prove that with or without the transformation of tidal energy, it wouldn't drift outwards exactly at the same rate?Yes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angular_momentum#Conservation_of_angular_momentum
When you posted those questions, did you think it would be hard for science to answer them?
Why not learn the science and then you won't need to ask silly questions as if they are hard.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/08/2021 17:47:05
please be aware that the SMBH generates constantly new particles and new stars. As those stars drift away they contribute new tidal energy to that SMBH to continue the creation particles/stars forever and ever.If you were right (and you aren't) then you would have a problem here.
Creating stars or whatever takes energy.
That energy can only come from the BH.
But energy has mass so, if the BH is giving out energy it is losing mass.
And if it keeps doing that, it will disappear.
So, all the SMBH can not be responsible for a steady state universe as you like to pretend.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/08/2021 18:37:20
If you were right (and you aren't)I'm 100% correct.
then you would have a problem here.No, there is no problem
Creating stars or whatever takes energy.Correct
That energy can only come from the BH.Also Correct (from the SMBH).
And if it keeps doing that, it will disappear.Incorrect.
It seems that your mind is full with Hawking Radiation.
You think Hawking radiation.
You dream Hawking radiation
You breathe Hawking Radiation.
I have already told you - Hawking radiation is fiction. There is no Negative mass and no Negative energy.
Why is it so difficult for you to set Hawking imagination in the garbage?
So, all the SMBH cannot be responsible for a steady state universe as you like to pretend.Yes it is
Gravity force contribute Tidal Heat/energy to the SMBH
Tidal energy is converted to EM energy
The EM energy generates particle pair.
For each particle from the pair that is ejected to the accretion disc, the SMBH gets the other one.
More mass in the SMBH and more mass outside, means more tidal energy.
More tidal energy means more mass.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/08/2021 18:39:32
It seems that your mind is full with Hawking Radiation.No.
Just the conservation of mass.
If the BH gives off mass, what is left must have less mass.
More mass in the SMBH and more mass outside,is impossible because of the conservation of mass.
Why do you keep ignoring this?
Post by: Kryptid on 09/08/2021 19:12:00
In our case, the gravity force is transformed into real energy
Force can't be changed into energy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/08/2021 20:23:22
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:37:20We already have long discussion about that conservation of mass/energy.
More mass in the SMBH and more mass outside,
is impossible because of the conservation of mass.
Why do you keep ignoring this?
It is stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_mass
"For systems where large gravitational fields are involved, general relativity has to be taken into account, where mass-energy conservation becomes a more complex concept, subject to different definitions, and neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity."
What does it mean: "neither mass nor energy is as strictly and simply conserved as is the case in special relativity."?
Sorry - Gravity can transformed into tidal energy.
You know that, and all the other 100,000 scientists know that.
You Know that if the conservation of mass/energy prevents from the gravity force to contribute knew energy, then the Universe can't exist.
Therefore, our scientists came with the imagination of the Big Bang just to deliver new energy to our Universe.
However, you know that based on this law then even the Big bang can't do so.
Therefore, you claim that before the bang there was no time.
So, now when the time does not exist then you as the master of knowledge can claim whatever you wish and even bypass the law that no one else is allowed to bypass.
You do not bather to explain how all the energy that you deliver to your unrealistic Universe had created before the time had been created.
You just say that it is not your business as there was no time.
You also don't care how energy had been transformed from a universe without time to a universe with time.
You know that in reality you don't have a basic clue how energy had been created before the time. How it had been transformed to our universe.
The space is much more dificulte question.
How could it be that there was no space before the bang?
If there was no space, what was there?
What kind of energy can create space?
Why don't you have a law for conservation of space?.
The modern science behaves as the mother and the father of dictators.
They set the law that prevents from any new energy to be created in the entire Universe.
However, they are above the law that they have invented.
It is like to claim that it is forbidden to kill other people unless you are the king.
Our science community is the real king of knowledge and wisdom.
As a real king the science community had invented a magic key to bypass his laws.
Only the king can use that magic key.
Anyone else that would dare to find the magic key would be sent to the desert that is called: " It can't be true"
You know by now that our Universe is much bigger than any size that you can imagine.
So, our science community do not dare to claim what is the size of our Universe.
They just ignore that issue.
You know that our real universe is bigger than any size that you say.
You also know that the BBT can't be used even for the minimal universe size.
So you totally ignore the size and say that it isn't your problem and invent a new idea of Multiverse.
However, multiverse means that at the first moment that the first universe had been created then no other universe can be created as the time is already there.
But who cares?
You are the King.
Force can't be changed into energy.Yes it is
Do you agree that Force can do work?
Yes or no?
Do you agree that works means energy?
Yes or no?
So do you agree that force can be transformed to energy?
Yes or no?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/08/2021 20:33:01
Sorry - Gravity can transformed into tidal energy.No.
You Know that if the conservation of mass/energy prevents from the gravity force to contribute knew energy, then the Universe can't exist.Nonsense.
So do you agree that force can be transformed to energy?No
Yes or no?
Because they are different types of thing
Post by: Kryptid on 09/08/2021 22:13:28
Yes it is
Show me even a single example of force being turned into energy.
Do you agree that Force can do work?
Force doing work is not turning force into energy. It's only transforming one form of energy into another (either potential into kinetic or the reverse).
Do you agree that works means energy?
Yes, but that work did not once used to be force. If force was literally turned into energy, then a gravitational field would get weaker whenever it did work.
So do you agree that force can be transformed to energy?
Absolutely not.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/08/2021 15:16:20
Show me even a single example of force being turned into energy.With Pleasure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor
"An electric motor is an electrical machine that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy. Most electric motors operate through the interaction between the motor's magnetic field and electric current in a wire winding to generate force in the form of torque applied on the motor's shaft."
It is stated:
"the interaction between the motor's magnetic field and electric current in a wire winding to generate force"
Hence, this motor first generates force.
Then it is stated:
That this force is "in the form of torque applied on the motor's shaft".
So, the force of the electric motor forces the motor shaft to spin
Hence, in the electric motor we starts with electric energy that is transformed into force. Just after having that force it can make works..
In the gravity force we start directly with the force.
There is no need to invest energy to get it.
That gravity force actually forces the orbital objects to orbit around each other.
It's also responsible for the potential energy and Tidal force/heat/energy. All of that without any need to invest any energy.
Force doing work is not turning force into energy. It's only transforming one form of energy into another (either potential into kinetic or the reverse).Take out the gravity force and you have no potential energy, no Kinetic energy no tidal force and no tidal energy.
So, the gravity force is not just a transformation of energy, it can set real work and gain real energy.
In the electric motor, if we take out the electricity then there is no force.
Without that force the motor's shaft wouldn't spin.
In our case, there is no need to invest any form of energy to get the gravity force.
It is there just because there is mass in the objects.
So, as there is no need to invest any energy to get the gravity force, it is considered as a free force.
However, once we have that force, it can set works.
It sets the potential energy. It forces the orbital system to orbit around each other. It sets the tidal force and the tidal energy.
Therefore, the impact of gravity force is identical to an electric motor with electricity current.
Both use their force to do works.
However, in electric motor there is no force without electricity (or investing energy) while in gravity force there is no need to invest energy as it is for free.
If force was literally turned into energy, then a gravitational field would get weaker whenever it did work.This is incorrect.
Gravity force is based on mass and not on work.
Just to remind you:
F = G m1 m2 / r^2
So, the gravity force is based on mass and distance.
You can't reduce that force by using its force to make works.
As I have already explained, we can generate electricity from orbital system free of charge.
All we need is to connect a wire to the moon and use its rotation to generate electricity free of charge.
Hence, gravity force is a real force that can generate energy and it is free of charge.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/08/2021 17:52:03
Quote from: Kryptid on Yesterday at 22:13:28OK, so that's energy being converted to energy.
Show me even a single example of force being turned into energy.
With Pleasure:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor
"An electric motor is an electrical machine that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy.
What is your example of a force being converted to energy?
It's as if you completely ignored this bit of what Kryptid said.
Force doing work is not turning force into energy. It's only transforming one form of energy into another (either potential into kinetic or the reverse).
In particular, you can turn the potential energy of a magnetic field into kinetic energy.
Take out the gravity force and you have no potential energy,Yes you do.
A compressed gas, a stretched rubber band or an electric field all have potential energy.
It really would be easier for you if you learned some science.
This is incorrect.You have described the second sentence correctly.
Gravity force is based on mass and not on work.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/08/2021 22:19:04
An electric motor is an electrical machine that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy.
And thus you prove my point. It's one form of energy being turned into another, not force being turned into energy.
Take out the gravity force and you have no potential energy
Of course, but that doesn't make gravitational force equal to gravitational potential energy. Joules and newtons are measuring different things.
Both use their force to do works.
Using force to do work is not force being transformed into energy. If you disagree, then tell me how many newtons are equal to one joule of energy (while citing an authoritative source in the process).
Gravity force is based on mass and not on work.
Which is what I've been trying to tell you. Yet you insist that gravity is somehow turned into work when it isn't.
Hence, gravity force is a real force that can generate energy and it is free of charge.
If that's the case, then why haven't we produced perpetual motion machines using the unlimited energy provided by the Earth's gravity yet?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/08/2021 13:14:06
I fully agree that "It's one form of energy being turned into another".QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:16:20And thus you prove my point. It's one form of energy being turned into another, not force being turned into energy.
An electric motor is an electrical machine that converts electrical energy into mechanical energy.
However, it's not transformed directly energy to energy.
In the article it is stated that "the interaction between the motor's magnetic field and electric current in a wire winding to generate force"
I have already explained it:
"the interaction between the motor's magnetic field and electric current in a wire winding to generate force"Therefore, at the first phase the electric energy must be transformed into force.
Hence, this motor first generates force.
At the second phase that force is used to perform the mechanical movement which means mechanical energy.
Do you confirm that a force which had been created by electric energy can be used to perform mechanical energy?
If so, why is it important for you what is the source for that force?
What is the difference between a force that is there due to electrical energy, man power or gravity.
Don't you agree that force is force?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/08/2021 16:19:02
Therefore, at the first phase the electric energy must be transformed into force.No
If I go from my house to the pub along the road I use the road to get from one to another, but I do not get transformed into a road.
A road is not the same sort of thing as a person. You can not convert one into the other
Energy is not the same sort of thing as force. You can not convert one into the other
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/08/2021 16:19:36
Don't you agree that force is force?Yes, which is why it is not energy.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/08/2021 16:59:09
Therefore, at the first phase the electric energy must be transformed into force.
The total amount of energy in the system never changed, therefore none of it became force. You can't turn energy into force. They are two different quantities. Again, if you believe otherwise, then tell me how many newtons are in a joule.
Post by: Origin on 11/08/2021 18:17:37
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/08/2021 19:30:49
63! pages of Dave steadfastly refusing to learn any physics, strangely humorous.Remarkable isn't it?
3 years and no sign of learning anything.
BTW 63! is rather a lot.
It only seems like 1.982E87 pages.
:-)
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/08/2021 19:41:52
Sorry in the article it is stated very clearly that "the interaction between the motor's magnetic field and electric current in a wire winding to generate force"Therefore, at the first phase the electric energy must be transformed into force.No
If I go from my house to the pub along the road I use the road to get from one to another, but I do not get transformed into a road.
So it is not just a different road it is a very clear message of using the electric energy "to GENERATE force".
Do you know the meaning of "generate"?
By Google:
Generate = Create, reproduce...
If this isn't good enough for you it is also stated:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor
Armature - This is the part through which the electric current flows which develops the force.
Hence, they even offer the exact element where the electrical current develops the force.
It is also stated:
"When electric current passes through the wire the magnetic field from the field magnet exerts a force on it, called the Lorentz force, turning the rotor."
Therefore, the Lorentz force is the force that is turning the rotor.
After so clear explanation on force and Lorentz force how can you twist that clear message of generating/creating/reproducing of force/Lorenz force as just a different road?
Sorry you twist the science in order to disqualify that impact of the "FORCE"
You know, our Moderators Know and all the other 100,000 scientists know that without Lorentz force that motor would never spin.
How can you claim that Lorentz force is not a force?Therefore, at the first phase the electric energy must be transformed into force.The total amount of energy in the system never changed, therefore none of it became force. You can't turn energy into force.
Lorentz force proves that energy can turn energy into force.
Again, if you believe otherwise, then tell me how many newtons are in a joule.As you believe that energy can't be transformed to force, then do you reject that force that is called "Lorentz force"?
What do you think Lorentz would reply to your questions about converting newtons to joule?
63! pages of Dave steadfastly refusing to learn any physics, strangely humorous.After 63 pages its time for all of you to accept real science.
It's time for you to understand that Lorentz force is a force as gravity force is also a force.
It's time for the science community to offer me a rewards for my discovery!
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/08/2021 19:54:15
It's time for you to understand that Lorentz force is a force as gravity force is also a force.I pretty much pointed this out to you.
Do you remember?
In particular, you can turn the potential energy of a magnetic field into kinetic energy.
How can you claim that Lorentz force is not a force?Nobody made that claim
If you think they did then please quote the bit where someone said it.
Otherwise, why not just accept that you are still wrong?
Incidentally, if you consider the levitation of superconductors you might realise that an electrical current (and the associated force) does not require the expenditure of energy.
Though this would require you to learn some science, so I guess I'm going to have to plug it a few times.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superconductivity#Zero_electrical_DC_resistance
Post by: Kryptid on 11/08/2021 21:36:57
How can you claim that Lorentz force is not a force?
I never made such a claim.
Lorentz force proves that energy can turn energy into force.
No it doesn't. The total energy of the system remains constant. If it was turned into force, then the total energy of the system would temporarily decrease because some of the energy would have become force and thus would no longer be energy.
As you believe that energy can't be transformed to force, then do you reject that force that is called "Lorentz force"?
No, because the Lorentz force doesn't change energy into force. It uses force to change one form of energy into another. There's an important difference.
What do you think Lorentz would reply to your questions about converting newtons to joule?
I assume he would say that you can't convert newtons into joules because force can't be converted into energy.
It's time for you to understand that Lorentz force is a force as gravity force is also a force.
No one here said otherwise.
It's time for the science community to offer me a rewards for my discovery!
Build a perpetual motion machine using Earth's gravity as an unlimited source of energy and I guarantee you they will.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/08/2021 06:34:24
In the article it is clearly stated that "the electric current flows which develops the force" and also exerts Lorentz force.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:41:52No it doesn't.
Lorentz force proves that energy can turn energy into force.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motorDon't you agree that without Lorentz force, the rotor won't spin/turn?
Armature - This is the part through which the electric current flows which develops the force.
"When electric current passes through the wire the magnetic field from the field magnet exerts a force on it, called the Lorentz force, turning the rotor."
Why do you reject that clear message from our scientists?
The total energy of the system remains constant.There is no contradiction between the Lorentz force that is created by the electric energy to the total energy in the system.
If it was turned into force, then the total energy of the system would temporarily decrease because some of the energy would have become force and thus would no longer be energy.The Lorentz force is a direct outcome from the electric energy.
So why do you claim that: "some of the energy would have become force and thus would no longer be energy"?
Assuming that we ignore the loss due to the efficiency we could claim that all the electric energy is transformed to Lorentz force.
Why you don't agree that this Lorentz force forces the rotor to spin?
How can you assume that any mechanical activity could be set without force?
Can you even lift a cup without force?
I have already offered a simple solution:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:41:52Build a perpetual motion machine using Earth's gravity as an unlimited source of energy and I guarantee you they will.
It's time for the science community to offer me a rewards for my discovery!
F = G m1 m2 / r^2
So, the gravity force is based on mass and distance.
You can't reduce that force by using its force to make works.
As I have already explained, we can generate electricity from orbital system free of charge.
All we need is to connect a wire to the moon and use its rotation to generate electricity free of charge.
Hence, gravity force is a real force that can generate energy and it is free of charge.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/08/2021 06:47:26
In the article it is clearly stated that "the electric current flows which develops the force" and also exerts Lorentz force.
Electrical current leading to the development of a force is not energy turning into force.
Why do you reject that clear message from our scientists?
I don't. The scientists never claimed that energy turned into force.
There is no contradiction between the Lorentz force that is created by the electric energy to the total energy in the system.
It is if you claim it is being turned into force. Since force isn't energy, then any energy transformed into force must reduce the total energy of the system.
The Lorentz force is a direct outcome from the electric energy.
I never said otherwise. What I said is that energy can't become force.
So why do you claim that: "some of the energy would have become force and thus would no longer be energy"?
Because that is exactly what you have been saying. You say that energy can become force. Since force isn't energy, then any energy that has become force is no longer energy.
Assuming that we ignore the loss due to the efficiency we could claim that all the electric energy is transformed to Lorentz force.
Except that we can't, because you can't turn energy into force. Energy can give rise to force, but it can't become force.
I have already offered a simple solution:
Then go ahead and build a perpetual motion machine. Not only would that prove Bored Chemist and I wrong, but it would revolutionize physics and the world as a whole.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/08/2021 06:53:48
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_World_in_Eighty_Days
Now I can offer you (and any person in our planet) a free ride in only 24 Hours.
By holding that cable to the moon for 24 Hours you can ride around the planet and get back to your starting point.
You can also get to Europe, China or Japan free of charge.
The cost of flight would be zero.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2021 08:33:31
Do you remember the story "Around the World in Eighty Days"?Offer only valid until you use up all the energy of the Moon/ Earth system.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Around_the_World_in_Eighty_Days
Now I can offer you (and any person in our planet) a free ride in only 24 Hours.
By holding that cable to the moon for 24 Hours you can ride around the planet and get back to your starting point.
You can also get to Europe, China or Japan free of charge.
The cost of flight would be zero.
That's the point we have been making all along.
Why do you think you can tie a rope to the moon, and pull on it without slowing the moon down?
(It doesn't matter if the "rope" you use is gravity.)
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2021 08:37:01
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:41:52
How can you claim that Lorentz force is not a force?
Nobody made that claim
If you think they did then please quote the bit where someone said it.
Otherwise, why not just accept that you are still wrong?
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/08/2021 16:46:20
Thanks KryptidQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:34:24I never said otherwise
The Lorentz force is a direct outcome from the electric energy.
You confirm that Lorentz force is a direct outcome from the electric energy.
You also confirm that Electrical current leading to the development of a force:
Electrical current leading to the development of a force is not energy turning into force.However, why don't you also agree that electrical current/electric energy means energy?
What is so unique in electrical energy that it can't be considered as energy?
Why do you insist that:
Energy can give rise to force, but it can't become force.Can you please explain:
1. Why electrical energy isn't energy
2. What is the difference between: "Give rise to force" to "become (or transform) to force"
Post by: africanprintdress on 12/08/2021 16:55:15
Post by: Origin on 12/08/2021 17:17:02
hi, as a new member of this site I appreciate this discussion I never knew so much about BBT before reading this discussion thanksThe posts by Dave Lev are almost universally incorrect, so be sure and bypass them if you are interested in the BBT.
Edit:
Oh, I just noticed you are probably a spammer, if so, never mind...
Post by: Kryptid on 12/08/2021 17:27:31
However, why don't you also agree that electrical current/electric energy means energy?
I never said that.
What is so unique in electrical energy that it can't be considered as energy?
Nothing, because I never claimed that it wasn't energy.
1. Why electrical energy isn't energy
I have no idea where you got this from.
2. What is the difference between: "Give rise to force" to "become (or transform) to force"
Because in the first case energy doesn't literally become force and in the second case it does.
Post by: Just thinking on 12/08/2021 17:38:08
Sorry – If our scientists don't know even the basic understanding about the real size of our Universe, (finite or infinite), then how do they know for sure that the whole BBT is correct?If I can just through a spanner in the works. The universe is made up of 98% hydrogen and 2% is all the other known elements the strange thing is the hydrogen is responsible along with gravity for the 2% so my point is that when hydrogen is compressed by great force it is transformed into all the solids that make up the core of stars and all the planets moons and life its self. How do we get this hydrogen gas transformation well before during and after a star explodes the solid core of the star is spread all over the universe this material is then sorted by gravity to make up the elements. Now back to the very start how did the big bang create all of this hydrogen gas well the explosion was so powerful that it converted all the material back into hydrogen the gravity of a star can convert hydrogen to solid the big bang can convert solid back into hydrogen. Sorry I have not made any effort to explane how all of this came from nothing as I have no clue to this question.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2021 18:20:34
You confirm that Lorentz force is a direct outcome from the electric energy.Me getting a holiday in Barbados would be a direct result of me winning the lottery.
But it is not the same as me winning the lottery.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2021 18:21:45
Probably a spammer but probably only responsible for one useless post.hi, as a new member of this site I appreciate this discussion I never knew so much about BBT before reading this discussion thanksThe posts by Dave Lev are almost universally incorrect, so be sure and bypass them if you are interested in the BBT.
Edit:
Oh, I just noticed you are probably a spammer, if so, never mind...
As opposed to Dave who is running dozens of pages of rubbish
Which one should the site ban?
Post by: Origin on 12/08/2021 20:20:35
If I can just through a spanner in the works. The universe is made up of 98% hydrogen and 2% is all the other known elements the strange thing is the hydrogen isMost matter appears to be Dark Matter, so only 20% of the matter in the universe is visible matter. Of that visible matter 73% is hydrogen.
when hydrogen is compressed by great force it is transformed into all the solids that make up the core of starsThe cores of stars are not solid. The core of a star is made of plasma.
Now back to the very start how did the big bang create all of this hydrogen gas well the explosion was so powerful that it converted all the material back into hydrogen the gravity of a star can convert hydrogen to solid the big bang can convert solid back into hydrogen. Sorry I have not made any effort to explane how all of this came from nothing as I have no clue to this question.Yes, I can see that.
Post by: Just thinking on 12/08/2021 20:33:28
Most matter appears to be Dark Matter,I have heard you refer to this as dark energy in other threads have you changed your opinion. And no I can't see that. I like to consider reality not imaginary dark shadows like the boggy man.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2021 21:55:55
I have heard you refer to this as dark energyDid it occur to you that he might refer to dark energy when he means dark energy and dark matter when he means dark matter?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2021 21:57:14
. I like to consider reality not imaginary dark shadows like the boggy man.Dark matter is real.
Did you not understand that?
Oh...
I have no clue
Post by: Origin on 12/08/2021 22:06:36
I have heard you refer to this as dark energy in other threads have you changed your opinion.As Bored chemist alluded to, dark energy and dark matter are completely different things. What is it you think I have changed my opinion about?
Post by: Just thinking on 12/08/2021 22:08:47
Did it occur to you that he might refer to dark energy when he means dark energy and dark matter when he means dark matter?The problem is that I was referring to the universe that we can see and how hydrogen makes solids in stars some silly person starts on the dark stuff way off topic nothing to do with the elements in stars.
Post by: Just thinking on 12/08/2021 22:12:20
As Bored chemist alluded to, dark energy and dark matter are completely different things. What is it you think I have changed my opinion about?It's more a case of you changing the subject that has nothing to do with my post. Rather pedantic don't you think YES.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2021 22:17:45
Rather pedantic don't you thinkHardly "pedantic".
You were wrong about 80% of the universe.
Don't you think a correction was in order?
Pro tip; if you really think something is irrelevant, ignore it rather than (incorrectly) implying that the poster got it wrong.
Post by: Just thinking on 12/08/2021 22:47:15
Don't you think a correction was in order?No, not all of the science grates believe in the dark stuff and I am one of them. So I have made my correction correctly based on my understanding.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/08/2021 22:51:49
So I have made my correction correctly based on my understanding.You didn't understand, and you didn't correct anything.
However, it was sensible for someone to correct your error.
That's what science does.
Post by: Just thinking on 12/08/2021 23:01:32
You didn't understand, and you didn't correct anything.The big problem with this mysterious dark energy/dark matter is it fills a void in the imagination of so many why the universe is expanding and it goes with no proof at all just like the asteroid belt all imagination all made up to explain something else. Therefore all that was explained to me is in the mind imagination.
However, it was sensible for someone to correct your error.
That's what science does.
Post by: Origin on 13/08/2021 00:24:42
The problem is that I was referring to the universe that we can see and how hydrogen makes solids in starsSolid hydrogen does not occur in stars as I previously pointed out.
some silly person starts on the dark stuff way off topic nothing to do with the elements in stars.Please do not personally attack me or I will be forced to report you.
The first line in your post states: "The universe is made up of..." Pointing out that you left out the major portion of the mass of the universe is clearly on topic.
Post by: Origin on 13/08/2021 00:28:18
The big problem with this mysterious dark energy/dark matter is it fills a void in the imagination of so many why the universe is expandingThis is not correct. I don't know where you got this idea, but it is wrong. The Big Bang Theory and the expanding universe was around decades before the discovery of dark matter and dark energy.
You know, if you would ask questions instead of making of the cuff pronouncements you could learn a lot on this site!
Post by: Just thinking on 13/08/2021 00:38:39
Pointing out that you left out the major portion of the mass of the universe is clearly on topic.And I have pointed out to you that I disagree you disagree with me and I disagree with you and now you are starting to cry so I'm sorry next time if you say something that I disagree with I won't say anything to you to make you cry again but by all means, you can continue to tell me what you disagree with I'm a big boy and I promise not to cry. If you report me I just may cry a little but don't tell anyone it's very embarrassing.
Post by: Just thinking on 13/08/2021 00:50:10
This is not correct. I don't know where you got this idea, but it is wrong. The Big Bang Theory and the expanding universe was around decades before the discovery of dark matter and dark energy.You have no idea they worked out that the expanding universe should be slowing down and they discovered that it is not so they invented dark matter to explain the continuing rapid expansion so think again.
Post by: Origin on 13/08/2021 01:01:30
And I have pointed out to you that I disagreeYou don't disagree with me; you disagree with astrophysicists, all of the major universities in the world and the scientific community in general.
now you are starting to cry so I'm sorry next time if you say something that I disagree with I won't say anything to you to make you crySo again you are doing personal attacks/trolling and just trying to piss me off. Why not trying a good faith argument instead.
Post by: Origin on 13/08/2021 01:06:30
You have no idea they worked out that the expanding universe should be slowing down and they discovered that it is not so they invented dark matter to explain the continuing rapid expansion so think again.And... its a swing and a miss.
You missed it by that much!
Here is a hint, dark matter is not responsible for the accelerating expansion of the universe, but your heading in the right direction.
Post by: Just thinking on 13/08/2021 01:10:03
And I have pointed out to you that I disagreeOne page back you called a newcomer a spammer do I need to go back to all your old posts where you have attacked people Please don't be a hypocrite then cry when it happens to you that is very immature your a big boy now.
You don't disagree with me; you disagree with astrophysicists, all of the major universities in the world and the scientific community in general.
Quote from: Just thinking on Today at 09:38:39
now you are starting to cry so I'm sorry next time if you say something that I disagree with I won't say anything to you to make you cry
So again you are doing personal attacks/trolling and just trying to piss me off. Why not trying a good faith argument instead.
Post by: Origin on 13/08/2021 01:24:23
One page back you called a newcomer a spammerLooks like I am probably right.
do I need to go back to all your old postsKnock yourself out.
Could you get back on topic? Again, if you ask questions, you could learn a lot.
Post by: Just thinking on 13/08/2021 01:37:57
Could you get back on topic? Again, if you ask questions, you could learn a lot.OK but remember the old saying those that live in glass houses. Now maybe I was confused regarding dark matter dark energy but all the same, they have nothing to do with the formation of the elements the core of the sun is not understood and many believe that the heavy elements are created there not just plasma any way no hard feelings we can agree to disagree.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2021 08:35:42
And I have pointed out to you that I disagree you disagree with me and I disagree with you and now you are starting to cry so I'm sorry next time if you say something that I disagree with I won't say anything to you to make you cry again but by all means, you can continue to tell me what you disagree with I'm a big boy and I promise not to cry. If you report me I just may cry a little but don't tell anyone it's very embarrassing.Grow up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2021 08:37:49
they have nothing to do with the formation of the elementsThey probably do.
Star formation is driven by gravity and most of the gravity in the universe is from dark matter.
Did you think about learning science?
Post by: Just thinking on 13/08/2021 09:12:20
Did you think about learning science?Well, I have given learning ago and found out that all your dark matter is hypothetical as there is no agreement as to what it is made up of and for that matter if it even exists at all. What if they decide to call it hydrogen that would be painful. Let me see that would make hydrogen over 99% of the universe OOOO the pain. Anyway, I'm not a test tube baby.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2021 09:47:02
and for that matter if it even exists at all.There is agreement on that.
What if they decide to call it hydrogen that would be painful.Well, sort of painful; certainly stupid, because one thing we certainly do know about it is that it isn't hydrogen.
If you actually did learn some science, you would have known that and avoided looking a fool.
Post by: Just thinking on 13/08/2021 09:59:26
you actually did learn some science,Yes, I have as the OP has made most things clear to me at this point my contribution is more of a sideline as the second viable option. Maybe Astrophysics isn't your forte have you tried chemistry.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2021 10:31:40
I have as the OP has made most things clear to meBut... he is wrong about practically everything.
Post by: Just thinking on 13/08/2021 11:02:56
If you actually did learn some science,I brought a pair of binoculars on eBay and started to study dark matter but soon discovered that I was wrong I had left the lens caps on. But it was dark.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2021 12:05:29
Are you stupid ot trolling?If you actually did learn some science,I brought a pair of binoculars on eBay and started to study dark matter but soon discovered that I was wrong I had left the lens caps on. But it was dark.
Post by: Just thinking on 13/08/2021 12:26:29
Are you stupid ot trolling?No not stupid and not trolling whatever that means just trying to lighten the moment. It has come to my attention that this word trolling gets used a lot and by the same people over and over again Are you the preacher in the world of science that lets no one else use their mind.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2021 13:36:37
Are you the preacher in the world of scienceOK, since you think that science has preachers, I assume that you are stupid.
Post by: Just thinking on 13/08/2021 14:04:56
OK, since you think that science has preachers, I assume that you are stupid.I would be stupid if I listen to and followed a science preacher without having my say. Remember ears open mouth shut work for you not for me due to your way of mouth open ears shut. The irony of it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/08/2021 14:54:19
You have stated that:
Electrical current leading to the development of a force....Therefore, based on this message it seems that you confirm that electrical current can develop/generate force.
You also confirm that electrical current means electric energy means energy.
So why do you insist that:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:46:20I never said that.
However, why don't you also agree that electrical current/electric energy means energy?
Electrical current leading to the development of a force is not energy turning into force.How could it be that you agree that the electrical current (which means energy) can generate force while in the same message you claim that energy can't turning into force?
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/08/2021 14:57:21
Dear BCAre you the preacher in the world of scienceOK, since you think that science has preachers, I assume that you are stupid.
Why do you think that anyone that doesn't agree with the BBT imagination is stupid?
I have just left you for a day or so and there is already long discussion.
Let me focus on key aspect of the BBT - Energy.
All 100,000 BBT scientists claim that new energy can't be created in any place (Due to conservation law).
Therefore, they reject the idea that new energy could be created in our current universe by the gravity force.
However, if their understanding is correct, then new energy can't also be evolved also at any place outside our current Universe.
Therefore, as new energy couldn't be evolve in the current Universe, our scientists surly know that energy couldn't also be evolved at any place before the Big Bang - but they don't care.
They prefer to stay with the BBT imagination that all the requested energy for our current Universe (even if it is infinite) had been delivered free of charge in a single moment of time (about 13.8 BY ago) and they just claim that they don't know and don't care about the conditions before the Big Bang.
So, they start their imagination at the Big Bang moment while they totally ignore what was there before that bang.
This is their biggest mistake.
Unfortunately, for all of us, our scientists don't have a basic knowledge about the following:
1. How that energy had been created outside our current Universe (before the Big Bang moment)?
How before the Big Bang new energy could be created/evolved (against the conservation law of our scientists)?
Why the conservation of law is not applicable before the bang?
2. Let's assume that somehow (before the Big Bang Moment and behind the conservation law of our scientists) new energy had been created. However, if It had been created somewhere, then don't you agree that any energy must have some space and time for its existence?
So, assuming that new energy had been evolved somehow before the Big Bang, then how that energy could exist without space and time?
If there was space and time before the Big Bang that could let new energy to be evolved over there, then how the Big Bang could work as there is already space and time for that energy (before the Big Bang)?
That by itself kills the BBT. The whole idea is that new energy could be transformed to our universe just if there was no space-time before the Big bang.
Therefore, all those 100,000 scientists that claim that energy could be evolved without space-time know for sure that this message is totally incorrect!
3. Let's assume that new energy had been evolved somehow and somewhere in some sort of space-time before the Big Bang.
Why and how energy from that space-time could be transformed into our specific space-time?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2021 14:59:04
Why do you think that anyone that doesn't agree with the BBT imagination is stupid?I don't.
Why do you think I do?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/08/2021 15:05:23
However, if their understanding is correct, then new energy can't also be evolved also at any place outside our current Universe.That's not meaningful, never mind true.
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.
I have pointed this out to you repeatedly.
I do think that people who keep asking the same question, in the hope of getting a different answer are stupid or trolls.
Which are you?.
they just claim that they don't know and don't care about the conditions before the Big Bang.The alternative would be to waste effort caring about something which we do not, and can not know.
That would be a stupid waste of time, wouldn't it?
How before the Big Bang new energy could be created/evolved (against the conservation law of our scientists)?It is, as I pointed out, perfectly consistent with the conservation laws.
Only someone stupid would not recognise that after being told a few times.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/08/2021 19:49:47
How could it be that you agree that the electrical current (which means energy) can generate force while in the same message you claim that energy can't turning into force?
Because...
in the first case energy doesn't literally become force and in the second case it does.
Ask me again and I'll give you the same answer.
1. How that energy had been created outside our current Universe (before the Big Bang moment)?
How before the Big Bang new energy could be created/evolved (against the conservation law of our scientists)?
Why the conservation of law is not applicable before the bang?
We don't even know if there is such a thing as "outside our current Universe" or "before the Big Bang", so that question could well be based on false assumptions.
I'm tempted to split the topic where Just Thinking started talking about dark matter, but I'll hold off on that unless that tangent continues. In any case, remember to keep things civil, all of you.
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/08/2021 20:54:26
Sorry - you have never pointed out how the energy that had been delivered free of charge to our Universe had been created.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:57:21It is, as I pointed out, perfectly consistent with the conservation laws.
How before the Big Bang new energy could be created/evolved (against the conservation law of our scientists)?
How energy could be evolved anywhere and still be perfectly consistent with the conservation laws?
You are using the conservation of law to prevent any opportunity for new energy/mass to be created anywhere.
So if no new energy could be created, then how any sort of energy could be created before the Big Bang?
However, if there's a place somewhere in which time is not symmetrical then the conservation of mass/ energy does not apply.Well, "if there's a place somewhere in which time is not symmetrical then the conservation of mass/ energy does not apply" then how do you know that we are not living in that place which time is not symmetrical?
If there is a place where time is not symmetrical - why can't we be there?
Sorry - our scientists can't act as the master of the universe to claim where the conservation of law works and where it doesn't work.
Law is law.
The same law that our scientists have invented to keep the BBT from any other real theory, must work everywhere - if they like it or not.
One example would be the start of the universe.Sorry - you have never explained how new energy that had been delivered to our universe free of charge at the big bang moment, had been created without the limitation of the Ultimate conservation law.
I have pointed this out to you repeatedly.
So, please - try to explain it.
The alternative would be to waste effort caring about something which we do not, and can not know.Sorry – it isn't realistic to claim that something which you do not, and cannot know - then no one would ever know.
That would be a stupid waste of time, wouldn't it?
If you don't know, then please don't claim that no one can know.
You can't just tell us a story of the Universe without knowing the real source of the energy that had been delivered to our universe.
We don't even know if there is such a thing as "outside our current Universe" or "before the Big Bang", so that question could well be based on false assumptions.As you don't Know if there is such a thing as "outside our current Universe" or "before the Big Bang, then how can you bypass the source of energy
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.
If you start it while all the energy is there, why don't you start it while all the matter and galaxies are there?
In any theory - it is vital to show how new energy could be created.
We don't care about free energy delivery.
We want to know how that energy had been created.
If our scientists don't know how the energy for our entire Universe had been created and delivered to our Universe then please set that useless BBT theory in the garbage.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/08/2021 20:59:03
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.
Of course you can. The Big Bang theory never claimed to explain where the energy came from. All it does it explain the evolution of the Universe from its first moments up until now.
If you start it while all the energy is there, why don't you start it while all the matter and galaxies are there?
Because we know that the matter and galaxies weren't always there. The early Universe was too hot and dense for matter and galaxies to exist.
In any theory - it is vital to show how new energy could be created.
Only if that theory claims that new energy is indeed being created. The Big Bang theory does not.
If our scientists don't know how the energy for our entire Universe had been created and delivered to our Universe then please set that useless BBT theory in the garbage.
You're straw-manning the Big Bang theory. You might as well claim that, "since the nuclear fusion theory for the Sun doesn't explain where the Sun got its energy from in the first place, we should put that theory in the garbage".
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2021 12:13:20
Sorry - you have never pointed out how the energy that had been delivered free of charge to our Universe had been created.Why tell that lie?
How energy could be evolved anywhere and still be perfectly consistent with the conservation laws?
Emmy Noether had already told us that. the combination of energy/ mass is strictly conserved (except at the start and end of time).
I also already explained this.
The start of the universe is the only circumstance under which time is not symmetrical.
So Noether's theorem does not apply.
So the mass/energy conservation law does not apply.
Again, you already lost this argument.
Please don't waste anyone's time by bringing it up again.
we have Dave saying this
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/03/2021 17:30:54
So as long as you claim that nothing could be created today – you actually kill the creation process at the big bang moment.
But we have already explained to him that he's wrong about this (e.g. 11/12/19 "However, Noether's theorem shows that the start of the universe is the only time when getting that energy might be possible."
and 10/12/19
"Finally, you nearly understand it.
Because the big bang is a unique event with space (and time) after it, but not before, it is not symmetrical and the conservation law does not apply.
That's why the sudden existence of mass at the start of the universe is mathematically permitted.
You kept on asking how all that mass and energy didn't break the conservation laws.
It now seems that you understand it."
And 5/12
"Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
"
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2021 12:18:50
If there is a place where time is not symmetrical - why can't we be there?Because yesterday is pretty much the same as tomorrow.
The laws of physics are symmetrical in time.
Sorry - our scientists can't act as the master of the universe to claim where the conservation of law works and where it doesn't work.And the law is "If time is symmetrical then energy is conserved".
Law is law.
The same law that our scientists have invented to keep the BBT from any other real theory, must work everywhere - if they like it or not.
That law applies everywhere.
And , except at the beginning (and, if there is one, the end) of the universe time is symmetrical.
So, energy is conserved.
But at the start and end, energy is not conserved.
It is all the same law of physics.
It is consistent.
The scientists are not changing anything.
It's just that you don't understand because you are a troll.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/08/2021 18:12:47
Sorry - you have never pointed out how the energy that had been delivered free of charge to our Universe had been created.No. I do not lie.
How energy could be evolved anywhere and still be perfectly consistent with the conservation laws?
Why tell that lie?
Kryptid had fully confirmed that our scientists totally ignore how the whole energy for our Universe had been evolved before the Big Bang.
The Big Bang theory never claimed to explain where the energy came from. All it does it explain the evolution of the Universe from its first moments up until now.This is the highlight of my message.
Our scientists just don't want to deal with that key question of how the whole energy in our universe had been created and there is good explanation for that.
Based on our scientists Noether's theorem and conservation laws are absolute and they prevent from any new energy to be created.
If that is correct, then those laws should also prevent from new energy creation at any other time space.
Therefore, new energy can't be created before the Big Bang.
It is not good enough to explain how the Universe had been evolved from that energy that the universe got free of charge.
In any real theory it is our OBLIGATION to offer real solution how the energy had been evolved (in our current universe or at any twisted space time..
As the BBT bypass that key question about the creation of the energy it is just a Useless theory.
The start of the universe is the only circumstance under which time is not symmetrical.The BBT twist the science laws by that idea of "time is not symmetrical".
So Noether's theorem does not apply.
So the mass/energy conservation law does not apply.
If the time was not symmetrical before the Big Bang (as you claim) and actually there was no time, no space and no Universe then it is also your obligation to show how energy could be evolved under those extreme conditions.
You can't twist the time & space in order to bypass Noether's theorem and conservation laws without offering clear explanation how the energy had been created before the Big Bang even if you position yourself as the master of knowledge While all the others are absolutely stupid.
Sorry - we are not so stupid as you hope.
It is the obligation of our BBT scientists to explain how the entire energy had been evolved against the Noether's theorem and conservation laws at any twisted space time that you wish.
Without it - the BBT is just irrelevant theory.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/08/2021 18:17:33
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2021 19:02:11
Kryptid had fully confirmed that our scientists totally ignore how the whole energy for our Universe had been evolved before the Big Bang.Yes, and I explained the two reasons why why.
The alternative would be to waste effort caring about something which we do not, and can not know.
And
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.
I have pointed this out to you repeatedly.
But you said
Sorry - you have never explained how new energy that had been delivered to our universe free of charge at the big bang moment, had been created without the limitation of the Ultimate conservation law.
You said I hadn't explained it, but I had.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2021 19:04:16
The BBT twist the science laws by that idea of "time is not symmetrical".No.
If the time was not symmetrical before the Big Bang (as you claim) and actually there was no time, no space and no Universe then it is also your obligation to show how energy could be evolved under those extreme conditions.
You asked me to explain why the conservation laws don't apply at the BB and I did.
I just have to show that the mass energy conservation laws no longer apply.
I don't have to show anything else.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2021 19:09:45
The BBT twist the science laws by that idea of "time is not symmetrical".That's what the laws say.
Nobody twists them.
Sorry - we are not so stupid as you hope.Indeed; I had hoped you were less stupid than it turns out.
You can't twist the time & space in order to bypass Noether's theorem and conservation laws without offering clear explanation how the energy had been created before the Big BangThe BBT does not break the conservation laws because, at that point, time was not symmetrical.
Your silly idea about a steady state universe does break the conservation laws, so you have to explain how it can do that.
You have never done so.
Post by: Dave Lev 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.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"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2021 20:27:53
If the BBT explain the energy creationIt doesn't, and nobody said it did.
In fact, it's the opposite of what was said
The BBT doesn't deliver the energy
It is the result of the energy being delivered.
Why don't you pay attention?
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2021 20:30:19
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.
OK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Time_invariance
That's the maths that says that you can't create energy if the laws if physics are symmetrical in time.
And obviously, if the symmetry is broken, the conservation law no longer holds.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/08/2021 20:33:27
why do you sell us that nonsense about "time was not symmetrical"?It isn't nonsense.
There was no time "before" the BB, there is time now.
So there's an obvious dissymmetry.
Do you not understand that?
However, you and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know that your laws prevents from any energy to be created -And yet your silly idea says it is.
So you know that your idea is wrong.
The BBT does not break the conservation laws because, at that point, time was not symmetrical.
Your silly idea about a steady state universe does break the conservation laws, so you have to explain how it can do that.
You have never done so.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/08/2021 22:09:38
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.
If we have to know where the Big Bang got its energy then we have to know where the stars got their energy too. You can't give one a pass and not the other.
Therefore, you all know that new energy can't be created anywhere.
And yet you claim that gravity can create new energy. You are contradicting yourself.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/08/2021 06:29:42
The BBT doesn't deliver the energyThanks
It is the result of the energy being delivered.
So, the BBT is the result of the energy being delivered.
However, from where that energy had been delivered and how it had been created over there?
As a scientists you have to know that by breaking the conservation law it doesn't prove that new energy would be created.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.OK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Time_invariance
That's the maths that says that you can't create energy if the laws if physics are symmetrical in time.
And obviously, if the symmetry is broken, the conservation law no longer holds.
You are the one that claim that there was no time before the Big Bang:
There was no time "before" the BB, there is time now.So, if there was no time before the Big Bang, and we also know that there was no space before the Big Bang, then how energy could be created under those conditions?
So there's an obvious dissymmetry.
You are the master of your BBT theory.
You can set the conditions of the Universe (before the bang and after the bang) as you wish.
No one can argue with you about those conditions.
Therefore, it is your obligation to prove that those conditions could create the energy that is requested for the BBT.
If you can do it, then your theory is valid.
If you can't do it, then your theory is useless.
So, you claim that when there was no time (before the Big Bang moment), the " the symmetry is broken and the conservation law no longer holds"
But that is not good enough.
Please show that the conditions to create the requested energy was there before the big bang moment and prove it by real math/explanation.
If we have to know where the Big Bang got its energy then we have to know where the stars got their energy too. You can't give one a pass and not the other.If our scientists don't know where the Big Bang got its energy, while they have set the conditions for the BBT, then there is a clear contradiction in that theory.
They are fully allowed to change the conditions (before the Big Bang) in order to generate the requested energy.
If time and space is needed to create new energy (before the Big Bang) then it proves that there was time and space before the bang.
I assume that in this case the Big bang can't work any more.
So please it is your obligation to start your theory with the creation of energy.
Chose any conditions that you wish to show how new energy could be created (before the big bang.
Just after having the requested energy, you are allowed to move on to the next phase of the Big Bang moment.
If you can't do so, then please set this BBT in the garbage and the sooner is better.
And yet you claim that gravity can create new energy. You are contradicting yourself.There is no contradiction in my theory.
I offer you a clear explanation how energy could be created by force.
The only problem is that you don't wish to accept the idea that force can generate energy.
You are allowed to set the conditions for your theory and I am allowed to set the conditions to my theory.
Based on the condition that our scientists have set for the BBT - there is a sever contradiction with the creation of new energy and therefore the BBT can't work.
Based on the conditions that I have set for my theory - there is no contradiction for new energy creation and therefore this theory can work.
This is the big difference between the two theories.
Post by: Kryptid on 15/08/2021 06:39:14
If our scientists don't know where the Big Bang got its energy, while they have set the conditions for the BBT, then there is a clear contradiction in that theory.
So if we didn't know where the hydrogen originally came from in stars, we would be unable to discern how nuclear fusion in stars works? I'm afraid that doesn't follow...
So please it is your obligation to start your theory with the creation of energy.
Then you'd also have to do that. You'd have to say where the original energy came from in your model too in order to get everything started.
There is no contradiction in my theory.
If you say in one post that energy can't be created and then in another post that it can, then you are, by definition, contradicting yourself. Either energy can be created or it can't be. You can't have it both ways.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/08/2021 09:33:57
So if we didn't know where the hydrogen originally came from in stars, we would be unable to discern how nuclear fusion in stars works?The Hydrogen source is important for any theory.
Based on the BBT it had been created about 380,000 years after the bang.
Based on my model it is created constantly at the SMBH' accretion disc.
You'd have to say where the original energy came from in your model too in order to get everything started.Thanks for your question.
Based on my model the time and space was always there in the infinite Universe.
We all know that even in an empty space there is some sort of energy.
So, based on my model, at some point of time due to a small bang a single BH had been created.
Once this single BH is there with ability for creating EM, in the empty infinite space, then my model can work and transform the EM radiation + gravity to new particle pairs creation.
As one particle falls in the other one is ejected outwards.
Over time the BH would gain more mass and the ejected particles would set an accretion disc around the BH.
By their Tidal gravity force, they would increase the internal heat in the BH which would increase its EM energy.
That single BH would be converted to a SMBH with billions of stars around it.
It would create new BHs that would eventually take control on all the space in our infinite Universe.
Therefore, in my model only one single BH is needed to get our wonderful infinite Universe
My model is based on Darwin model.
Darwin claimed that all the variety of life had been evolved from a single Ameba.
In my model all the galaxies and stars in the infinite Universe had been evolved from a single BH..
No need for dark matter.
No need for dark energy.
Just a single BH with ability for EM radiation.
If you say in one post that energy can't be created and then in another post that it can, then you are, by definition, contradicting yourself. Either energy can be created or it can't be. You can't have it both ways.I always said that in my model gravity force can be transformed into tidal energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2021 10:31:32
Based on the BBT it had been created about 380,000 years after the bang.And only one of those is consistent with the laws of physics.
Based on my model it is created constantly at the SMBH' accretion disc.
Over time the BH would gain more massThat's pretty obviously breaking the conservation of mass, so we know it is wrong.
set an accretion disc around the BH.The orbital mechanics of that can't work.
An orbit is associated with a particular energy (essentially the energy you would get if you dropped a particle from that height).
And there's no plausible mechanism for a BH to spit out particles with exactly the energy needed to reach the disk, but no further.
By their Tidal gravity force, they would increase the internal heat in the BH which would increase its EM energy.That would only happen at the expense of their KE, which would mean they would fall back into the BH.
I always said that in my model gravity force can be transformed into tidal energy.That may happen in your "model" but it does not, and can not happen in the real universe.
It proves that your model is wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/08/2021 12:33:50
The conservation law doesn't prevent from gravity to transfer tidal energy.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:33:57That's pretty obviously breaking the conservation of mass, so we know it is wrong.
Over time the BH would gain more mass
You know that and all the science community know that.
there's no plausible mechanism for a BH to spit out particles with exactly the energy needed to reach the disk, but no further.Yes, the BH has a perfect mechanism.
It is called EM energy.
The new created particle pair carries positive mass with negative charge to each other.
Therefore, due to Lorentz force as one particle is forced to fall in while the other one with negative charged (compare to the first one) is forced to be elected outwards.
What is the problem with that?
Ok.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:33:57That would only happen at the expense of their KE
By their Tidal gravity force, they would increase the internal heat in the BH which would increase its EM energy.
We have already discussed about it in the past.
If I remember correctly, you have stated that due to tidal force/energy the orbital object is spiraling outwards.
That is perfectly ok with me.
So, why do you claim now that:
which would mean they would fall back into the BH.
That may happen in your "model" but it does not, and can not happen in the real universe.Sorry, you can't use the conditions of one modeling for other modeling.
It proves that your model is wrong.
Based on the BBT, 13.8 By ago there was no time and no space.
I think that it is totally incorrect.
The space was always there and the time was always ticking.
Therefore, while our scientists can set the conditions for their BBT, I can set the conditions for my modeling.
As they can set the conditions for the BBT and even twist the time and space, you can't prevent me to claim that gravity force can transfer tidal energy.
The BBT is just useless as based on its conditions new energy can't be created.
Therefore, it is your obligation to set the BBT in the garbage and look for better modeling.
I wonder why you and Kryptid support the BBT.
Is it because you estimate that this theory has a perfect fit to all the observations and meet all the laws including new energy creation? or is it just because there are other 100,000 BBT scientists that believe in that theory?
We all know that it can't explain the creation of energy.
So, as it clearly can't work as a modeling for our universe, can I assume that you are BBT believers just in order to join the mainstream and be considered as the good guys while I represent the bad Guys as my modeling might kill the BBT?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2021 13:11:59
The conservation law doesn't prevent from gravity to transfer tidal energy.No, but in the same way that you can transfer water from one container to another, you have to stop when the first container is empty.
What is the problem with that?It isn't science.
It makes no sense.
If I remember correctly,You don't.
you have stated that due to tidal force/energy the orbital object is spiraling outwards.No
I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.
Sorry, you can't use the conditions of one modeling for other modeling.Don't be silly.
We do it all the time.
I can set the conditions for my modeling.No.
The laws of physics set the conditions.
One condition is the conservation of mass/ energy.
And you have to obey that if you are going to do science.
As they can set the conditions for the BBTNobody set the conditions for the BB.
Nobody was there.
We know that the universe obeys laws.
We didn't make those laws.
The BBT is just useless as based on its conditions new energy can't be created.No, because it happened at the start of the universe.
That removes the symmetry condition.
And that means the conservation of mass/ energy need not apply.
Therefore, it is your obligation to set the BBT in the garbage and look for better modeling.Your lack of understanding does not oblige us to do anything.
I wonder why you and Kryptid support the BBT.It fits the data.
We all know that it can't explain the creation of energy.It doesn't need to.
That law didn't apply at the time.
So, as it clearly can't workIt works; but you don't understand why.
Why don't you learn science?
my modeling might kill the BBT?An idea which a high school student can show is wrong will not kill the BBT.
I represent the bad GuysNot "bad" just ignorant; why don't you learn?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/08/2021 14:04:41
The Hydrogen source is important for any theory.
So you're saying that if we didn't know where the Sun's hydrogen originally came from, that would somehow prevent us from knowing that it is powered by nuclear fusion?
So, based on my model, at some point of time due to a small bang a single BH had been created.
What was the source of energy for that "small bang"?
Quote
I always said that in my model gravity force can be transformed into tidal energy.
So you believe that energy can be created.
Quote
We all know that it can't explain the creation of energy.
It was never supposed to explain where the Universe's energy came from any more than the theory of nuclear fusion was supposed to explain where the Universe's hydrogen came from.
Post by: Just thinking on 15/08/2021 14:33:08
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/08/2021 15:26:12
You have stated that the BBT doesn't deliver the energy and it is the result of the energy being delivered.
The BBT doesn't deliver the energyKrptid have also confirmed that the BBT was never supposed to explain where the Universe's energy came from:
It is the result of the energy being delivered.
It was never supposed to explain where the Universe's energy came fromYour messages proves that you don't have any clue how the energy for the BBT had been created.
If you twist the time you don't create new energy.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:33:50No, because it happened at the start of the universe.
The BBT is just useless as based on its conditions new energy can't be created.
That removes the symmetry condition.
And that means the conservation of mass/ energy need not apply.
By that time twist you might transform energy from one system to another, but energy won't pop up just because you claim that the BBT clock time starts to work.
So again - if you think that the BBT can create new energy at the first moment of its creation - then please show how it works.
We have no interest in energy delivered. Only in new energy creation.
If you can't do so, it is your obligation to set the BBT deep in the garbage as any theory (including the BBT) can't work without valid source of energy.
Let's first verify that key issue.
Even if you don't like my modeling, a theory without valid source of energy is just useless theory.
Once we agree that the BBT is useless without valid source of energy, we will continue the discussion about my modeling.
Dear Kryptid
It was never supposed to explain where the Universe's energy came from any more than the theory of nuclear fusion was supposed to explain where the Universe's hydrogen came from.I don't understand why you repeat the same question.
As I have stated, the energy of the universe should be covered by a theory of the Universe as the BBT or my modeling.
In the nuclear fusion discussion we don't need to verify the source of the energy as it is already there (from the BBT or my modeling).
However, you can't just assume that in the BBT the energy is there as the main task of the BBT (or any other modeling for the Universe) is to show the source of energy for that modeling.
Without it - any modeling (including the BBT) is useless.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2021 15:53:15
Your messages proves that you don't have any clue how the energy for the BBT had been created.Nobody ever said it did.
What point did you think you were making?
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2021 15:55:39
If you twist the time you don't create new energy.Pointing out that the rules of physics changed when the universe started is not "twisting time" ; it is stating the obvious.
By that time twist you might transform energy from one system to another, but energy won't pop up just because you claim that the BBT clock time starts to work.And again; nobody said it did.
If you can't do so, it is your obligation to set the BBT deep in the garbage as any theory (including the BBT) can't work without valid source of energy.Well, if you believe that, you need to ditch your idea because it has no energy source.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2021 16:02:05
Once we agree that the BBT is useless without valid source of energy, we will continue the discussion about my modeling.Your model is useless because it is "without valid source of energy".
Why do you not see that?
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/08/2021 17:37:25
Pointing out that the rules of physics changed when the universe started is not "twisting time" ; it is stating the obvious.How can you call a Universe without time and without space "the Obvious?"
I claim that the space was always there and the time was also always there.
However, you are the master of the BBT and you are fully allowed to claim what are the conditions for the BBT.
So you fully confirm that you have no valid source for the creation of the BBT energy.Your messages proves that you don't have any clue how the energy for the BBT had been created.Nobody ever said it did.
What point did you think you were making?
You can't offer a wonderful car without offering the petrol for that car.
A car without petrol is just useless.
In the same token, as the BBT can't offer a valid source for the created energy then there is a severe contradiction in that theory and therefore it is useless.
That by itself is good enough to set the BBT in the garbage for good.
Our scientists don't have a basic clue what is the real size of the Universe.
It is their obligation to tell us what is the current real size.
If we will discover that they have an error then this theory is garbage.
One last question:
What kind of data/observation would convince you that the BBT is useless?
Or, we should assume that the BBT is going to stay with us forever and ever under any contradicted observation/evidence that we might find?
Post by: Kryptid on 15/08/2021 17:42:55
Krptid have also confirmed that the BBT was never supposed to explain where the Universe's energy came from:
Are you finally understanding that?
Your messages proves that you don't have any clue how the energy for the BBT had been created.
I never said that I did.
If you can't do so, it is your obligation to set the BBT deep in the garbage as any theory (including the BBT) can't work without valid source of energy.
Then why haven't you set your own model "deep in the garbage" since you don't have a valid source of energy for the "small bang" that created the first black hole?
As I have stated, the energy of the universe should be covered by a theory of the Universe as the BBT or my modeling.
It makes no sense to require something of a theory that it was never intended to cover in the first place. This is exactly like evolution denialists who claim that lack of proof for how abiogenesis could occur means that evolution is false. It's a straw-man argument.
In the nuclear fusion discussion we don't need to verify the source of the energy as it is already there
Guess what? The energy for the Big Bang was "already there" as well. You can't give one a pass and then not give the other a pass as well.
However, you can't just assume that in the BBT the energy is there as the main task of the BBT (or any other modeling for the Universe) is to show the source of energy for that modeling.
Now you are contradicting yourself, because you also said, "Krptid have also confirmed that the BBT was never supposed to explain where the Universe's energy came from".
Quote
In the same token, as the BBT can't offer a valid source for the created energy then there is a severe contradiction in that theory and therefore it is useless.
Then your model is useless because you can't offer a valid source of the energy for the "small bang" that created the first black hole.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2021 17:52:54
How can you call a Universe without time and without space "the Obvious?"Nobody did
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/08/2021 18:29:04
I claim that the space was always there and the time was also always there.And real life says that if it had been, it would have "worn out" by now thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You can't offer a wonderful car without offering the petrol for that car.Ford don't sell petrol.
A car without petrol is just useless.
So you fully confirm that you have no valid source for the creation of the BBT energy.Well, I did already point out that we have an idea where the energy comes from,
I already answered that.
The current best view is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
Please pay attention.
The fact that I have to repeat stuff makes you look like a schoolkid who isn't paying attention.
but you keep ignoring it.
Why do you ignore facts?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/08/2021 08:53:47
In my model only the energy for tinny BH is needed.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:26:12Then why haven't you set your own model "deep in the garbage" since you don't have a valid source of energy for the "small bang" that created the first black hole?
If you can't do so, it is your obligation to set the BBT deep in the garbage as any theory (including the BBT) can't work without valid source of energy.
In the BBT, you need energy for the entire universe to be delivered at just one moment in time (13.8 By ago – not before and not after) and at almost an infinite small point while there is no space anywhere outside that point
Just in the Observable universe there are about 400,000,000,000 (4 10^11) galaxies with about 250,000,000,000 (2.5 10^11) stars in each one.
So, there are about 10^23 stars in only in the observable universe.
For each star in the galaxy there is at least one outside.
Hence we already need 2 10^23
Our scientists claim that based on the BBT theory about one particle out of a million would survive the annihilation phase.
Therefore, the real energy that is needed to have those 2 10^23 stars is equivalent to 2 10^29 stars
This represents only 4% of the total energy (due to dark matter and dark energy).
I also didn't take in my account all the energy that had been transformed into heat and dissipated during the last 13 By.
As the universe is much bigger than the observable universe we can estimate that much more that that is needed.
If the Universe is infinite than the BBT energy must also be infinite.
So, you don't care that almost infinite energy is needed for the BBT.
You just wonder how my modeling could get energy for a single BH.
Is it real?
We all agree that without energy for my modeling or for the BBT those two modeling should be set in the garbage.
However, what is the chance to get an energy for a single BH (which is equivalent to the energy in a single star or even less than that) to an energy which is equivalent to 10^30 stars and up to the infinity?
It seems to me that only if you have a confirmed contract with some divan power (as God) to create the BBT that unbelievable ultra high requested energy, this theory could work.
So, would you kindly present the contract that you have with that divan power to create & supply the energy that is needed for the BBT?
Otherwise you are just wasting your time with that useless theory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 11:59:29
In my model only the energy for tinny BH is needed.Then where does the rest of the energy in the universe come from?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 12:08:04
So, you don't care that almost infinite energy is needed for the BBT.No, it isn't real. It is nonsense which you made up.
You just wonder how my modeling could get energy for a single BH.
Is it real?
Because, to make the universe, you need enough energy to make the universe.
This is true whether you make it via a big bang or via your fairy tale.
So the huge number you calculated is just as "impossible" for your model as it is for the BB.
But the universe is here.
So we know that it got the energy somehow.
So we know that it s possible to have got all that energy- at the start of time.
But we also know that we can not have received it since.
So we know you are wrong.
We all agree that without energy for my modeling or for the BBT those two modeling should be set in the garbage.Yes.
In the case of the BBT the best available hypothesis for the energy source is this sort of thing
https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2007.399
And in the case of your idea the source of the energy is some "magic" which we know is impossible.
So, which idea should we put in the bin?
Should we bin the possible one, or the impossible one?
Do you understand why science says we should throw out the impossible one?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/08/2021 15:04:22
In my model only the energy for tinny BH is needed.
So where did that energy come from? Until you answer that question, the pot is calling the kettle black.
However, what is the chance to get an energy for a single BH (which is equivalent to the energy in a single star or even less than that) to an energy which is equivalent to 10^30 stars and up to the infinity?
A judge won't let a bank robber go free just because he stole one thousand dollars instead of one million dollars. If it's impossible for energy to come out of nowhere, then it's just as impossible for a single subatomic particle's worth of energy to come out of nowhere as it is for an entire universe's energy to come out of nowhere. There is no such thing as something being just a little bit impossible. Either something is possible or it isn't.
So is it possible for energy to come out of nowhere?
We all agree that without energy for my modeling or for the BBT those two modeling should be set in the garbage.
I never agreed to that: that is your claim. That being said, why haven't you decided to put both of those models in the garbage yet?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/08/2021 15:36:16
Yes.That article from 2007 is clearly not updates and I couldn't find any real data about the total stars in the entire Universe.
In the case of the BBT the best available hypothesis for the energy source is this sort of thing
https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2007.399
Based on my simple calculation I have found that the Minimal energy in a Universe radius of only 13.4 LY (visible Universe) is equivalent to more than 10^30 stars.
So what is your estimation?
In the following article our scientists estimate (in 2019) the size of the Universe:
https://www.livescience.com/how-big-universe.html
1. Based on the BBT – It is stated that based on the BBT age of 13.8 By the maximal radius of the Universe should be 46.5 By:
"46.5 billion light-years away, based on calculations of universe’s expansion since the big bang".
2. Based on the update calculations - One study found that the actual universe could be at least 250 times the size of the 46.5 billion light-years we can actually see (which means 11,625 Bly or 11.6 Trillion LY)
3. Infinite - But Kinney has other ideas: "There's no evidence that the universe is finite," he said, "It might very well go on forever."
Therefore, the maximal size of the Universe based on the BBT is (based on the maximal edge of 13.8 By) is 46.6 BLy.
Don't you think that the BBT must be set in the garbage if the size of the Universe is bigger than that?
So, how can you fit the real universe of 11.6 Trillion Years or even the possibility for infinite Universe in only 13.8 By?
Even if you would find some brilliant idea of twisting the time or space to get that big Universe, do you have an estimation for the requested energy that is needed for that Universe?
I will try to Help you.
The sphere in the radius of 11.6 Trillion LY is bigger than 13.4 Gly by about 865^3 = 6.47 10^8
Hence, if it was almost unbelievable to get the equivalent energy in 10^30 stars for a universe radius with 13.4 Bly, do you really believe that the BBT can somehow get the energy of 6.47 10^38 stars which is needed for a universe size of 11.6 Trillion LY?
What about Infinite Universe?
How can you get infinite energy of Infinite stars to fit them all in an infinite Universe in only 13.8 B years?
Why it is allowed for you and our scientists to get almost infinite stars energy at the Big Bang and I can't get just one tinny star energy?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:53:47So where did that energy come from? Until you answer that question, the pot is calling the kettle black.
In my model only the energy for tinny BH is needed.
If you can twist the time 13.4 By ago, why I can't do so at the infinity time ago?
A judge won't let a bank robber go free just because he stole one thousand dollars instead of one million dollars. If it's impossible for energy to come out of nowhere, then it's just as impossible for a single subatomic particle's worth of energy to come out of nowhere as it is for an entire universe's energy to come out of nowhere. There is no such thing as something being just a little bit impossible. Either something is possible or it isn't.Sorry, an average person doesn't need to robe the bank for only one thousand dollars.
He can get it without robe the bank.
However, if he needs the One Million Dollars, then he must robe the bank.
So, an empty Universe can offer energy in one tinny BH at some point of time.
So is it possible for energy to come out of nowhere?Yes it is.
we know that there is energy in the empty space.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/study-about-nothing
"Constant fluctuations in energy can spontaneously create mass not just out of thin air, but out of absolutely nothing at all."
I would like to remind you that so far you didn't specify what kind of observation/evidence would convince you that the BBT is useless?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:53:47I never agreed to that: that is your claim. That being said, why haven't you decided to put both of those models in the garbage yet?
We all agree that without energy for my modeling or for the BBT those two modeling should be set in the garbage.
Don't you think that the BBT must be expired at some maximal size of the Universe?
Are you sure that the BBT MUST stay with us forever and ever and ever and ever...under any sort of contradiction?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 17:11:21
Why it is allowed for you and our scientists to get almost infinite stars energy at the Big Bang and I can't get just one tinny star energy?How many ways are you going to ask that question
I keep answering it; but you just ask it again.
That's the sort of thing which makes you look like an idiot, or a troll.
The answer is still the same: at the start of the universe, the laws of physics were not symmetrical in time, but after that point, they are symmetrical.
we know that there is energy in the empty space.Yes, but it can only "borrow" it.
I already explained this.
Sorry - In our Universe there is no loan.Yes there is; the amount you borrow determines the time you get to pay it back.
It's called the uncertainty principle.
(the uncertainty principle does not allow you to borrow a whole universe worth of mass for 14 billion years- just in case you wondered.)
Why do you not pay attention?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 17:19:59
I would like to remind you that so far you didn't specify what kind of observation/evidence would convince you that the BBT is useless?It would have to contradict actual evidence.
For example, you saying "The universe might be infinite, in which case the BBT would be impossible" is not a reason for me to change my mind because I can simply point out that it might not be infinite.
Why did you not think that through for yourself?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/08/2021 17:59:16
1. Infinity - If you would know for sure that the Universe is infinite, would you agree that the BBT is useless?I would like to remind you that so far you didn't specify what kind of observation/evidence would convince you that the BBT is useless?It would have to contradict actual evidence.
For example, you saying "The universe might be infinite, in which case the BBT would be impossible" is not a reason for me to change my mind because I can simply point out that it might not be infinite.
2. Universe temp - Our scientists claim that the Universe temp at the Big bang moment was very high.
Even at age of 500 My the Universe was still compact and hot.
We can clearly observe far end galaxies that their estimated age is 13.3 Gy
So, if we discover that the temp of those galaxies is absolutely the same as ours, does it means that the BBT is useless?
3. Space expansion - How do we know that the galaxies are expanding due to space expansion and not due to a self velocity in space?
Do we have any possibility to measure directly the expansion of the space?
If we would verify one day that the expansion in space is zero (even for a distance of 13.4 BLY) would you agree that the BBT is useless?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 18:16:56
1. Infinity - If you would know for sure that the Universe is infinite, would you agree that the BBT is useless?No.
There may be a way to get everything in at once.
After all, an infinite number of infinitely small things don't take up much space.
So, if we discover that the temp of those galaxies is absolutely the same as ours, does it means that the BBT is useless?No, because they have been heated up by fusion in stars and so has our Galaxy.
There's no reason why the heating must be exactly the same, but they might be.
Space expansion - How do we know that the galaxies are expanding due to space expansion and not due to a self velocity in space?We see things that are further than 13.8 GLY away.
When you post these questions, do you actually think about them first?
do you think
"This is a hard one; he will have to think about it",
or is it just
"Here's another repeat of a question I asked and a few other easy things thrown in"?
Do you not realise that your questions are easy, but repetitive and dull?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/08/2021 19:00:56
Why it is allowed for you and our scientists to get almost infinite stars energy at the Big Bang and I can't get just one tinny star energy?
I'm not the one claiming that both theories have to explain the source of their energy: you are. So what is your explanation?
Sorry, an average person doesn't need to robe the bank for only one thousand dollars.
He can get it without robe the bank.
However, if he needs the One Million Dollars, then he must robe the bank.
I see my analogy went over your head...
So, an empty Universe can offer energy in one tinny BH at some point of time.
How? Where did the energy come from?
Yes it is.
we know that there is energy in the empty space.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/study-about-nothing
"Constant fluctuations in energy can spontaneously create mass not just out of thin air, but out of absolutely nothing at all."
Okay, so what is the upper limit on how much energy is allowed to be created at the beginning of the Universe?
I would like to remind you that so far you didn't specify what kind of observation/evidence would convince you that the BBT is useless?
Observations that contradict predictions made by the Big Bang theory (and I mean observations that actually contradict the predictions, not the straw-men that you keep providing).
Don't you think that the BBT must be expired at some maximal size of the Universe?
No. The Big Bang theory doesn't set an upper limit on the Universe's total size.
Are you sure that the BBT MUST stay with us forever and ever and ever and ever...under any sort of contradiction?
No and I never said that.
1. Infinity - If you would know for sure that the Universe is infinite, would you agree that the BBT is useless?
No, the Big Bang theory works just fine for an infinitely-large Universe.
I'm still waiting for you to build a perpetual motion machine in order to prove us wrong. Why not use a water wheel? Water wheels are powered by gravity so surely you must think it's possible to build a water wheel that provides unlimited energy. Why not get to building one?
Post by: Origin on 16/08/2021 19:06:22
Universe temp - Our scientists claim that the Universe temp at the Big bang moment was very high.No it wasn't. Even after 67 pages you are still clueless about the BBT, which you rail against. When the universe was only 20 million years old the average temperature was below 100 C.
Even at age of 500 My the Universe was still compact and hot.
Space expansion - How do we know that the galaxies are expanding due to space expansion and not due to a self velocity in space?The galaxies aren't expanding, but I think you meant 'moving'. I wonder how many times this has been explained to you over the last 67 pages; 5 times? 10times?
If the recession velocity was due to all the galaxies velocity through space, that would mean that the earth is the center of the universe. In addition if galaxies were moving through space it would make no sense that the farther the galaxy is from earth the faster it moves.
would you agree that the BBT is useless?What you keep asking is: if the BBT were falsified would the BBT be falsified... yes it would. But your points are all trolling, pseudoscience drivel or astoundingly illogical, so they are not close to falsifying the BBT.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/08/2021 20:32:00
No more than one tinny BH.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:36:16Okay, so what is the upper limit on how much energy is allowed to be created at the beginning of the Universe?
Yes it is.
we know that there is energy in the empty space.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/study-about-nothing
"Constant fluctuations in energy can spontaneously create mass not just out of thin air, but out of absolutely nothing at all."
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:36:16Observations that contradict predictions made by the Big Bang theory (and I mean observations that actually contradict the predictions, not the straw-men that you keep providing).
I would like to remind you that so far you didn't specify what kind of observation/evidence would convince you that the BBT is useless?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:59:16No.
1. Infinity - If you would know for sure that the Universe is infinite, would you agree that the BBT is useless?
QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:59:16No,
So, if we discover that the temp of those galaxies is absolutely the same as ours, does it means that the BBT is useless?
So, don't you have even one observation that could kill the BBT?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:59:16Even at age of 500 My the Universe was still compact and hot.
Universe temp - Our scientists claim that the Universe temp at the Big bang moment was very high.
No it wasn't.
Just nothing for all of you?
Are you all sure that the BBT is the Best of the Best.
Could it be that you are just afraid from the BBT that you all can't even say one word against it?
I can give you many observations that could kill my modeling and you can't offer even one.
So how could it be that none of you can offer even one issue or negative aspect with the BBT?
It almost sounds as some sort of the Mighty BBT dictator.
We are not living today in North Korea or under the Taliban
What would happen to you if you would dare to say one word against this master of the Universe that is called BBT?
Are you going to lose your life?
If no, please find one negative aspect.
Even after 67 pages you are still clueless about the BBT,It is very clear by now that even if God by himself will tell you all face to face 67 times or 67,000 times that the BBT is useless - it won't help.
For you - BBT is the Ultimate master of all the masters.
if galaxies were moving through space it would make no sense that the farther the galaxy is from earth the faster it moves.I clearly explain how my modeling solves this problem.
If the recession velocity was due to all the galaxies velocity through space, that would mean that the earth is the center of the universe.No
Our real Universe is infinite.
That is correct by 100%!
We all know that the farther the galaxy its recession velocity is higher.
Therefore, we can only get radiation from a limited sphere.
Hence, at any location that we would be in the infinite Universe we would get a radiation from a finite sphere and think that we are at the center of the Universe.
The CMBR is the same at any location in the infinite universe and it would stay at the same level forever and ever and ever.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 20:55:57
Our real Universe is infinite.Did you go and check, or are you making it up?
That is correct by 100%!
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 21:03:29
So, don't you have even one observation that could kill the BBT?There are, in principle, plenty of things that would kill the BBT.
Just nothing for all of you?
But we haven't seen any of them.
(and they are not the things you are talking about)
But we have seen (and mathematically proved) a thing which kills your idea. So it is dead.
Mourn it, and move on.
I clearly explain how my modeling solves this problem.You don't clearly explain anything.
Therefore, we can only get radiation from a limited sphere.And we would see exactly the same in a finite, but large universe, wouldn't we?
Hence, at any location that we would be in the infinite Universe we would get a radiation from a finite sphere and think that we are at the center of the Universe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/08/2021 21:09:17
Based on my modeling the Universe MUST be infinite.Our real Universe is infinite.Did you go and check, or are you making it up?
That is correct by 100%!
If it is finite then I will set my modeling in the garbage.
There are, in principle, plenty of things that would kill the BBT.So please share it with us.
But we haven't seen any of them.
(and they are not the things you are talking about)
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 20:32:00I can do it again
I clearly explain how my modeling solves this problem.
You don't clearly explain anything.
And we would see exactly the same in a finite, but large universe, wouldn't we?What is your question?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/08/2021 21:09:45
I'm still waiting for your perpetual motion machine to be invented.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/08/2021 21:12:15
And what evidence do you have that the upper limit on the amount of energy you are allowed to get in an infinite universe for free is only that for a "tiny black hole". Show us the math you used to arrive at this conclusion.How can we agree on something that you say no and I say yes.
I'm still waiting for your perpetual motion machine to be invented.
I claim that gravity force can contribute Tidal energy and you say no.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 21:14:29
I claim that gravity force can contribute Tidal energy and you say no.No
The rules of dimensional analysis say no.
So you are actually wrong.
Why don't you accept this?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 21:15:28
I can do it againYes, you can fail to explain anything as often as you wish.
But it doesn't help, so please don't bother.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 21:17:05
Based on my modeling the Universe MUST be infinite.Your model is garbage, no matter how big the universe is.
If it is finite then I will set my modeling in the garbage.
Your model is dead.
Why are you still carrying the carcass around with you?
It stinks.
Leave it to rot somewhere else and walk away from it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 21:19:20
So please share it with us.The obvious answer is anything older than 14 billion years.
Again; did you think it was a difficult question?
Post by: Kryptid on 16/08/2021 21:20:15
And what evidence do you have that the upper limit on the amount of energy you are allowed to get in an infinite universe for free is only that for a "tiny black hole". Show us the math you used to arrive at this conclusion.How can we agree on something that you say no and I say yes.
I'm still waiting for your perpetual motion machine to be invented.
I claim that gravity force can contribute Tidal energy and you say no.
I see neither math nor a perpetual motion machine in this reply.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 21:22:25
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 21:03:29It's written there in front of you.
And we would see exactly the same in a finite, but large universe, wouldn't we?
What is your question?
"wouldn't we see exactly the same in a finite, but large universe?"
Was your screen not working or something?
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 21:23:57
I see neither math nor a perpetual motion machine in this reply.That's because he's a troll or an idiot.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/08/2021 21:25:30
When you post these questions, do you actually think about them first?
do you think
"This is a hard one; he will have to think about it",
or is it just
"Here's another repeat of a question I asked and a few other easy things thrown in"?
Do you not realise that your questions are easy, but repetitive and dull?
Post by: Origin on 16/08/2021 23:21:05
So, don't you have even one observation that could kill the BBT?That is correct there have been no observations or experiments that have falsified the BBT. Of course there are many things that could falsify the theory, but none of these have been seen.
Just nothing for all of you?
Could it be that you are just afraid from the BBT that you all can't even say one word against it?No, I am not afraid, I have nothing invested in the BBT to be afraid for. It just happens to be the best current theory.
So how could it be that none of you can offer even one issue or negative aspect with the BBT?That was a strange little rant. No scientist thinks the BBT is the perfect end all theory. There is absolutely no doubt that it will be modified in the future as more knowledge is gained. However your ideas are just wrong and absurd.
It almost sounds as some sort of the Mighty BBT dictator.
We are not living today in North Korea or under the Taliban
What would happen to you if you would dare to say one word against this master of the Universe that is called BBT?
Are you going to lose your life?
If no, please find one negative aspect.
It is very clear by now that even if God by himself will tell you all face to face 67 times or 67,000 times that the BBT is useless - it won't help.It isn't God making silly claims, it is just you. The BBT is just one of many theories that is proving to be very useful in understanding the universe.
For you - BBT is the Ultimate master of all the masters.
I clearly explain how my modeling solves this problem.There is no problem. Your pseudoscience doesn't explain anything.
Our real Universe is infinite.Does it feel good to have such strong faith?
That is correct by 100%!
Post by: Kryptid on 17/08/2021 14:46:53
I can give you many observations that could kill my modeling and you can't offer even one.
Okay, I'll give you some examples of things that would be evidence against the Big Bang theory:
(1) The discovery of a large number of new galaxies that show there is no net relationship between their distance from us and their redshift values. In other words, the discovery that the redshift of galaxies is random instead of increasing with distance.
(2) The discovery of objects that are too old to be accounted for by the Big Bang theory. Black dwarf stars, blue dwarf stars and iron stars are a few examples.
(3) A reassessment/remeasuring of the evidence which shows that the visible universe is either significantly larger or significantly smaller than we thought it was (the fact that the visible universe is about the same size as a black hole equal in mass to the visible universe is consider evidence for the Big Bang. Take note that I am talking about the visible universe when I say this, not the entire universe).
(4) New evidence that shows the abundance of chemical elements is inconsistent with the Big Bang theory (the BBT predicts that hydrogen should be far and away the most common element in the Universe, followed by helium and then the rest of the periodic table).
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/08/2021 17:57:10
I see neither math nor a perpetual motion machine in this reply.OK
m = particle mass
E=Particle energy = mc^2
The requested energy for two particles (pair) = 2E = 2mc^2
As one particle falls in, the other one is ejected outwards.
Therefore, while the SMBH invest 2E from its EM energy for the particle pair creation, it actually lose only one E as it gets back the other E as a falling particle.
That falling particle comes at the speed of light. Therefore it also contributes its mass and its falling kinetic energy at the collision moment with the SMBH.
So, the SMBH is actually losing less than one E for the pair creation.
The other one that is ejected outwards into the accretion disc orbits at almost the speed of light.
It also contributes tidal energy to the SMBH.
However, the same EM field that push it into the accretion disc will force it also to be ejected eventually from the disc to the Bulge as UFO.
It will first join one of the G gas cloud.
By using the ultra high SMBH gravity force the Gas cloud will use that particle to form new S star.
As those G gas clouds and S stars orbits around the SMBH, they would contribute significant tidal heat to that SMBH which should compensate the losing EM radiation due to the ejected particle.
Due to that tidal transformation, all the new formed S stars have to spiral outwards (as all planets are spiraling outwards from the Sun).
Therefore, the SMBH would NEVER EVER eat any S star or G gas cloud.
It just will convert their tidal energy (as they drift/spiral outwards) into EM energy and gain more mass in that process.
Therefore, as there will be more G gas clouds and more S stars around the SMBH, it will gain more tidal heat energy.
As the Internal heat of the SMBH would be higher, it would have higher EM radiation.
As the EM radiation of the SMBH would be higher, it would create more particle pair.
More particle pairs would contribute more falling particles that increase the mass of the SMBH.
In the same token, more particle pairs would contribute more plasma in the accretion disc, more UFO, more G gas cloud and more stars.
Eventually, that SMBH would create millions and billions stars.
All stars are spiraling outwards and therefore, we get the wonderful shape of spiral galaxy.
Therefore, all the matter for the 250 B stars in the MW has been created over there at the SMBH' accretion disc.
All of them are brothers. Not even one comes from outside.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/08/2021 18:27:40
Our scientists claim that in that due to the expansion rate, in 13.8 By the radius of the Universe might be 46.5 BLY.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:09:17The obvious answer is anything older than 14 billion years.
So please share it with us.
It can't be bigger.
Therefore, if the Universe is bigger the BBT is useless.
Okay, I'll give you some examples of things that would be evidence against the Big Bang theory:Thanks
(1) The discovery of a large number of new galaxies that show there is no net relationship between their distance from us and their redshift values. In other words, the discovery that the redshift of galaxies is random instead of increasing with distance.Perfect fit with my modeling, as galaxies are moving randomly in all directions. The space is fixed. It doesn't move.
(2) The discovery of objects that are too old to be accounted for by the Big Bang theory. Black dwarf stars, blue dwarf stars and iron stars are a few examples.Perfect fit with my modeling as the real age of the Universe is infinite.
(3) A reassessment/remeasuring of the evidence which shows that the visible universe is either significantly larger or significantly smaller than we thoughtBased on my modeling the VISIBLE Universe is Significantly larger!!!
(4) New evidence that shows the abundance of chemical elements is inconsistent with the Big Bang theory (the BBT predicts that hydrogen should be far and away the most common element in the Universe, followed by helium and then the rest of the periodic table).Based on my modeling all the matter (ALL the Atoms and all Molecular) are constantly created at any SMBH' accretion disc at any location in the entire Universe.
Do you thing that this kind of matter creation fits better the observation?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/08/2021 19:03:06
As one particle falls in, the other one is ejected outwards.Except, for Hawking radiation to work, the one which falls in has negative mass.
Therefore, while the SMBH invest 2E from its EM energy for the particle pair creation, it actually lose only one E as it gets back the other E as a falling particle.
Which is why
(1) mass is conserved and
(2) the BH evaporates.
So we are still waiting for the maths, rather than your mistakes.
Therefore, the SMBH would NEVER EVER eat any S star or G gas cloud.We have pictures of it happening.
We have the LIGO recordings of the gravity waves which prove it.
Universe might be 46.5 BLY.And, once again, you fail to understand the issues, but think you are the clever one.
It can't be bigger.
Therefore, if the Universe is bigger the BBT is useless.
Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 14:46:53You didn't understand this did you?
(2) The discovery of objects that are too old to be accounted for by the Big Bang theory. Black dwarf stars, blue dwarf stars and iron stars are a few examples.
Perfect fit with my modeling as the real age of the Universe is infinite.
If the universe was much older than about 14 GY then we would see iron stars and blue dwarf stars.
But we do not see them.
So we know the universe is not very old.
And yet you are so stupid you think that proves your idea.
LOL
Based on my modeling the VISIBLE Universe is Significantly larger!!!But we know your model is wrong.
More importantly, you having a model which says the moon is made of cheese is not evidence that the moon is made of cheese, is it?
You really must struggle in your day-to-day life with your failure to understand cause and effect.
Do you thing that this matter creation fits better the observation?No, because it is impossible.
What ratios of hydrogen to deuterium, helium and lithium does your model predict?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/08/2021 21:30:59
OK
m = particle mass
E=Particle energy = mc^2
The requested energy for two particles (pair) = 2E = 2mc^2
Now show me the calculations that support your assertion that the amount of energy you are allowed to get for nothing is only that of a "tiny black hole". What is the exact mass of this black hole?
Perfect fit with my modeling, as galaxies are moving randomly in all directions.
Well, that's not what the data says. The data says that galaxies further from us have a net redshift.
Perfect fit with my modeling as the real age of the Universe is infinite.
So what object(s) have we discovered that are confirmed to be older than 13.8 billion years old?
Based on my modeling the VISIBLE Universe is Significantly larger!!!
When was it ever measured to be larger than what scientists currently think it is?
Do you thing that this kind of matter creation fits better the observation?
No.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/08/2021 17:58:16
I have explained it in the past and I will do it again:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:27:40Well, that's not what the data says. The data says that galaxies further from us have a net redshift.
Perfect fit with my modeling, as galaxies are moving randomly in all directions.
Based on my modeling, there is no need to set any space Expansion. We actually see the far end galaxies as they are moving away from us at almost the speed of light while there is no change in the space.
So how it really works:
The first BH would generate new stars and new BH around it.
Over time all the new stars BH's…would be ejected outwards from the galaxy.
Our milky way acts as one of the biggest stars sprinkler in the Universe. Therefore our scientists claim that there are more stars outside the galaxy than in the all the galaxies.
Ejection Velocity (Ve) – The average velocity of the ejected Stars/BHs from the Galaxy.
When the first galaxy in the Universe (let's call it - first generation) would become massive enough to create new BH it would start to eject its BH children outwards randomly at different direction. Each one would be ejected at Ve velocity.
Over time those Baby BHs (second generation) would be massive enough to generate their own baby BHs (third generation).
Maturity Time (Tm) - The time that it takes to a new born BH till it starts to generate its own baby BHs.
In order to understand the redshift, let's assume that all the new babies are drifting away at the same line direction.
So, the second generations of BHs are drifting away from the first BH at Ve. The third next generation will drift away from the first BH at 2Ve. After n generations, the relative velocity between the first generation to the n generation would be Ve* (n-1).
Based on my calculation:
Let's assume that Ve is equal to the orbital velocity of our Sun around the Galaxy = 220 Km/s or 0.073% of the speed of light. Therefore, after 1371 generations, the last one will move at a speed which is almost the speed of light (relatively to the first generation).
There is a clear observation for the ejection process. We see that Triangulum (relatively small spiral galaxy – 40 Billion stars) is directly drifting away from it mother Andromeda (A supper massive spiral galaxy with about one Million Billion stars)
As they are drifting away from each other, they set hydrogen "bridge" between them:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611193632.htm
"The new observations confirm a disputed 2004 discovery of hydrogen gas streaming between the giant Andromeda Galaxy, also known as M31, and the Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."
This Hydrogen bridge is like an Umbilical cord which connects the mother galaxy – Andromeda' to her Embryo – Triangulum.
So, we have clear OBSERVATION that Triangulum was very in the past very close to Andromeda.
If we would set those galaxies (at their current size) so close together, their gravity force them to collide with each other.
Therefore, the only possibility for Triangulum to be today relatively so massive and in the past to be near Andromeda is just if is gain mass as it drifts outwards.
Therefore, Andromeda must be the mother of Triangulum.
Once we accept this observation, we understand how the whole universe really works.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/08/2021 18:31:26
Over time all the new stars BH's…would be ejected outwards from the galaxy.Things still do not fall up.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/08/2021 20:34:07
It seems that you and all our scientists are missing some significant information about orbital system and how they really work, although you have full data on billions systems.Over time all the new stars BH's…would be ejected outwards from the galaxy.Things still do not fall up.
So, let me explain it to you:
1. Orbital objects NEVER fall in (unless in a very rare and specific conditions- as Very close objects as phobos and two nearby similar size BHs as we observe in Ligo).
2. Tidal force/heat exists at any orbital system. Therefore all the planets and moons are spiraling/drifting outwards due to the impact of that tidal force. That answers the following question:
Now show me the calculations that support your assertion that the amount of energy you are allowed to get for nothing is only that of a "tiny black hole". What is the exact mass of this black hole?Tidal energy isn't for nothing. it is real, but it forces the orbital object to drift outwards. However, as new matter is created at the accretion disc, that creation of matter would work forever and ever.
3. Our scientists don't have a basic clue why the Upper layer of Jupiter atmosphere is dramatically hotter (the temp is over than 700 c) than the lower level of atmosphere (less than 300c). The answer for that is due to tidal heat from all the moons around it. Therefore, all the moons are drifting/spiraling outwards
Therefore, I have just solved a sever enigma for our puzzled scientists.
4. If the BBT was correct, then we probably won't get even one orbital system in the whole universe.
5. In order for orbital system to work matter must come from inside and drifts outside.
Therefore, all the stars that had been created by the matter which had been ejected from the accretion disc of the galaxy are drifting outwards over time.
That answers the following question:
So what object(s) have we discovered that are confirmed to be older than 13.8 billion years old?All the stars in the galaxy are quite young. I assume that the age of the MW by itself is over than trillion years. However, the time that it takes for a star from its creation at the G gas cloud till it is ejected outwards might be less than 13.8 Billion years.
Hence, if you wish to see very old stars, it's better for you to look outside the galaxy.
6. When our scientists observe a massive star that orbits around a BH they think that the BH eats the matter in that star. This is a fatal mistake. The massive star is actually gets new matter that had just been created by the BH and therefore it is so massive.
Please Remember - when you see a massive/fat person it is good indication that he eats and nobody really eats his body.
Some other issues:
No, that picture is all about BH/neutron star with similar mass. So, the gravity wave works ONLY in that condition.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:57:10We have pictures of it happening.
Therefore, the SMBH would NEVER EVER eat any S star or G gas cloud.
We have the LIGO recordings of the gravity waves which prove it.
Even so, no one is eating the other one. They just spiral inwards until they merge.
Except, for Hawking radiation to work, the one which falls in has negative mass.The Hawking radiation is incorrect as there is no negative mass. Its time for you to understand it. BH never evaporated. Therefore there are so many of them and they are increasing their mass over time.
Which is why
(1) mass is conserved and
(2) the BH evaporates.
If the universe was much older than about 14 GY then we would see iron stars and blue dwarf stars.As I have already explain, the age of the stars in the galaxy do not specify the age of the galaxy.
But we do not see them.
So we know the universe is not very old.
But we know your model is wrong.My model is 100% correct.
Sooner or later students will have to learn that model in the University as it is the only ultimate model for our universe..
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/08/2021 21:34:59
. Orbital objects NEVER fall inhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_shower
"Very intense or unusual meteor showers are known as meteor outbursts and meteor storms, which produce at least 1,000 meteors an hour, most notably from the Leonids"
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/08/2021 21:35:58
As I have already explain, the age of the stars in the galaxy do not specify the age of the galaxy.No, but the stars in the universe specify the age of the universe.
And we don't see any older than 14GY.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/08/2021 21:36:35
ONLY in that condition.Show the maths for this condition.
Even so, no one is eating the other one. They just spiral inwards until they merge.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/08/2021 21:37:12
My model is 100% correct.You model can not be right because it breaks the conservation laws.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/08/2021 21:38:44
Therefore, I have just solved a sever enigmaShow your maths.
(Or show that the scientists never considered tidal heating before)
Post by: Kryptid on 18/08/2021 22:31:33
We actually see the far end galaxies as they are moving away from us at almost the speed of light while there is no change in the space.
I know that's what you said. It's still irrelevant to what I said would be actual evidence against the Big Bang. I said that if we discovered that such galaxies weren't, on average, moving away from us (whether it is due to spatial expansion or not), that would be evidence against the Big Bang theory.
Tidal energy isn't for nothing.
So how did "tidal energy" create the very first black hole in the Universe? Don't forget to show your math on how much mass that black hole was allowed to have as well.
All the stars in the galaxy are quite young. I assume that the age of the MW by itself is over than trillion years. However, the time that it takes for a star from its creation at the G gas cloud till it is ejected outwards might be less than 13.8 Billion years.
Hence, if you wish to see very old stars, it's better for you to look outside the galaxy.
6. When our scientists observe a massive star that orbits around a BH they think that the BH eats the matter in that star. This is a fatal mistake. The massive star is actually gets new matter that had just been created by the BH and therefore it is so massive.
Please Remember - when you see a massive/fat person it is good indication that he eats and nobody really eats his body.
So you do not have any evidence that anything is older than 13.8 billion years old then.
I'm still waiting for you to show us a perpetual motion machine.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/08/2021 04:27:28
Can we observe an old star that is located One Million LY away from us?As I have already explain, the age of the stars in the galaxy do not specify the age of the galaxy.No, but the stars in the universe specify the age of the universe.
And we don't see any older than 14GY.
Please be aware that all the relatively old stars are located between the galaxies.
However, due to the mighty gravity impact of our galaxy as it cross the space, any star that is located in its way is shifted away.
Therefore, all the stars around our galaxy (not just those in the galaxy itself) are still relatively young as they have ejected from the galaxy.
Hence, if you have interest in relatively old stars, please try to focus on those stars that are located above/below the galactic disc at a minimal distance of one million LY.
The further you look between the galaxies, you might find older stars.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/08/2021 04:34:21
Its better for you to ask Einstien about it as he is the one that expected the activity of the gravity wave.ONLY in that condition.Show the maths for this condition.
Even so, no one is eating the other one. They just spiral inwards until they merge.
It doesn'tMy model is 100% correct.You model can not be right because it breaks the conservation laws.
Tidal heat is real and it doesn't break the conservation laws.
If you understand the tidal heating then how can you claim for breaking the conservation law?Therefore, I have just solved a sever enigmaShow your maths.
(Or show that the scientists never considered tidal heating before)
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/08/2021 04:57:02
I know that's what you said. It's still irrelevant to what I said would be actual evidence against the Big Bang. I said that if we discovered that such galaxies weren't, on average, moving away from us (whether it is due to spatial expansion or not), that would be evidence against the Big Bang theory.As long as my modeling explain the observation - it is OK with me.
So how did "tidal energy" create the very first black hole in the Universe? Don't forget to show your math on how much mass that black hole was allowed to have as well.The first object is always the most difficult.
Even today we really don't know how the first living ameba had been created in our planet.
However, as our scientists claim that the Big Bang is feasible, so why a small bang is not feasible?
With regards to the minimal mass of the first BH:
The main request is EM radiation.
The Universe had started to live from the first BH that had enough EM radiation to create new particle pairs.
So you do not have any evidence that anything is older than 13.8 billion years old then.Yes, older stars exist in our Universe but it's very difficult to find them..
In order to do so, we just need to focus in the aria between galaxies.
I'm still waiting for you to show us a perpetual motion machine.My modeling isn't base on perpetual motion, but on perpetual creation cycle.
Please be aware that any new star that had been created at the Bulge around the SMBH has a limited time living in the galaxy.
Sooner or later it would be ejected from the galaxy.
Hence, its tidal heat contribution time to the SMBH is limited.
However, at any given moment new stars are formed near the SMBH and they keep the perpetual creation system in the galaxy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/08/2021 08:32:13
Tidal heat is real and it doesn't break the conservation laws.Exactly.
It obeys the laws and thus, after a while, it runs out. (Otherwise you have a perpetual motion machine)
And that's what kills your model.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/08/2021 08:35:00
Its better for you to ask Einstien about it as he is the one that expected the activity of the gravity wave.Einstein is not posting antiscientific nonsense in this thread; you are.
Please show that maths that explains why everything falls up.
As long as my modeling explain the observation - it is OK with me.It can't explain anything, because it's impossible.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/08/2021 10:05:46
However, as our scientists claim that the Big Bang is feasible, so why a small bang is not feasible?
You are the one who claimed that the Big Bang is not feasible. You are the one saying that scientists are wrong. So explain how a small bang is feasible.
With regards to the minimal mass of the first BH:
The main request is EM radiation.
The Universe had started to live from the first BH that had enough EM radiation to create new particle pairs.
Where's the math? Where's the math, Dave? You were supposed to supply calculations that support your assertion that your "small bang" is feasible but not a "big bang". Until you supply those calculations, your claims are empty.
Yes, older stars exist in our Universe but it's very difficult to find them..
Don't just make the claim, support it with observational evidence.
My modeling isn't base on perpetual motion
You claim that gravity is a source of unlimited energy. If that is true, then that should allow us to build a perpetual motion machine using the Earth's gravity as an energy source. That is the perpetual motion machine I am speaking of. Why haven't you built one yet and become famous?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/08/2021 05:11:20
Yes, you are absolutely correct.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:34:21Exactly.
Tidal heat is real and it doesn't break the conservation laws.
It obeys the laws and thus, after a while, it runs out.
And that's what kills your model.No, as new particale pairs and new stars are created constantly around the SMBH and they replace those objects that had been ejected from its orbital system due to tidal heat activity
Einstein is not posting antiscientific nonsense in this thread; you are.Einstein had clearly claimed that the BBT is WRONG!!!
He fully supported the idea that new matter is constantly created in our universe.
Unfortunately, he left us before getting the most advanced updated observations on our Universe.
Therefore, he and Fred Hoyle have failed to explain how their steady state universe really works.
I just highlight the missing segments in their theory.
You and all the other 100,000 reject Einstein ideas while my modeling is based on his vision!
Therefore, my modeling should be called "Einstein modeling for infinite steady state universe."
You are the one who claimed that the Big Bang is not feasible. You are the one saying that scientists are wrong. So explain how a small bang is feasible.I didn't claim that a random bang isn't feasible.
I have claimed that it is not feasible to gain almost infinite energy that is needed for our universe (at any size -even if it is infinite) in a single bang.
Therefore, why I can't use the same ideas that you have for getting the big bang also for my small bang?
Do you feel that only our scientists are allowed to set an Ultra big bang while no one else can use those ideas even for a tinny bang?
Where's the math? Where's the math, Dave? You were supposed to supply calculations that support your assertion that your "small bang" is feasible but not a "big bang". Until you supply those calculations, your claims are empty.Where is the Math for the Ultra Big Bang?
Why I can't use your math also for my small bang?
Until you supply your calculation for the Big Bang and explain why only you can use those calculations, your claims are empty.
Sorry, I have no advanced observation tools.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:57:02Don't just make the claim, support it with observational evidence.
Yes, older stars exist in our Universe but it's very difficult to find them.
I can only offer our scientists where they should look in order to find those old stars.
You claim that gravity is a source of unlimited energy.I have stated that gravity could transform the orbital movement into Tidal heat/energy. However, that activity forces the orbital object to spiral outwards.
Therefore, at some point of time the orbital object must be ejected out to space.
At that moment the tidal energy transformation is ended.
Therefore, Tidal energy can only exist as long as the orbital system works.
If that is true, then that should allow us to build a perpetual motion machine using the Earth's gravity as an energy source.I have never claimed for perpetual motion as there is no perpetual orbital system.
It can't explain anything, because it's impossible.Please show me one real key obstacle that my modeling (let's call it from now "Einstein modeling") can't pass.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/08/2021 08:32:10
He fully supported the idea that new matter is constantly created in our universe.Until he realised his error.
After that he called it “the greatest blunder of my life”.
We have already explained to you that Einstein rejected the sort of idea you are putting forward.
You should do the same.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/08/2021 08:34:16
Where is the Math for the Ultra Big Bang?An important part of it is here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
and I have repeatedly explained why you can only use it once.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/08/2021 08:37:27
Therefore, he and Fred Hoyle have failed to explain how their steady state universe really works.I met Sir Fred Hoyle once, and he didn't seem convincing.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/08/2021 08:39:04
Sorry, I have no advanced observation tools.Then you should not make claims which you know that you can not prove.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/08/2021 08:42:02
No, as new particale pairs and new stars are created constantly around the SMBH and they replace those objects that had been ejected from its orbital system due to tidal heat activityThat's a breach of the conservation laws.
It will continue to be one, no matter how often you repeat it.
You have been told that.
So repeating it again just makes you look silly.
Why do you want to look like a fool?
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/08/2021 16:14:18
Sorry, you twist the reality.He fully supported the idea that new matter is constantly created in our universe.Until he realised his error.
After that he called it “the greatest blunder of my life”.
Einstein called the cosmological constant as the “the greatest blunder of my life”..
He did so when he realized that other scientists are using this constant to justify the BBT.
Therefore, Einstein was always against the BBT and when he was quite old he clearly explained that he fully supports the theory of a steady state universe.
So please, you can't twist Einstein message.
You can't claim that Einstein formula was correct but his message that the cosmological constant is “the greatest blunder of my life” is incorrect.
We had long discussion on that issue.
I have told you before and I tell you again - as Einstein told you that the cosmological constant is “the greatest blunder of his life” then it is forbidden to add the constant to his formula.
If you do so, then you can't call his formula as Einstein formula.
Therefore, as the BBT is based on the cosmological constant, which Einstein had stated that it was his biggest mistake - then you have two options:
1. Accept Einstein statement and set your BBT in the garbage.
2. Claim that Einstein is a crazy man. In this case you can manipulate his formula as you wish but you can't call it "Einstein formula" any more.
You can call it BC formula or K.BC formula but please don't call it Einstein formula as it misleading information.
Any scientists that is using today the cosmological constant in Einstein formula in order to justify the BBT and still call it Einstein formula is just twisting the true!!!
We have already explained to you that Einstein rejected the sort of idea you are putting forward.My modeling is based on Einstein modeling.
You should do the same
You even tried to explain me why we can't trust Einstein.
So, how can you claim that Einstein had rejected his own ideas in his modeling?
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:11:20I couldn't find in this theorem even one word about the Big Bang.
Where is the Math for the Ultra Big Bang?
An important part of it is here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
and I have repeatedly explained why you can only use it once.
So, why do you use that theorem to support the BBT?
If the idea is that only our scientists have a special way/math to bypass that theorem, then please show that way/math
If they can use it – I also want to use it.
I met Sir Fred Hoyle once, and he didn't seem convincing.First I'm absolutely impressed that you have met Sir Fred Hoyle.
I have high appreciation for his knowledge and wisdom.
However, even if he didn't seem to you that he was convincing, for me Einstein is good enough for the Steady state theory.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:11:20I can only offer the science community the ultimate way to find those old stars.
Sorry, I have no advanced observation tools.
Then you should not make claims which you know that you can not prove.
Now it is not in my hand.
You have fully confirmed that tidal heat is real.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:11:20That's a breach of the conservation laws.
No, as new particale pairs and new stars are created constantly around the SMBH and they replace those objects that had been ejected from its orbital system due to tidal heat activity
You also confirmed that due to tidal heat orbital system are drifting outwards.
Therefore, you should know that due to that tidal heat EM energy is created and therefore, new particle pairs are created near the SMBH. That activity keeps the productions of new stars that contribute new tidal heat to the SMBH.
It will continue to do so, no matter how often you reject it.
This is the reality.
However, if you still don't happy with that, then I can always use the dark matter/energy ideas.
Please don't forget that our scientists claim that around the SMBH there is dark matter.
Our scientists can fit for every galaxy exactly the requested matter that is needed to hold the stars around the SMBH and it is there forever and ever.
They don't need to prove that it is there. We all must agree that it is there to help our scientists to explain how it could be that all stars orbit at any radius at almost the same velocity.
Therefore, they have even developed several complex formulas for the dark matter in order to help them in their theories.
So if they can use the dark matter (although they have never observed any dark matter over there) in order to close the gap between their misunderstanding (of how spiral galaxy really works) to the science laws, then why it is forbidden for me to use the same ideas of dark matter and dark energy to close the gap for your understanding about the source of energy for the SMBH?
If dark matter could convince you that stars could orbit around the SMBH at the same velocity at any radius without any need to see it, then I hope that you would also agree that the same dark matter could be used to contribute energy to the SMBH.
You have stated that mater = Energy.
So, why dark matter around the SMBH can't be used as a source of energy?
If our scientists get any requested matter and any energy for free (all they need is to call it - dark), then why it is forbidden for me to use those brilliant ideas for my modeling?
Please remember - one law for any modeling.
Free Big bang for the BBT - means free small bang for my modeling
Free dark mater/energy for the BBT - means free matter/energy for my modeling.
If you wish to cancel the dark mater/energy in my modeling - them please do it first in your modeling.
As I have stated, I don't need any help from any sort of dark matter or dark energy.
So repeating it again just makes you look silly.I have proved that Tidal heat is good enough.
Why do you want to look like a fool?
However, just in case that you still worry about my modeling, then please let's use dark matter/energy (or powder) to bypass that obstacle.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/08/2021 16:15:19
I have proved that Tidal heat is good enough.Until it runs out.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/08/2021 16:27:46
Einstein called the cosmological constant as the “the greatest blunder of my life”..You have that the wrong way round.
He did so when he realized that other scientists are using this constant to justify the BBT.
You don't need the cosmological constant if you have a BBT.
"Einstein originally introduced the concept in 1917[2] to counterbalance the effects of gravity and achieve a static universe, a notion which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept in 1931 after Hubble's confirmation of the expanding universe.[3] "
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant
It's not that I twist stuff; the problem is you don't understand it.
Einstein is good enough for the Steady state theory.See above.
Einstein didn't support the SST once he saw the evidence from Hubble.
I couldn't find in this theorem even one word about the Big Bang.Of course not; why did you even look?.
It was written and proved a long time before the BBT was introduced.
But the maths in that theorem is the maths which allows a BBT but forbids a SST.
And that's what you asked for.
If they can use it – I also want to use it.I have lost count of the number of times I explained why you can't; it's to do with symmetry.
It's as if you were saying " I have seen the maths to show that 2+2 =4; I want to use it to show that 2+2 =5."
Do you not see how that is silly?
I can only offer the science community the ultimate way to find those old stars.OK, the ultimate way would be to give them the coordinates.
Which way should they point the telescope?
Or were you lying about telling them that?
therefore, new particle pairs are created near the SMBH. That activity keeps the productions of new stars that contribute new tidal heat to the SMBH.every time that happens the BH loses mass.
In the end, it vanishes altogether.
The mass of the particles produced is the same as the mass of the BH that vanished.
This is called the conservation of mass.
It has been known for centuries, and was mathematically proven.
But you keep trying to pretend it's not true.
Why do you do that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/08/2021 16:29:04
Please remember - one law for any modeling.Yes.
This one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
Post by: Kryptid on 20/08/2021 17:18:33
I didn't claim that a random bang isn't feasible.
What you claimed was that a bang without a source of energy isn't feasible. So what's the source of energy for your tiny black hole?
I have claimed that it is not feasible to gain almost infinite energy that is needed for our universe (at any size -even if it is infinite) in a single bang.
First of all, there is no such thing as "almost infinite". Either something is infinite, or it isn't. Secondly, you never supplied any evidence to support this assertion. That's all it is, an assertion. Until you can supply evidence that a small bang is allowed but not a big bang, you are merely stating an opinion. Opinions devoid of evidence aren't worth much in science.
Therefore, why I can't use the same ideas that you have for getting the big bang also for my small bang?
Because the Big Bang theory doesn't explain where the Universe's energy first came from. You have constantly used that fact as evidence that the Big Bang theory is wrong. Do you not remember that? So in order for your reasoning to be self-consistent, that means you have three options: (1) explain how your model produced the very first energy in the Universe, (2) admit that your model can't explain it and thus "put it in the garbage" like you have done with the Big Bang theory, or (3) admit that neither the Big Bang theory nor your model needs to explain how the very first energy in the Universe got there.
Do you feel that only our scientists are allowed to set an Ultra big bang while no one else can use those ideas even for a tinny bang?
Dave, you think our scientists are wrong. Why would you want to use an idea that you think is wrong for your model?
Where is the Math for the Ultra Big Bang?
Why I can't use your math also for my small bang?
The Big Bang theory doesn't have any math for how much energy was allowed to exist during the first moments of the Universe. You can't use non-existent math, now can you?
Until you supply your calculation for the Big Bang and explain why only you can use those calculations, your claims are empty.
I'm not the one claiming that a theory has to be able to explain where the energy came from, so it's not my problem. You, on the other hand, claim that a theory must be able to do that. So it is your problem.
Sorry, I have no advanced observation tools.
I can only offer our scientists where they should look in order to find those old stars.
So you admit that you have zero evidence that there are stars out there older than 13.8 billion years old. Good to know.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/08/2021 19:59:55
I'm not the one claiming that a theory has to be able to explain where the energy came from, so it's not my problem. You, on the other hand, claim that a theory must be able to do that. So it is your problem.OK
Let's agree that I won't ask you about the source of energy for the BBT and you won't ask me for the source of my modeling.
Agree?
So you admit that you have zero evidence that there are stars out there older than 13.8 billion years old. Good to know.
OK, the ultimate way would be to give them the coordinates.Yes, I can tell you exactly where you should look.
Which way should they point the telescope?
Please try to focus on the aria which is about 1M LY +/- 250K LY above/below the galactic disc (assuming that there are no other galaxies over there).
I have lost count of the number of times I explained why you can't; it's to do with symmetry.How do you know for sure that the idea of symmetry/asymmetry isn't just an opinion?
Please see the message from Kryptid
Opinions devoid of evidence aren't worth much in science.So, can you please prove that your idea is not just an opinion?
It's as if you were saying " I have seen the maths to show that 2+2 =4; I want to use it to show that 2+2 =5."How do you know that your opinion for symmetry/asymmetry doesn't mean that 2+2=5
It's not that I twist stuff; the problem is you don't understand it.No
I do understand.
Einstein describes a universe without a big bang
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
It is stated clearly that "Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
Therefore, my modeling is based on Einstein Vision.
every time that happens the BH loses mass.How long are you going to use that nonsense from Mr. Hawking which is based on negative mass.
In the end, it vanishes altogether.
Sorry to tell you again and again that there is no negative mass in our Universe.
So please don't even dare to say it again without a solid prove/observation for negative mass.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/08/2021 20:25:38
Let's agree that I won't ask you about the source of energy for the BBT and you won't ask me for the source of my modeling.
So you admit when you said this...
In any real theory it is our OBLIGATION to offer real solution how the energy had been evolved (in our current universe or at any twisted space time..
As the BBT bypass that key question about the creation of the energy it is just a Useless theory.
...you were wrong?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 01:19:28
Yes, I can tell you exactly where you should look.How did you come to the conclusion that the astronomers had not looked there?
Please try to focus on the aria which is about 1M LY +/- 250K LY above/below the galactic disc
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 01:21:58
OKNo.
Let's agree that I won't ask you about the source of energy for the BBT and you won't ask me for the source of my modeling.
Agree?
You keep ignoring the fact that they are different.
I do not think you have been paying attention- or maybe you do not understand.
Can you tell us the big difference between your SST idea and the BBT?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 01:22:28
How do you know that your opinion for symmetry/asymmetry doesn't mean that 2+2=5Because I understand it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 01:23:13
How do you know for sure that the idea of symmetry/asymmetry isn't just an opinion?Because it is a mathematical proof.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 01:29:30
So, can you please prove that your idea is not just an opinion?Yes, of course I can. What a stupid question.
It was proven by Emmy Noether about a hundred years ago.
Why do you ask?
Do you not understand that a mathematical proof is absolute?
It's true, so it is always true.
"Einstein in this paperAnd, in subsequent papers he said he had been wrong.
How long are you going to use that nonsense from Mr. HawkingThat "nonsense" from Prof Hawking is the reason why you can claim that BH emit anything.
Feel free to say he is wrong.
But if he is wrong, then you no longer have any mechanism for saying that BH create particles.
So your idea falls into the bucket labelled "stupid".
Your choice; he's right, or he's wrong.
Either way, you are wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 01:30:24
It is stated clearly that "Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
Therefore, my modeling is based on Einstein Vision.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 01:32:54
It is stated clearly that "Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."Why do you not understand a simple idea?
Therefore, my modeling is based on Einstein Vision.
EINSTEN CHANGED HIS MIND WHEN PRESENTED WITH NEW DATA (BY HUBBLE).
Why can't you?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/08/2021 06:17:29
How long are you going to twist the reality about Emmy Noether.So, can you please prove that your idea is not just an opinion?Yes, of course I can. What a stupid question.
It was proven by Emmy Noether about a hundred years ago.
Why do you ask?
Do you not understand that a mathematical proof is absolute?
It's true, so it is always true.
It is stated clearly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
"Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law.[1]"
Hence, based on Noether theorem there is no way to get the requested energy for the BBT.
However, she had stated that her theorem works at every differentiable symmetry.
Therefore in order to bypass that theorem you highlight the symmetry issue.
Hence, Emmy doesn't prove your imagination - you just think that you have found a way to bypass her theorem.
It is very clear that you can't use her math as a valid source for energy.
So please don't tell us again that Emmy offered you the math for the BBT source of energy.
Well, I was willing to ignore the source of energy to your BBT modeling , if you are ready to ignore also the source of my modeling.Let's agree that I won't ask you about the source of energy for the BBT and you won't ask me for the source of my modeling.
So you admit when you said this...In any real theory it is our OBLIGATION to offer real solution how the energy had been evolved (in our current universe or at any twisted space time..
As the BBT bypass that key question about the creation of the energy it is just a Useless theory.
...you were wrong?
It seems that you don't agree with that.
Therefore, let me tell you that the idea of getting all the energy for the BBT in an instant single bang is absolutely unrealistic.
Based on my simple calculation just in the visible Universe there should be energy that is equal to at least 10^30 stars.
Please be aware that:
E=mc^2
Therefore the energy in any gram in those stars must be multiply by c^2.
Hence, the energy just in the visible universe is
10^30 * c^2.
If you add to that the minimal size of the universe which its radius should be 250 times bigger than the observable Universe (which is bigger by 3 than the visible universe) you get absolutely high number.
Sorry - with all the sympathy - there is no way to get so high energy in a single bang without offering real source for that Energy even if you try to twist the math by that idea of symmetry.
Therefore, if there was a bang, that bang might generate quite small energy that could fit in a single tinny BH.
Hence the chance to get in a bang an energy for a single BH is at least higher by 10^30 than the chance to get the energy for just the visible universe
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 11:56:30
Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law.The start of time is not differentiable.
So that's the point at which the conservation laws do not apply.
I'm not twisting anything: it is just that you refuse to understand.
The theorem doesn't tell you where the energy comes from; it tells you that it is possible for the energy to arrive.
It also says why your idea is wrong.
Hence the chance to get in a bang an energy for a single BH is at least higher by 10^30 than the chance to get the energy for just the visible universeWhat we actually have- as shown by experiment, observation and common sense is a universe with the mass of the universe.
That mass must have come from somewhere.
The BB offers a mechanism to bypass the conservation laws.
Your idea does not.
And the idea that isn't impossible is the idea we should keep.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/08/2021 17:41:39
Well, I was willing to ignore the source of energy to your BBT modeling , if you are ready to ignore also the source of my modeling.
It seems that you don't agree with that.
I was fine with ignoring it too, if you were finally willing to admit that you were wrong when you said that a theory about the evolution of the Universe has to explain how the initial energy came to be.
Therefore, let me tell you that the idea of getting all the energy for the BBT in an instant single bang is absolutely unrealistic.
Ignoring the fact that the Big Bang didn't create that energy in the first place... how do you know it's unrealistic?
Sorry - with all the sympathy - there is no way to get so high energy in a single bang without offering real source for that Energy even if you try to twist the math by that idea of symmetry.
How do you know? Don't give us your opinion or intuition, give us actual evidence that you are correct.
Therefore, if there was a bang, that bang might generate quite small energy that could fit in a single tinny BH.
See, this is why I have continually asked you for the math. In order for you to justify the creation of a tiny black hole but not the entire Universe, you have to be able to show us the math that agrees with you. Your use of the word "might" makes it sound like you are guessing and have not actually done any math.
Hence the chance to get in a bang an energy for a single BH is at least higher by 10^30 than the chance to get the energy for just the visible universe
That's not how probability works...
For the sake of argument, let's say that we are putting the Big Bang theory in the trash. Welp, there it goes! It's in the trash now! Now please explain how you are going to rescue your own model from the trash as well by telling us how that first black hole came into existence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/08/2021 19:44:06
The start of time is not differentiable.Sorry, you are twisting the law of science including the time and space
So that's the point at which the conservation laws do not apply.
I'm not twisting anything:
You have offered that that Noether's theorem as some sort of a prove for the energy that the BBT got while that theorem clearly specify that it is impossible to inject new energy.
Therefore,in order to qualify the disqualify, you came with a brilliant idea that "The start of time is not differentiable"
If that is correct – then please prove it, not just by bypassing the theorem but by real observation or evidence.
It is really amazing that you twist the time in order to justify the BBT, while you claim that the math in this theorem supports the BBT.
How can you twist so badly the true?
Technically, based on this approach we can bypass any science law and justify any idea
Sorry – this isn't science, it's a science fiction.
Somehow our scientists are using this approach to close the gap for any problem that they have with the BBT.
They do not understand how spiral galaxy works – So they add an imagination of dark matter.
They don't know why the expansion is accelerating – so they add dark energy
They don't know how the universe can bypass Noether's theorem so they invent the idea that " the time was not differentiable"
This is unrealistic.
They have to prove those ideas ONLY by real observations and verifications.
So, please go ahead and show the prove that 13.8 BLY ago " the time was not differentiable" by real evidence (not just by the same idea of twisting Noether's theorem)
What we actually have- as shown by experiment, observation and common sense is a universe with the mass of the universe.Is it real?
What kind of experiment you have used to prove this imagination.
Where is the math that should support this imagination?
That mass must have come from somewhere.That is correct
But it can't come in just a single bang.
It is absolutely not realistic.
You and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know that.
Therefore you try to find a way to bypass the science law.
The BB offers a mechanism to bypass the conservation laws.There is no way to bypass the science law.
Your idea does not.
Tidal heat represents real science.
Claiming that "The start of time is not differentiable" is imagination.
Any modeling must be based on real science.
My modeling is based on real science.
No need to twist the time, no need to invent dark matter or dark energy.
What we see is what we have.
Therefore, the BBT which can exist only by twisting the true and bypassing the science law should be set deep in the garbage for good!
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 19:59:10
There is no way to bypass the science law.Then stop trying.
Is it real?Yes.
The universe is real.
And the universe has the mass of the universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 20:01:22
You have offered that that Noether's theorem as some sort of a prove for the energy that the BBT got while that theorem clearly specify that it is impossible to inject new energy.No.
It says
every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law.
But, at the start of the universe the physical laws are not differentiable, so the theorem does not apply.
I keep explaining this.
Why do you not understand it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 20:02:25
Claiming that "The start of time is not differentiable" is imagination.No. it is a matter of looking at what the words mean.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 20:03:09
But it can't come in just a single bang.That is the ONLY way it can come.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/08/2021 20:09:53
For the sake of argument, let's say that we are putting the Big Bang theory in the trash. Welp, there it goes! It's in the trash now! Now please explain how you are going to rescue your own model from the trash as well by telling us how that first black hole came into existence.Yes, even in empty space there is energy:
"According to quantum theory, in a vacuum wave-like fields are constantly fluctuating, producing particles and their antimatter equivalents that fizzle in and out of existence. So even in the depths of interstellar space, there is plenty going on in what we call zilch."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-800-can-we-get-energy-from-nothing/
Therefore, this energy in space could set a tinny BH at some point of time.
Hence, based on real science law we can get something out of nothing
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627596-300-quantum-wonders-something-for-nothing
But it must be only something and not everything.
Therefore, the idea of getting everything in a BIG BANG is not realistic.
However, to get something as tinny BH is realistic and fully obeys with the science law.
The universe is real.Sure
And the universe has the mass of the universe.
But not due to the BBT imagination.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:44:06In my modeling there is no need to bypass any science law.
There is no way to bypass the science law.
Then stop trying.
But, at the start of the universe the physical laws are not differentiable, so the theorem does not apply.The Universe never started as it was there forever and ever and ever.
Therefore, the physical laws always worked - With or without mass/stars/galaxies
Therefore, the BBT is useless.But it can't come in just a single bang.That is the ONLY way it can come.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 20:32:16
The Universe never started as it was there forever and ever and ever.There is ample proof that that contention is impossible.
Why post it on a science site?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/08/2021 20:33:06
In my modeling there is no need to bypass any science law.Yes there is.
You keep ignoring mass conservation.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/08/2021 20:50:03
Therefore, this energy in space could set a tinny BH at some point of time.
How did the energy in space turn into that tiny black hole?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/08/2021 04:09:18
Would you kindly introduce your ample proof?The Universe never started as it was there forever and ever and ever.There is ample proof that that contention is impossible.
Why post it on a science site?
I would like to remind you that even if 100,000 scientists believe in some idea, it doesn't necessarily means that this idea is correct.
So please set the evidences and proves for you imagination that the Universe was not there forever.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/08/2021 04:11:39
I have told you again and again that the creation of energy is due to tidal heat transformation.In my modeling there is no need to bypass any science law.Yes there is.
You keep ignoring mass conservation.
Why it is so difficult for you to understand it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/08/2021 04:32:52
Do you agree that even in empty space/universe there is energy?Therefore, this energy in space could set a tinny BH at some point of time.How did the energy in space turn into that tiny black hole?
Do you agree that something can come out of nothing?
If so you should agree that at some point of time something had been created in the empty universe.
That first something might be only some sort of particle pair.
However, the time is infinite.
So, we do not discuss on a single activity or a single bang. There could be millions or even billions of bangs (very tinny bangs).
Please be aware that we do not need a BH with Star mass. We only need a Tinny BH with the ability to generate EM radiation. I call this tinny BH as the first "LIVING BH"
As I have already told you, my modeling is based on Darwin approach.
Darwin didn't explain how the first living ameba had been created.
Even today we didn't solve this enigma, but we all agree that his theory is correct.
In the same way, it is very difficult to understand how the first living BH had been created.
However, once it is there - we get our wonderful universe.
I perfectly understand why you focus on that specific issue as it is the most difficult process in my whole modeling.
Therefore, I ask you to accept the idea of creating the first living BH as you accept the creation of the first Ameba.
Let's move on.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/08/2021 05:10:35
Do you agree that even in empty space/universe there is energy?
That's debatable, but seeing the vacuum as being filled with energy fluctuations (with the net energy being at or near zero) is an acceptable interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Do you agree that something can come out of nothing?
We've never seen something come out of nothing, so no.
If so you should agree that at some point of time something had been created in the empty universe.
No, I don't agree. Not until you can supply a mechanism by which "something can come out of nothing".
Therefore, I ask you to accept the idea of creating the first living BH
Absolutely not. You know why? Because you said this:
In any real theory it is our OBLIGATION to offer real solution how the energy had been evolved (in our current universe or at any twisted space time..
As the BBT bypass that key question about the creation of the energy it is just a Useless theory.
and this:
Even if you don't like my modeling, a theory without valid source of energy is just useless theory.
and this:
We all agree that without energy for my modeling or for the BBT those two modeling should be set in the garbage.
Since you can't explain how that first black hole formed from the energy in space, your own words have come back to bite you in the butt. Your statement of, "In any real theory it is our OBLIGATION to offer real solution how the energy had been evolved" is the noose by which Theory D has been hanged. You said it yourself. It is your obligation to show how that black hole evolved from the vacuum energy in space. If you can't explain how that happened, then you don't have a "valid source of energy" and thus Theory D is a "useless theory". Those are your own words, not mine, yours.
Since you can't supply an answer to that question, Theory D goes in the garbage right beside the Big Bang theory, wouldn't you say?
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/08/2021 06:08:50
ThanksQuotefrom: Dave Lev on Today at 04:32:52That's debatable, but seeing the vacuum as being filled with energy fluctuations (with the net energy being at or near zero) is an acceptable interpretation of quantum mechanics
Do you agree that even in empty space/universe there is energy?
So we all agree that there is some energy even in empty space:
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
according to quantum mechanics, empty space is not really empty. It is instead a seething froth of very short-lived particles called virtual particles. A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later. Scientist think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
Therefore, it is not an issue of creating something out of nothing but actually something out of something.
It is stated: "Scientist think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered."
Each time those virtual particles pop up it's a tinny bang.
After billion over billions tinny bangs there is a chance for something to survive.
That something could be the based for the first living BH.
Since you can't supply an answer to that question, Theory D goes in the garbage right beside the Big Bang theory, wouldn't you say?Can we supply the answer how the first Ameba had been created?
As the answer is no, then do you mean that Darwin theory is incorrect and should be set in the garbage?
Sorry - if you accept Darwin theory, you should accept my modeling.
In both modeling we discuss about the evolvement of everything from a tinny something.
The Big Bang is totally different.
It starts with everything (all the energy). This isn't realistic.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/08/2021 06:12:18
After billion over billions tinny bangs there is a chance for something to survive.
Show how.
Can we supply the answer how the first Ameba had been created?
As the answer is no, then do you mean that Darwin theory is incorrect and should be set in the garbage?
Sorry - if you accept Darwin theory, you should accept my modeling.
Don't look at me, you're the one who said that a theory has to explain how the energy is supplied.
In both modeling we discuss about the evolvement of everything from a tinny something.
What was the mechanism by which that "tiny something" came to be? Without an answer, you don't have a valid energy source and your own words have put Theory D in the garbage.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/08/2021 07:46:30
Any real theory can only offer 99.99......99% of what we see.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:08:50Don't look at me, you're the one who said that a theory has to explain how the energy is supplied.
Can we supply the answer how the first Ameba had been created?
As the answer is no, then do you mean that Darwin theory is incorrect and should be set in the garbage?
Sorry - if you accept Darwin theory, you should accept my modeling.
Darwin could only explain 99.99.....99% of the living structures in our planet.
However, he and all the other 100,000 scientists couldn't explain the creation of the first Ameba.
So, do you accept Darwin modeling or do you reject it as we have no real answer for that first ameba?
In theory D I can explain the evolvement of variety of stars/BHs/ Galaxies from the first tinny living BH as Darwin had explained the evolvement of variety of life from the first living ameba.
I can only explain the evolvement of 99.99....99% of the matter in the entire infinite Universe.
The first living tinny BH is a different story.
If all our scientists together in the last 200 years couldn't solve the mystery of the first ameba - then please don't ask me to solve the mystery of the first tinny BH.
If you accept Darwin modeling, then you also must accept my modeling.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:08:50Do you agree that:
After billion over billions tinny bangs there is a chance for something to survive.
Show how.
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.htmlYes or No?
according to quantum mechanics, empty space is not really empty. It is instead a seething froth of very short-lived particles called virtual particles. A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later. Scientist think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
Therefore, it is not an issue of creating something out of nothing but actually something out of something.
It is stated: "Scientist think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered."
Do you agree that new particle could pop up in the empty Universe.
Actually, if I recall it correctly, based on the BBT (after the Big Bang moment) you claim that new particle pair could pop up.
I would like to remind you that before the BB you took the freedom to twist the science law.
However, after the bang, there is no way to twist the science law.
Therefore, why are you so sure that after the bang new real particle could pop up, while there is no possibility for particles to pop up in the infinite universe (as you confirm that it must have some sort of energy)
Hence, as you confirm that the entire particles and objects in our universe could pop up and created from the Big Bang energy, you should agree that some tiny particles/objects could pop up at the energetic empty space (as there is always some energy in the empty space).
What was the mechanism by which that "tiny something" came to be? Without an answer, you don't have a valid energy source and your own words have put Theory D in the garbage.The same mechanism that converts the imaginary BBT energy to the entire matter in the Universe should also apply in theory D.
However, instead of getting the whole matter in the entire Universe from that entire BBT energy, just tinny BH from the entire space energy is good enough.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/08/2021 10:39:01
So, do you accept Darwin modeling or do you reject it as we have no real answer for that first ameba?I am pleased to see that you have caught up with the rest of us, and now understand that a theory doesn't have to explain every single aspect of a situation.
The law of conservation of mass means that no process can produce mass.
At the end of any event, the total mass of all the components is the same as it was before the event.
Do you realise that your idea breaks that rule?
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.
Even if you were right about things falling up (and, just as a reminder, they don't), it wouldn't help.
Because your idea is still impossible.
Post by: Kryptid on 22/08/2021 14:21:36
please don't ask me to solve the mystery of the first tinny BH.
I don't have to. You told yourself that you have to solve it:
Even if you don't like my modeling, a theory without valid source of energy is just useless theory.
Do you agree that new particle could pop up in the empty Universe.
Yes, but they are virtual particles. Virtual particles disappear back into the vacuum as quickly as they appear.
Actually, if I recall it correctly, based on the BBT (after the Big Bang moment) you claim that new particle pair could pop up.
I would like to remind you that before the BB you took the freedom to twist the science law.
However, after the bang, there is no way to twist the science law.
Therefore, why are you so sure that after the bang new real particle could pop up, while there is no possibility for particles to pop up in the infinite universe (as you confirm that it must have some sort of energy)
Hence, as you confirm that the entire particles and objects in our universe could pop up and created from the Big Bang energy, you should agree that some tiny particles/objects could pop up at the energetic empty space (as there is always some energy in the empty space).
The Big Bang theory is in the garbage, remember? Are you rooting through the garbage in an attempt to save Theory D? That looks rather desperate.
The same mechanism that converts the imaginary BBT energy to the entire matter in the Universe should also apply in theory D.
You mean the Big Bang theory that is in the garbage right now? The Big Bang theory doesn't have a mechanism to convert vacuum energy into a black hole anyway, so you won't find any help there.
However, instead of getting the whole matter in the entire Universe from that entire BBT energy, just tinny BH from the entire space energy is good enough.
And it's time for you to finally show how that tiny black hole formed from vacuum energy. It's one of the requirements that you have given yourself, otherwise you have a "useless theory". Here are some more quotes from you:
So please
Would you kindly use real observations and real evidences for our Universe theory instead of imagination ideas as the BBT?
If you know science as you claim, you should backup your understanding by real observation & article.
If you can't do it, then we all should agree that this is unproved imagination.
So please - when you raise the flag of science, you need to backup your understanding on real verification/observation.
Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more.
So another requirement you have given for Theory D is "real observations and real evidences". Do you have any real observation for vacuum energy turning into a black hole? If not, then you are violating your own requirement and Theory D goes in the garbage. To use your own words against you, "Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more."
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/08/2021 04:47:21
You mean the Big Bang theory that is in the garbage right now? The Big Bang theory doesn't have a mechanism to convert vacuum energy into a black hole anyway, so you won't find any help there.Dear Kyptid
Do you claim that the BBT is incorrect?
If you believe that it is correct, then from your point of view any argument in that BBT theory should be correct.
In this case, you can't prevent from me to use any argument that you have used in your BBT theory.
Our scientists claim that 13.8 BY ago there was a bang.
Do you agree with that or not?
If you agree, then I can claim that this bang took place 100 By ago or infinite time ago.
Do you agree that this bang could easily carry an energy for at least a BH or even a SMBH?
Do you agree that our scientists claim that only due to the rapid expansion that bang didn't end as a SMBH.
In other words, without that rapid expansion, your bang has to end as just a BH/SMBH.
You claim that there was a bang - I also claim that there was a bang but at different time.
You claim that it carried energy - then I can use that energy.
You claim that without the rapid expansion it should end as a BH and I use that argument.
Then, I can use your own BBT to prove that at some point of time that was a bang (not big bang) that had been set the first BH in the Universe.
Sorry - You can't just claim that the BBT arguments work only for you.
I can use any argument in that theory if I wish and still claim that as a full package that BBT theory is incorrect.
Once you set the arguments for the BBT they are all free to be used by any person in the Universe.
So I can claim that the idea of rapid expansion just after the bang is incorrect.
That would lead the bang to set a BH/SMBH as our scientists claim.
My modeling can start from that point and you have no way to prevent it from me - unless you confirm that the BBT is totally incorrect and there was never any sort of bang!!!
Post by: Kryptid on 23/08/2021 05:01:13
Are you finally ready to admit that you don't know how that first black hole formed?
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/08/2021 05:11:39
The Big Bang theory can't create energy. That's why you wanted to put it in the garbage in the first place, remember? If it can't create energy, then obviously there is nothing there for you to copy to use for Theory D.Well, I still think that there is no need for the Big Bang to carry new energy to our early universe.
Are you finally ready to admit that you don't know how that first black hole formed?
However, I have no intention to argue with you about that issue.
I can use your own BBT theory for that activity and you can't prevent me for doing so.
Therefore, I hope that by now we all agree that creating a BH or a SMBH at some point of time in the early universe is feasible.
Once we agree with that we can move on with our discussion.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/08/2021 05:13:30
Therefore, I hope that by now we all agree that creating a BH or a SMBH at some point of time in the early universe is feasible.
Feel free to use any elements from the Big Bang theory that you want to, I don't care. Either way, you're still going to have to explain how the first black hole formed. If you can't do that, then Theory D goes in the garbage as per your own requirements for a good science theory.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/08/2021 06:49:11
ThanksTherefore, I hope that by now we all agree that creating a BH or a SMBH at some point of time in the early universe is feasible.
Feel free to use any elements from the Big Bang theory that you want to, I don't care.
Based on the BBT it is stated clearly that the bang could end as a BH:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html
Sometimes people find it hard to understand why the Big Bang is not a black hole. After all, the density of matter in the first fraction of a second was much higher than that found in any star, and dense matter is supposed to curve spacetime strongly. At sufficient density there must be matter contained within a region smaller than the Schwarzschild radius for its mass. Nevertheless, the Big Bang manages to avoid being trapped inside a black hole of its own making and paradoxically the space near the singularity is actually flat rather than curving tightly. How can this be?
The short answer is that the Big Bang gets away with it because it is expanding rapidly near the beginning and the rate of expansion is slowing down."
So if there was a bang it actually had to set a BH. However, the idea of "expanding rapidly" helped the BBT to get out from that BH situation.
Therefore, our scientists do understand that without that "expanding rapidly" the BBT MUST end as a BH.
As you give me the permission to use the theories of the BBT, I can claim that there is a possibility that this "expanding rapidly" was not expanding at enough rapidly.
Therefore, the BBT could end it life as BH - at the same moment that it stated.
Hence - do we all agree that there is a possibility for the BBT to end its life as a BH?
If so, let's move on.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2021 08:31:55
Kryptid keeps pointing out that you have no plausible idea how you might get the BH.
I'm pointing out that, even if you have a BH your idea does not work.
You have already lost the argument in your first page.
Why are you still here?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/08/2021 14:59:18
Thanks
Based on the BBT it is stated clearly that the bang could end as a BH:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html
Sometimes people find it hard to understand why the Big Bang is not a black hole. After all, the density of matter in the first fraction of a second was much higher than that found in any star, and dense matter is supposed to curve spacetime strongly. At sufficient density there must be matter contained within a region smaller than the Schwarzschild radius for its mass. Nevertheless, the Big Bang manages to avoid being trapped inside a black hole of its own making and paradoxically the space near the singularity is actually flat rather than curving tightly. How can this be?
The short answer is that the Big Bang gets away with it because it is expanding rapidly near the beginning and the rate of expansion is slowing down."
So if there was a bang it actually had to set a BH. However, the idea of "expanding rapidly" helped the BBT to get out from that BH situation.
Therefore, our scientists do understand that without that "expanding rapidly" the BBT MUST end as a BH.
As you give me the permission to use the theories of the BBT, I can claim that there is a possibility that this "expanding rapidly" was not expanding at enough rapidly.
Therefore, the BBT could end it life as BH - at the same moment that it stated.
None of that explains how vacuum energy turned into a bang in the first place.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/08/2021 16:20:41
None of that explains how vacuum energy turned into a bang in the first place.I don't wish to argue about the vacuum energy.
Therefore, I hope that the BBT is good enough for you to deliver the first BH or SMBH.
You still have to address the fact that your idea breaks the mass conservation law.Yes I did.
I would do it again for you.
Several millions (or even Billions) of stars are orbiting around our SMBH.
They transfer tidal heat energy to that SMBH.
However, due to that heat transformation they are losing some orbital energy and therefore they have to spiral outwards.
The SMBH is using that heat energy to increase its EM radiation.
The EM radiation generates new particle pairs.
As one particle from the pair falls into the SMBH, the other one is ejected outwards into the inner side of the accretion disc.
The falling particles increase the mass of the SMBH.
The other one will be ejected later on from the outer side of the accretion disc into the Bulge as a UFO.
It would join one of the G gas clouds and be used as a new matter for a new born star.
That star would transfer tidal heat to the SMBH and be forced to spiral outwards - as all the other stars.
Therefore, this mechanism would continue forever and ever while new born stars transfer their orbital momentum/movement/energy to tidal heat energy in order for the SMBH to generate new particle pair near its event horizon.
Hence, all the billions stars in the spiral galaxy are spiraling outwards.
No one falls in.
Never and ever.
So, is it clear to you by now?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/08/2021 18:53:11
I don't wish to argue about the vacuum energy.
Then you admit that you don't know how that vacuum energy turned into the first black hole?
Therefore, I hope that the BBT is good enough for you to deliver the first BH or SMBH.
I wasn't aware that the Big Bang theory explained the mechanism for the creation of energy. Can you explain it to me?
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2021 19:22:46
Yes I did.You do not seem to have been paying attention.
I would do it again for you.
I don't care what "magical" mechanism you try to come up with.
Viewed from from the outside, you are still breaking the law.
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/08/2021 19:24:17
So, is it clear to you by now?It's clear that you keep writing those words.
But the laws of physics say you are wrong.
So, you should try better words.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/08/2021 19:24:25
If we accept, for a moment, your idea that the universe started with just 1 black hole, le us consider what that would mean.Yes. So far so good.
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.You have a sever error.
The conservation law doesn't prevent from the Universe to increase its total mass as it doesn't cover the unique impact of the creation cycle.
So, please look at the following cycle and let me know where the problem is according your understanding:
1. Several millions (or even Billions) of stars are orbiting around our SMBH. They transfer tidal heat energy to that SMBH.
Correct or incorrect?
2. Due to that heat transformation orbital stars are losing some orbital energy and therefore they have to spiral outwards.
Correct or Incorrect?
3. The SMBH is using that tidal heat energy to increase its EM radiation
Correct or Incorrect?
4. The EM radiation generates new particle pairs.
Correct or Incorrect?
5. As one particle from the pair falls into the SMBH, the other one is ejected outwards into the inner side of the accretion disc.
Correct or Incorrect?
6. The falling particles increase the mass of the SMBH.
Correct or Incorrect?
7. The other one will be ejected later on from the outer side of the accretion disc into the Bulge as a UFO.
Correct or Incorrect?
8. It would join one of the G gas clouds and be used as a new matter for a new born star.
Correct or Incorrect?
9. That star would transfer tidal heat to the SMBH and be forced to spiral outwards - as all the other stars. (Jump to step three)
Correct or Incorrect?
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/08/2021 19:29:21
5. As one particle from the pair falls into the SMBH, the other one is ejected outwards into the inner side of the accretion disc.You missed
Correct or Incorrect?
6. The falling particles increase the mass of the SMBH.
Correct or Incorrect?
5.5
The particle which falls in has negative mass so it reduces the mass of the black hole.
This compensates exactly for the mass of the particle ejected.
And that's why, from a distance, my ship's orbit remains the same.
After a while, the mass of the BH falls to (practically) zero.
At that point, the BH has been converted into other stuff- photons and such.
This is the evaporation of the BH. It is well understood, but not by you.
Obviously, at that point there's no BH so the process stops.
You have a sever error.You have a "not paying attention error" because I have pointed this out before.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/08/2021 19:37:04
You missedDear BC
5.5
The particle which falls in has negative mass so it reduces the mass of the black hole.
This compensates exactly for the mass of the particle ejected.
How can I help you to clear your mind from the Hawking imagination?
You call him professor, but his theory of negative mass has never been proved.
There is no negative mass in our Universe.
So please - I really advice you not to believe to any person that is called professor.
Negative mass is unrealistic. Therefore Hawking radiation is also unrealistic
Particle pair MUST have positive mass/energy but with negative charged to each other.
There is no other sort of new particle pair..
Please wake up.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/08/2021 19:45:59
And that's why, from a distance, my ship's orbit remains the same.Do you know that just at the center of our galaxy there are more than 10,000 BHs?
After a while, the mass of the BH falls to (practically) zero.
At that point, the BH has been converted into other stuff- photons and such.
This is the evaporation of the BH. It is well understood, but not by you.
Obviously, at that point there's no BH so the process stops.
If the imagination about: "the mass of the BH falls to (practically) zero." was correct, then it is not expected to see so many of them at the center of our galaxy.
However, as expected, you don't let the observation to tell you that Hawking imagination is just unrealistic.
Post by: The Spoon on 24/08/2021 19:49:17
Do you know that just at the center of our galaxy there are more than 10,000 BHs?Have you evidence of this extraordinary claim?
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/08/2021 20:02:32
https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/galaxy-centre-black-holes-1.4603464Do you know that just at the center of our galaxy there are more than 10,000 BHs?Have you evidence of this extraordinary claim?
"Centre of Milky Way home to 10,000 black holes,"
Post by: The Spoon on 24/08/2021 20:11:01
The study suggests. Lots of maybe and might be.https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/galaxy-centre-black-holes-1.4603464Do you know that just at the center of our galaxy there are more than 10,000 BHs?Have you evidence of this extraordinary claim?
"Centre of Milky Way home to 10,000 black holes,"
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/08/2021 20:27:35
Post by: Kryptid on 24/08/2021 21:28:36
I wasn't aware that the Big Bang theory explained the mechanism for the creation of energy. Can you explain it to me?
If you can't tell us how that first black hole was formed, then you don't have a "full solution for the evolvement of the Universe". If you don't have that full solution based on real science, well, here is what you have already said that we should do with such a theory:
Well, any theory that doesn't give full solution (which is based on real science) for the evolvement of the Universe should be set in the garbage.
Post by: Bored chemist on 24/08/2021 23:06:40
If the imagination about: "the mass of the BH falls to (practically) zero." was correct, then it is not expected to see so many of them at the center of our galaxy.The process is very slow.
However, as expected, you don't let the observation to tell you that Hawking imagination is just unrealistic.
"A black hole of one solar mass (M☉ = 2.0×1030 kg) takes more than 1067 years to evaporate—much longer than the current age of the universe at 14×109 years."
So there is no contradiction.
(and it won't even start until the universe is a lot colder).
However, your idea definitely contradicts the conservation laws.
So we know it is wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/08/2021 13:12:01
I wasn't aware that the Big Bang theory explained the mechanism for the creation of energy. Can you explain it to me?Dear Kryptid
Do you confirm that the Big Bang theory can't explained the mechanism for the creation of energy?
Yes or no please.
If you can't tell us how that first black hole was formed, then you don't have a "full solution for the evolvement of the Universe". If you don't have that full solution based on real science, well, here is what you have already said that we should do with such a theory:Sorry - the BBT is your theory.
So please take a decision.
Do you think that the BBT can explain the mechanism for the creation of energy?
If No - Let's agree that we should set the BBT in the garbage for good.
If yes - Then why do you ask me to offer that explanation? It is your theory and you task.
Just to remind you that you gave me a confirmation to use any element from the Big Bang:
Feel free to use any elements from the Big Bang theory that you want to, I don't care.Hence, if you think that BBT can explain the mechanism for the creation of energy, then I can use this segment in my theory (even if I think that the BBT is useless theory in its full package).
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/08/2021 14:16:46
if you think that BBT can explain the mechanism for the creation of energy, then I can use this segment in my theoryNo, you can not.
As I keep pointing out...
Because the BB happened at the start of the universe it is exempt from the conservation of energy.
But your idea is ongoing so it has to comply with the conservation laws.
But it does not.
So we know it is wrong.
Post by: Origin on 25/08/2021 15:54:19
Do you think that the BBT can explain the mechanism for the creation of energy?Of course not, the BBT is not about the creation of energy, whatever that is supposed to mean.
If No - Let's agree that we should set the BBT in the garbage for good.That is an extremely ignorant thing to say. The BBT does not address electromagnetism either, is that another reason that you think it should be discarded?
You sound like the fundamentalist who think that evolution should be discarded because it doesn't address abiogenesis.
The BBT is a robust theory that has given us huge insights to the formation of the universe we see today. The fact that you don't understand the theory or science in general is your deficiency, it has nothing to do with the theory itself.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/08/2021 16:48:15
Do you confirm that the Big Bang theory can't explained the mechanism for the creation of energy?
Nope, it can't explain it.
Do you think that the BBT can explain the mechanism for the creation of energy?
Nope.
If No - Let's agree that we should set the BBT in the garbage for good.
It's been in the garbage for quite a few posts now.
Hence, if you think that BBT can explain the mechanism for the creation of energy, then I can use this segment in my theory (even if I think that the BBT is useless theory in its full package).
It can't. So how are you going to save Theory D from the garbage?
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/08/2021 17:03:17
It can't. So how are you going to save Theory D from the garbage?Very simple
If you believe that BBT is correct, and you even claim that:
"Feel free to use any elements from the Big Bang theory that you want to, I don't care."
So, why I can't use it for the creation of the first BH (or SMBH if you wish)?
Post by: Kryptid on 25/08/2021 17:07:50
So, why I can't use it for the creation of the first BH (or SMBH if you wish)?
Um... because it doesn't have the means needed to create the energy for such a black hole?
Post by: Dave Lev on 25/08/2021 20:39:21
Um... because it doesn't have the means needed to create the energy for such a black hole?We all know by now that the BBT doesn't have the means needed to create any energy.
It's all about delivery.
Therefore, as we only discuss about delivery, then why are you so sure that the BBT has the means to deliver the energy for the entire Universe but it can't do so for one single BH?
Please remember - theory D starts with the same procedure as the bang in the Big bang.
Unless, you all know that the Big Bang is just big imagination and therefore, you also know that as unrealistic theory no one can really use that concept (not even the BBT itself).
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/08/2021 20:49:33
If you believe that BBT is correct,If I believe the BBT is right I don't need to save your idea.
If I don't believe the BBT then I can't save your idea.
So there is no scenario in which your idea is useful.
Why do you not see this?
Post by: Bored chemist on 25/08/2021 20:51:07
So you can't use the BBT to try to save your idea.
Post by: Kryptid on 25/08/2021 20:51:26
Therefore, as we only discuss about delivery, then why are you so sure that the BBT has the means to deliver the energy for the entire Universe but it can't do so for one single BH?
It doesn't have the means to deliver that energy. Both of us have been agreeing on that this whole time.
Please remember - theory D starts with the same procedure as the bang in the Big bang.
Then it goes in the garbage because it doesn't have a means to deliver energy.
Unless, you all know that the Big Bang is just big imagination and therefore, you also know that as unrealistic theory no one can really use that concept (not even the BBT itself).
Exactly, that's why it's in the garbage.
So how about finally explaining to us how Theory D gets around this problem?
Post by: Dave Lev on 26/08/2021 16:09:08
But the mechanism available to the BBT (at the start of the universe) to evade the conservation of mass/ energy is not available to your idea today.
So you can't use the BBT to try to save your idea.
Why is it?
Do you have a contract with the BBT that it is available only for you?
If so, please introduce that contract.
If no, I can use it.
It doesn't have the means to deliver that energy. Both of us have been agreeing on that this whole time.
Sorry - you can't just prevent me from using that BBT theory in my modeling.
However, you claim that the BBT took place 13.8 BY ago and after that time we get our wonderful universe.
I claim that if the BBT is real, it took place infinite time ago and after 13.8 (from the bang) we have already got our wonderful universe.
So, the same universe that we see today was there for already infinite time ago.
Based on the BBT, in about several trillions years from now, we won't see any galaxy in the sky.
I claim that even in even after millions of trillions years from now we would see exactly the same view.
Therefore, Let's agree that a similar universe that we see today had already created at the infinity time ago and now my task is to show how that universe can live at the same density and at the same view forever and ever.
Do you agree with that?
Post by: Kryptid on 26/08/2021 17:04:58
Sorry - you can't just prevent me from using that BBT theory in my modeling.
I never tried to.
Do you agree with that?
No, you have to show how the energy for your "small bang" was supplied. Otherwise, you are breaking your own rules.
Stop dodging and weaving. Either tell us how Theory D answers the question or admit that it can't already.
Post by: Origin on 26/08/2021 17:13:17
Stop dodging and weaving. Either tell us how Theory D answers the question or admit that it can't already.After 73 pages Dave has yet to admit any part of his WAG-D is wrong, when it clearly is, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on him. He is thoroughly ingrained in his delusion.
Post by: Bored chemist on 26/08/2021 17:44:52
So you can't use the BBT to try to save your idea.Because you put it in the bin.
Why is it?
Do you not remember that?
If you believe that BBT is correct,If I believe the BBT is right I don't need to save your idea.
If I don't believe the BBT then I can't save your idea.
So there is no scenario in which your idea is useful.
Why do you not see this?
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/08/2021 03:01:44
Thanks.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:09:08I never tried to.
Sorry - you can't just prevent me from using that BBT theory in my modeling.
Do appreciate.
No, you have to show how the energy for your "small bang" was supplied.Instead of my "small bang" which you don't wish to accept, I'm using now your "Big Bang".
Therefore, I don't need to show how the first energy had been supplied to my theory, as I'm using the same imagination process that you are using in your BBT theory.
Otherwise, you are breaking your own rules.My modeling is all about Infinite steady state Universe.
Stop dodging and weaving. Either tell us how Theory D answers the question or admit that it can't already.
You have already confirmed that if you would discover that you can't fit our current Universe in only 13.8 BY then the BBT is useless.
Based on our scientists the minimal size of our Universe is bigger by 250 times then the observable universe.
Some scientists even claim that it is actually infinite in its size.
So far you couldn't show how the BBT that at its maximal size can explain an observable universe could also explain an infinite Universe or at least 250 times of observable universe.
Therefore, as you gave me the permition to use the imagination BBT in my theory, I take it with pleasure.
The main issue is that in my modeling that BBT took place at the infinity time ago and after 13.8 BY we get an observable Universe as you claim in that theory.
Now it is my task to show how an observable universe (with a radius size of 46 BLY) would transform into an infinite steady state universe after an infinite time.
As you already gave me the permition to use the BBT, you just can't prevent me to start my modeling with that BBT and that observable Universe at the infinity time ago. Unless you admit that the BBT is nonsense and then no one should use it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/08/2021 08:34:00
in my modeling that BBT took placeSo, you agree it works then.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/08/2021 20:49:33
Quote from: Dave Lev on 25/08/2021 17:03:17
If you believe that BBT is correct,
If I believe the BBT is right I don't need to save your idea.
If I don't believe the BBT then I can't save your idea.
So there is no scenario in which your idea is useful.
Why do you not see this?
Post by: Kryptid on 27/08/2021 08:38:28
Therefore, I don't need to show how the first energy had been supplied to my theory, as I'm using the same imagination process that you are using in your BBT theory.
Congratulations, you just put Theory D in the garbage alongside the Big Bang theory.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/08/2021 18:14:46
The BBT as a single package theory can't explain the evolvement of infinite universe in just 13.8 BY.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:01:44So, you agree it works then.
in my modeling that BBT took place
As you all don't accept the idea of the small bang but fully support your Big Bang, then we have to share efforts and start the story of our universe with your Big Bang.
So, if it makes you all happy, we can agree that once upon a time (back at the infinity) there was a big bang - very big Bang.
That mighty big bang sets the observable size universe in just 13.8 BY.
Then, theory D can take control and transform that observable size universe into our current real infinite SST Universe.
If I believe the BBT is right I don't need to save your idea.Although the BBT can't be used to explain the current infinite Universe, you all agree that it can set the observable universe size.
If I don't believe the BBT then I can't save your idea.
Therefore, we can start our story with the BBT and end it with theory D.
Congratulations for you.Therefore, I don't need to show how the first energy had been supplied to my theory, as I'm using the same imagination process that you are using in your BBT theory.Congratulations, you just put Theory D in the garbage alongside the Big Bang theory.
Based on your approach, only the BBT can deliver new energy to start our wonderful universe. Now the BBT and theory D can live alongside.
So, from now on, any BBT scientist that wishes to see in his imagination a very big bang with almost unlimited energy while there is nothing else in the entire Universe can continue with that wish.
Now he doesn't need to think how that BBT can explain a real universe which is significantly bigger than the observable size in only 13.8 BY as there is new update for that BBT.
Theory D clearly explains how a universe at observable size can be transformed into an infinite steady state universe after infinite time.
Hence, the BBT and live alongside theory D in peace and harmony.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/08/2021 18:49:02
you all agree that it can set the observable universe size.No
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/08/2021 18:50:45
The BBT as a single package theory can't explain the evolvement of infinite universe in just 13.8 BY.It does.
Then, theory D can take control and transform that observable size universe into our current real infinite SST Universe.No. It can not.
It still breaks the conservation laws.
It is impossible.
Post by: Dave Lev on 27/08/2021 19:40:13
So please go ahead and explain how the BBT can set an infinite Universe from nothing in just 13.8 BY?The BBT as a single package theory can't explain the evolvement of infinite universe in just 13.8 BY.It does.
Please also explain why our scientists claim that the maximal size (radius) of the Universe based on the BBT can only be 46 BYL (observable universe)
It is impossible only in your imagination.Then, theory D can take control and transform that observable size universe into our current real infinite SST Universe.No. It can not.
It still breaks the conservation laws.
It is impossible.
You still hold the hawking radiation while you claerly know that there is no negative mass/energy in our universe.
Therefore, without negative mass, there is no possibility for a BH to decrease its mass.
The process is very slow.Did you try to set a calculation how many years is needed to set those BHs to gain that star mass? Do you think that until today they all had been formed and increase their mass and suddenly from today they all must be evaporated?
"A black hole of one solar mass (M☉ = 2.0×1030 kg) takes more than 1067 years to evaporate—much longer than the current age of the universe at 14×109 years."
So there is no contradiction.
(and it won't even start until the universe is a lot colder).
Is that real science for you?
If Hawking imagination is correct, then why there are so many BH (at a star mass) in the Milky way?
You and all the other scientists know by 100% that there is no negative mass or negative energy.
Even so, you still hold he Hawking imagination about BH evaporation.
How long are you going to keep that imagination?
Because the BB happened at the start of the universe it is exempt from the conservation of energy.How do you dare to raise the flag of the conservation of energy for other theories while you all together don't have a basic clue how the energy for the BBT had been created?
Sorry - if you wish to hold the conservation energy - then you first have to explain how it had been created.
If you don't know - then please don't ask about it
I have aleady explained how the creation of new matter/energy really works:
So, please look at the following cycle and let me know where the problem is according your understanding:
1. Several millions (or even Billions) of stars are orbiting around our SMBH. They transfer tidal heat energy to that SMBH.
Correct or incorrect?
2. Due to that heat transformation orbital stars are losing some orbital energy and therefore they have to spiral outwards.
Correct or Incorrect?
3. The SMBH is using that tidal heat energy to increase its EM radiation
Correct or Incorrect?
4. The EM radiation generates new particle pairs.
Correct or Incorrect?
5. As one particle from the pair falls into the SMBH, the other one is ejected outwards into the inner side of the accretion disc.
Correct or Incorrect?
6. The falling particles increase the mass of the SMBH.
Correct or Incorrect?
7. The other one will be ejected later on from the outer side of the accretion disc into the Bulge as a UFO.
Correct or Incorrect?
8. It would join one of the G gas clouds and be used as a new matter for a new born star.
Correct or Incorrect?
9. That star would transfer tidal heat to the SMBH and be forced to spiral outwards - as all the other stars. (Jump to step three)
I have proved that Hawking radiation is a pure fiction as there is no negative mass/energy
The key idea in my modeling is that new created particles near the SMBH add new orbital energy.
That new orbital energy is transformed into tidal heat that is needed for the EM radiation
Therefore, the creation of new particles near the event horizon that sets the hot plasma disc (that is called - accretion disc) proves that the new mass/energy creation cycle is 100% correct and it doesn't violet the conservation law.
Post by: Kryptid on 27/08/2021 21:14:51
Hence, the BBT and live alongside theory D in peace and harmony.
Yep, they are alongside each other in the garbage, since they both break your rules.
Post by: Bored chemist on 27/08/2021 23:24:54
I have proved that Hawking radiation is a pure fiction as there is no negative mass/energyYou have not proved anything.
It is impossible only in your imagination.Noether's theory is not part of my imagination, is it?
So why tell that lie?
I have aleady explained how the creation of new matter/energy really works:You posted that faulty list.
I pointed out the problem.
You missedIf you were doing science, you would update your list to include the correction.
5.5
The particle which falls in has negative mass so it reduces the mass of the black hole.
This compensates exactly for the mass of the particle ejected.
But you do not, because you are a liar or a troll.
Sorry - if you wish to hold the conservation energy - then you first have to explain how it had been created.I have lost count of how many times I explained that.
Why do you not listen?
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/08/2021 05:50:44
Would you kindly explain how the BBT could set an infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:14:46It does.
The BBT as a single package theory can't explain the evolvement of infinite universe in just 13.8 BY.
Don't just say "it does" but please explain how it really works in only 13.8 BY from nothing to infinity.
Good Luck.
Noether's theory
Noether's theory is not part of my imagination, is it?We have already have deeply discussed about Noether's theory but you don't care:
So why tell that lie?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
"Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law.[1"
Theory D fully meets that specification, while in the BBT you just try to bypass that limitation.
You clearly claim that in the BBT there is no explanation for the creation of energy. So, the BBT is all about a way of bypassing the Noether's theorem without any real solution about the source for that energy.
Please remember that E=mc^2. Therefore, for each gram of mass you need an enery that is higher by c^2.
Hence, for infinite Universe with infinite mass, you need an energy which is equivalent to that infinite mass multiply by c^2.
Please show the source of that incredible energy in your lovely BBT theory!
Therefore, In the BBT you bypass the Noether's theorem and deliver energy to our early universe, but you have no clue how that energy had been created.
You have NEVER EVER explained the source of the energy for the BBT.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:40:13I have lost count of how many times I explained that.
Sorry - if you wish to hold the conservation energy - then you first have to explain how it had been created.
You even stated that you don't know how the BBT energy had been created.
So why do you offer an incorrect answer?
However, my modeling lives perfectly next to Noether's theorem and conservation law.
I have already explained it:
The key idea in my modeling is that new created particles near the SMBH add new orbital energy.Hence, next time that you offer Noether's theorem or conservation law to kill other theory, please remember to set your BBT in a shelter under the table.
That new orbital energy is transformed into tidal heat that is needed for the EM radiation
Therefore, the creation of new particles near the event horizon that sets the hot plasma disc (that is called - accretion disc) proves that the new mass/energy creation cycle is 100% correct and it doesn't violet the conservation law.
Hawking radiation
Yes I did.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:40:13You have not proved anything.
I have proved that Hawking radiation is a pure fiction as there is no negative mass/energy
Hawking radiation is based on the existence of negative mass/energy.
However, you and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists together know for sure that there is no negative mass/energy in our entire Universe.
Therefore, you all know that Hawking radiation is a pure fiction.
So why do you keep using this fiction as a valid theory?
You also didn't answer my following question:
Did you try to set a calculation how many years is needed to set those BHs to gain that star mass? Do you think that until today they all had been formed and increase their mass and suddenly from today they all must be evaporated?
Is that real science for you?
If Hawking imagination is correct, then why there are so many BH (at a star mass) in the Milky way?
You missedYour 5.5 is based on Hawking radiation.
5.5
The particle which falls in has negative mass so it reduces the mass of the black hole.
This compensates exactly for the mass of the particle ejected.
If you were doing science, you would update your list to include the correction.
But you do not, because you are a liar or a troll.
As this hawking radiation is a pure fiction that can't work without negative mass/energy and as there is no negative mass/energy in our universe, then this 5.5 should be set long time ago deep in the garbage.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/08/2021 05:53:15
Yep, they are alongside each other in the garbage, since they both break your rules.Theory D is all about evolvement of the Universe from a single BH or if you wish - from the observable universe.
As you all insist that ONLY the BBT can transform free of charge new energy to our early universe (without any explanation how that energy had been created), then you can't prevent me from using this idea also in my theory.
You have already confirmed that I can use this idea of new energy delivery (based on the BBT) and how the observable universe had been created.
Therefore, I can take that observable universe and show how it can be transformed into infinite universe after infinite time by theory D.
So, please show me which kind of my rules they break.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/08/2021 06:30:59
Hence, for infinite Universe with infinite mass, you need an energy which is equivalent to that infinite mass multiply by c^2.Please also remember that our scientists claimed that theoretically, the BBT could end its life as a SS...SMBH at the same moment of the bang. However, due to the idea of rapid expansion after the bang, it could overcome that difficulty.
Please show the source of that incredible energy in your lovely BBT theory!
That concept could work as long as the energy is finite.
Finite energy means finite Universe.
However, now we discuss on infinite Universe.
Hence, in infinite universe there must be infinite galaxies with infinite stars.
Infinite stars means infinite energy which is equal to infinite stars multiply by c^2.
Please calculate the requested rapid expansion that is needed for that energy to escape from the SS..SMBH after the bang.
I assume that the minimal rapid expansion that is needed for the BBT must be infinite mass * c^2, but I would like to see your calculation.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/08/2021 06:55:18
As you all insist that ONLY the BBT can transform free of charge new energy to our early universe (without any explanation how that energy had been created), then you can't prevent me from using this idea also in my theory.
You have already confirmed that I can use this idea of new energy delivery (based on the BBT) and how the observable universe had been created.
Sure, but it breaks your rules.
So, please show me which kind of my rules they break.
For one, your rule that a theory of the Universe has to be able to explain its source of energy:
It is not good enough to explain how the Universe had been evolved from that energy that the universe got free of charge.
In any real theory it is our OBLIGATION to offer real solution how the energy had been evolved (in our current universe or at any twisted space time..
As the BBT bypass that key question about the creation of the energy it is just a Useless theory.
Even if you don't like my modeling, a theory without valid source of energy is just useless theory.
We all agree that without energy for my modeling or for the BBT those two modeling should be set in the garbage.
Secondly, that such a theory has to be based on real observations:
If you know science as you claim, you should backup your understanding by real observation & article.
If you can't do it, then we all should agree that this is unproved imagination.
An "imaginary process", like the one you stated Theory D uses, breaks those rules.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/08/2021 10:03:13
For one, your rule that a theory of the Universe has to be able to explain its source of energy:You are absolutely correct.
Based on theory D there is no need for any external energy to start our universe as it is stated that even in an empty space there is full of energy or actually that "according to quantum field theory every cubic centimeter of empty space should have more mass-energy than all the mass-energy in the entire observable universe"
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
Quantum field theory allows us to calculate how much energy there should be in the vacuum of space because of these virtual particles. The problem is that when scientists do the calculations, they get a number that is ridiculously wrong. According to this page of a UCLA astronomer, quantum field theory gives a prediction that every cubic centimeter of the vacuum should have an energy density of 10^91 grams. This number is 10 followed by 90 zeroes. That is an amount trillions of times greater than the mass of the entire observable universe, which is estimated to be only about 10^56 grams.
This means that according to quantum field theory every cubic centimeter of empty space should have more mass-energy than all the mass-energy in the entire observable universe."
Therefore, theory D doesn't need at all to start with the BBT.
Actually, even for the BBT there is more than enough energy in the empty space.
Therefore, the BBT could get its entire energy from that source.
However, in your theory you have decided not to use that available energy in the empty space and import new energy to your early universe without a clue about how that energy had been created - But this is your problem.
An "imaginary process", like the one you stated Theory D uses, breaks those rules.Unfortunately, you have decided that according to your rules this energy in the empty space isn't good enough to set even a tinny BH.
Therefore, in order to bypass your rules, I had been forced to use your imaginary rule/process that is called BBT.
So, it's not about my rules but it's all about your rules.
Hence, if you accept my rule - then there is no need for the BBT as there is more than enough energy in the empty space.
If you insist to reject my rules then you can't prevent me from using your rules/theory.
So, please take a decision.
Use my rules about the energy in the empty space or let me use your rules in the form of BBT imagination.
You can't just close the two rules' doors for me.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 11:55:08
Would you kindly explain how the BBT could set an infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?Inflation
Don't just say "it does" but please explain how it really works in only 13.8 BY from nothing to infinity.
Good Luck.
However, you and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists together know for sure that there is no negative mass/energy in our entire Universe.That's a lie.
As this hawking radiation is a pure fiction that can't work without negative mass/energy and as there is no negative mass/energy in our universe, then this 5.5 should be set long time ago deep in the garbage.Without negative mass Hawking radiation doesn't work.
But Hawking radiation is the mechanism you are using for the production of mass by a BH.
So, you are saying your mechanism can't work.
You are right; it can't.
The only way the ejection of matter from a BH can happen is for an equal amount of negative mass to fall into the BH.
Otherwise, the process breaks the laws of physics.
If you say Hawking radiation isn't real, then you have no mechanism for your idea rot create a universe.
Idea D must follow Hawking radiation into the bin.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 11:56:31
Unfortunately, you have decided that according to your rules this energy in the empty space isn't good enough to set even a tinny BH.That's not the problem; even if we accept that the BH somehow pops up out of nowhere, it will not make a universe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/08/2021 17:07:52
Why do you call it lie?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:50:44That's a lie.
However, you and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists together know for sure that there is no negative mass/energy in our entire Universe.
Do you claim that you have an evidence for the existence of negative mass/energy.
If so please introduce that evidence.
If you have no evidence for that existence then why do you claim that it is a lie?
Without negative mass Hawking radiation doesn't work.That is correct.
Therefore, Hawking radiation is just a fiction,
But Hawking radiation is the mechanism you are using for the production of mass by a BH.NO, NO .... NO
So, you are saying your mechanism can't work.
The pair particle creation near the event horizon of the SMBH is due to the EM radiation.
So, both particles have positive mass but negative charged with regards to each other.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that simple explanation?
The only way the ejection of matter from a BH can happen is for an equal amount of negative mass to fall into the BH.This is nonsense as Hawking radiation is just a fiction.
Otherwise, the process breaks the laws of physics.
Please try to erase that nonsense from your memory.
If you say Hawking radiation isn't real, then you have no mechanism for your idea rot create a universe.Yes, I have a very simple and real mechanism.
It is all about EM radiation!
Many thanks for your good willing to consider the possibility that the BH could pop up due to the energy on the space.Unfortunately, you have decided that according to your rules this energy in the empty space isn't good enough to set even a tinny BH.That's not the problem; even if we accept that the BH somehow pops up out of nowhere, it will not make a universe.
Once you accept the idea of the first BH with its ability to have EM radiation you also need to accept the mechanism how new particles are added to our Universe.
After crossing those two main issues, Theory D takes control and transforms the empty space after infinite time to our wonderful infinite SST universe.
So simple and clear.
Do you really belive that in one word you can transform a theory for finite universe to infinite universe?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:50:44Inflation
Would you kindly explain how the BBT could set an infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?
Don't just say "it does" but please explain how it really works in only 13.8 BY from nothing to infinity.
Good Luck.
If so, please set the calculation for the requested rapid expansion that is needed for infinite energy (which must be supplied to the infinite Universe) in order to overcome the problem of locked in a SS..SMBH just after the big bang:
Please also remember that our scientists claimed that theoretically, the BBT could end its life as a SS...SMBH at the same moment of the bang. However, due to the idea of rapid expansion after the bang, it could overcome that difficulty.
That concept could work as long as the energy is finite.
Finite energy means finite Universe.
However, now we discuss on infinite Universe.
Hence, in infinite universe there must be infinite galaxies with infinite stars.
Infinite stars means infinite energy which is equal to infinite stars multiply by c^2.
Please calculate the requested rapid expansion that is needed for that energy to escape from the SS..SMBH after the bang.
I assume that the minimal rapid expansion that is needed for the BBT must be infinite mass * c^2, but I would like to see your calculation.
Post by: The Spoon on 28/08/2021 17:25:03
If so, please set the calculation for the requested rapid expansion that is needed for infinite energy (which must be supplied to the infinite Universe) in order to overcome the problem of locked in a SS..SMBH just after the big bang:Why should you expect people to do calculations, when you refused to show your maths when asked, but instead just used avoidance tactics?
Post by: Kryptid on 28/08/2021 17:29:42
You are absolutely correct.
Based on theory D there is no need for any external energy to start our universe as it is stated that even in an empty space there is full of energy or actually that "according to quantum field theory every cubic centimeter of empty space should have more mass-energy than all the mass-energy in the entire observable universe"
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
Quantum field theory allows us to calculate how much energy there should be in the vacuum of space because of these virtual particles. The problem is that when scientists do the calculations, they get a number that is ridiculously wrong. According to this page of a UCLA astronomer, quantum field theory gives a prediction that every cubic centimeter of the vacuum should have an energy density of 10^91 grams. This number is 10 followed by 90 zeroes. That is an amount trillions of times greater than the mass of the entire observable universe, which is estimated to be only about 10^56 grams.
This means that according to quantum field theory every cubic centimeter of empty space should have more mass-energy than all the mass-energy in the entire observable universe."
Therefore, theory D doesn't need at all to start with the BBT.
Even if that energy is there, we've never seen the energy in empty space turn into a black hole. So such a process isn't based on a "real observation" and thus you are still breaking your own rules.
However, in your theory you have decided not to use that available energy in the empty space and import new energy to your early universe without a clue about how that energy had been created - But this is your problem.
Not really. I don't have to defend a theory that is in the garbage.
Unfortunately, you have decided that according to your rules this energy in the empty space isn't good enough to set even a tinny BH.
It's your own rule that science must be based on "real observations". We have never seen the energy in empty space turn into a black hole, so such a process breaks your rule.
So, it's not about my rules but it's all about your rules.
Whether or not you are breaking "my" rules is irrelevant to the fact that you are breaking your own rules. That puts Theory D in the garbage, as per your own requirement.
Hence, if you accept my rule - then there is no need for the BBT as there is more than enough energy in the empty space.
But you can't use that energy to create a black hole because it isn't based on a "real observation".
If you insist to reject my rules then you can't prevent me from using your rules/theory.
It's not that I'm rejecting your rules, it's that I'm pointing out that you are breaking them.
Use my rules about the energy in the empty space or let me use your rules in the form of BBT imagination.
You can't just close the two rules' doors for me.
Use either one you want to, as both break your rules.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 17:52:15
Please try to erase that nonsense from your memory.If I erase Hawking radiation from my memory, I no longer understand the mechanism by which BH produce particles.
How do you think that particle production happens?
(In your explanation, be sure to explain how mass is conserved- as the laws of physics require.)
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 17:53:23
Do you really belive that in one word you can transform a theory for finite universe to infinite universe?Yes, as long as the person who reads it understands it.
Is that a problem?
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 17:58:26
Many thanks for your good willing to consider the possibility that the BH could pop up due to the energy on the space.I will consider it.
I will also point out that it is impossible.
But, I will consider it for long enough to show that, even if it was possible, it wouldn't help.
Even if the BH popped up, the conservation laws stop it producing any more mass.
Once you accept the idea of the first BH with its ability to have EM radiation you also need to accept the mechanism how new particles are added to our Universe.Well, yes; but those particles and radiation are produced at the expense of the mass of the BH.
The mass remains constant. (because of the conservation laws).
So you can only produce a very small universe.
You can't produce the universe we live in.
Do you understand how that is a problem for your idea?
After crossing those two main issues, Theory D ...But it can not cross either of those issues.
They are both impossible.
That is why we know you are wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 28/08/2021 18:04:42
Even if that energy is there, we've never seen the energy in empty space turn into a black hole. So such a process isn't based on a "real observation" and thus you are still breaking your own rules.Do you really believe that we can observe a tinny BH from a distance of one MLY or even 1000 LY away from us?
So, if it is so difficult to observe that BH, how do we know for sure that this kind of process doesn't exsist.
But you can't use that energy to create a black hole because it isn't based on a "real observation".Do you confirm that we have NEVER EVER observe any star as it falls into the SMBH?
Even so, you all are sure by 100% that stars must fall into the accretion disc.
Therefore, if you accept the idea that stars could fall into the accretion disc without any observation to support that imagination, then you also need to accept my idea that the energy in the empty space (which is so high based on our scientists) could potentially be transformed into a BH or even tinny BH.
If you insist to base your understanding on real observation - then lets agree that as you have never observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH, Nothing really falls in.
You can't just tell me that in my theory I need to supply observation, but in your theory you don't need to supply any observation.
It's not that I'm rejecting your rules, it's that I'm pointing out that you are breaking them.I'm not breaking any rule in my theory.
It is only you that are using different rules when it comes to my theory.
Sorry - you must use one rule to any theory.
If observation is important - then please set the idea of falling stars into the accretion disc in the garbage before you ask me to set my theory in the same garbage.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:03:13Sorry, I can use any idea for the first BH creation.
Use my rules about the energy in the empty space or let me use your rules in the form of BBT imagination.
You can't just close the two rules' doors for me.
Use either one you want to, as both break your rules.
If you can claim that there was a big bang without any observation for that bang, I can also claim that there was a small bang without any observation for that bang.
If you show the observation for your big bang, then let me look for my observation.
Again - one rule to any theory.
This is the real rule.
You must evaluate my theory based on the same rules that you evaluate your own theory.
One we agree with that, let's verify which theory really breaks the rules.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 18:06:38
how do we know for sure that this kind of process doesn't exsist.The laws of physics.
Specifically, the conservation of mass/ energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 18:07:32
If observation is important - then please set the idea of falling stars into the accretion disc in the garbage before you ask me to set my theory in the same garbage.Why?
We have evidence for that sort of thing.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 18:08:15
Sorry, I can use any idea for the first BH creation.So can the BBT.
So you can't say the BBT is impossible.
Post by: Kryptid on 28/08/2021 21:00:12
Do you really believe that we can observe a tinny BH from a distance of one MLY or even 1000 LY away from us?
So, if it is so difficult to observe that BH, how do we know for sure that this kind of process doesn't exsist.
It's not my fault that you require an observation in order for it to be considered science:
If you know science as you claim, you should backup your understanding by real observation & article.
If you can't do it, then we all should agree that this is unproved imagination.
You said it yourself. If you can't back it up with a "real observation", then it is "unproved imagination". There's your quote right there in front of you. You can't deny it. It's right there for all to see.
If you insist to base your understanding on real observation - then lets agree that as you have never observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH, Nothing really falls in.
Okay then, I agree. We have never seen matter fall into a SMBH.
You can't just tell me that in my theory I need to supply observation
You're right, I don't need to tell you. You told yourself that you need to:
If you know science as you claim, you should backup your understanding by real observation & article.
If you can't do it, then we all should agree that this is unproved imagination.
but in your theory you don't need to supply any observation.
I don't need to supply an observation for a theory that I'm not defending. You seem to keep forgetting that we put the Big Bang theory in the garbage.
I'm not breaking any rule in my theory.
Sure you are. I've even provided the relevant quotes to back it up. You insisted that something not based on "real observations" is "unproved imagination". If you deny that you said such a thing, we will know that you are lying because we can read your quote right there on the screen.
If observation is important - then please set the idea of falling stars into the accretion disc in the garbage before you ask me to set my theory in the same garbage.
Okay, it's in the garbage. So Theory D can go in the garbage now too.
Sorry, I can use any idea for the first BH creation.
You most certainly can, but that doesn't mean it's correct. The fact that you intentionally put an imaginary process in it shows that it probably isn't correct.
You must evaluate my theory based on the same rules that you evaluate your own theory.
One we agree with that, let's verify which theory really breaks the rules.
Okay, we'll use your rules. The Big Bang theory breaks your rules because we don't have any "real observation" for how it got its energy. So the Big Bang theory goes in the garbage. Theory D breaks your rules because we don't have any "real observation" for how it got its energy. So Theory D goes in the garbage too.
Post by: Bored chemist on 28/08/2021 21:19:29
If you insist to base your understanding on real observation - then lets agree that as you have never observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH, Nothing really falls in.Reality calling Dave.
Yes we have.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20200902
Post by: Dave Lev on 29/08/2021 03:44:41
Okay then, I agree. We have never seen matter fall into a SMBH.Thanks
Do appreciate your honest and clear answer!
NO, we don't have!!!If you insist to base your understanding on real observation - then lets agree that as you have never observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH, Nothing really falls in.Reality calling Dave.
Yes we have.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20200902
How long can you go with this imagination?
Ligo isn't about an indication of a falling matter into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Please read again the above answer from Kryptid.
It is all about a binary black hole merger:
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20200902
"A binary black hole merger likely produced gravitational waves equal to the energy of eight suns."
Why is it so difficult for you to see the difference?
In the article it is also stated:
"From what the researchers can tell, GW190521 was generated by a source that is roughly 5 gigaparsecs away, when the universe was about half its age, making it one of the most distant gravitational-wave sources detected so far."
So, it is located at a very long distance from us.
Therefore, it is stated:
"As for what produced this signal, based on a powerful suite of state-of-the-art computational and modeling tools, scientists think that GW190521 was most likely generated by a binary black hole merger with unusual properties."
Hence, our scientists think that GW190521 was most likely generated by a binary black hole merger.
Therefore, they can't see this BH, they just get this gravity wave/bang and they think that it is due to a merger of a BH.
Hence, it is clearly not about the accretion disc of a SMBH which our scientists can observe even at a distance of 1BLY away (as in the example of M87). It is also clear that it didn't take place in any galaxy as we can observe galaxies at almost 13.4 BLY away.
So, it is very clear that it took place somewhere in the empty space and it is not about an accretion disc of any SMBH.
However, why those scientists THINK that it is all about BH merger?
Why that gravity wave is not about a bang that generates a BH as I expect in my modeling?
If they just THINK that it is about BH merger while they couldn't see any BH before that bang, then why we can't think that it is all about a creation of a BH from the energy in the empty space?
If that is correct, then this Ligo is a golden observation/evidence for my modeling of creation BH from the space energy.
Okay, we'll use your rules. The Big Bang theory breaks your rules because we don't have any "real observation" for how it got its energy. So the Big Bang theory goes in the garbage. Theory D breaks your rules because we don't have any "real observation" for how it got its energy. So Theory D goes in the garbage too.Well, I agree with you that there is no observation for the Big bang and it should go to the garbage.
However, if the above Ligo is an indication for the creation of a BH in the empty space, then this is a golden observation for my modeling.
Therefore, there is good chance that we have found the observation for my modeling.
In any case, let's make it clear with regards to the Rules.
Please ignore my rules or your Rules.
There must be the same Rules to any theory.
So, if you wish to adopt my request/ rule - then it must work on any theory.
Therefore, I have high appreciation for your answer as you have decided to adopt my rule about the observation for both theories.
Hence, you have agreed to set the BBT and my modeling in the garbage without a valid observation.
However, I hope that based on the above Ligo, you are willing to accept the possibility that this Ligo observation is a key evidence that fully supports my modeling.
Post by: Kryptid on 29/08/2021 03:48:55
However, if the above Ligo is an indication for the creation of a BH in the empty space
It isn't.
However, I hope that based on the above Ligo, you are willing to accept the possibility that this Ligo observation is a key evidence that fully supports my modeling.
Nope. What LIGO has observed are gravitational waves emitted by the merger of two previously-existing black holes (or a black hole and a neutron star). They are not from the spontaneous appearance of a black hole from empty space devoid of previous matter.
Therefore, there is good chance that we have found the observation for my modeling.
Sorry, but a "good chance" isn't good enough, according to your rules. Take a look at another one of your quotes from the past:
Science can't be base on "pretty sure" or expectation!
You need to prove your expectation.
Without it - any expectation is just imagination!
So "pretty sure", "a good chance", "probably" or anything else less than proof would break this rule of yours. You have to prove that this gravitational wave came from the spontaneous formation of a black hole in empty space. If you can't do that, then your own rule calls it "imagination".
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2021 10:17:01
Ligo isn't about an indication of a falling matter into the SMBH' accretion disc.You didn't say anything about the accretion disk.
You said this.
then lets agree that as you have never observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH, Nothing really falls in.
and that's wrong, because we saw an entire BH fall into a BH.
So we know that things fall in.
So, according to you, we know that there's an accretion disk and we know things fall in but somehow they manage to miss the disk on the way.
That's clearly stupid.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2021 10:18:46
here is no observation for the Big bangThere are countless observations of it.
The two biggest groups are the Hubble constant and the CMBR.
There are others such as the lack of blue dwarf stars.
So, you have been caught out lying.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2021 10:19:52
if the above Ligo is an indication for the creation of a BH in the empty spaceIt isn't.
The frequency vs time graph is wrong for that interpretation to be possible.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2021 10:21:19
There must be the same Rules to any theory.OK, lets go with one of the few rules in physics which can be proven to be true; the conservation of mass. energy.
Your idea breaks that rule.
So your idea is wrong.
You were wrong 30 pages ago and nothing has changed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 29/08/2021 10:23:02
why we can't think that it is all about a creation of a BH from the energy in the empty space?First, it looks like the merger of two BH.
Second, there is no possible mechanism for what you propose, because it would break the laws of physics.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/08/2021 04:32:29
Nope. What LIGO has observed are gravitational waves emitted by the merger of two previously-existing black holes (or a black hole and a neutron star). They are not from the spontaneous appearance of a black hole from empty space devoid of previous matter.Thanks
I agree
So "pretty sure", "a good chance", "probably" or anything else less than proof would break this rule of yours. You have to prove that this gravitational wave came from the spontaneous formation of a black hole in empty space. If you can't do that, then your own rule calls it "imagination".I also agree.
So, from now on we would focus only on real observation and real science of law (for any theory)
NO, NO NO!!!QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:04:42and that's wrong, because we saw an entire BH fall into a BH.
then lets agree that as you have never observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH, Nothing really falls in.
So we know that things fall in.
So, according to you, we know that there's an accretion disk and we know things fall in but somehow they manage to miss the disk on the way.
It is very clear that you have totally got lost.
You really don't understand what do we really observe.
There are three kinds of observations that show spirals/falls in activities:
1. Ligo - In Ligo we observe twin BH's/Neutron stars that have a similar mass (more or less) that falls inwards and merge.
2. Phobos - A relatively small orbital object that orbits very close to the main mass at circular orbit with very low eccentricity. It is expected that Phobos would fall in.
3. Satellite around the earth - This satellite has a circular orbit shape and should fall in mainly due to atmosphere friction.
That's all!
In all the other observations we clearly see that the orbital object spirals outwards:
For example, when a relative low mass object orbits around a massive object at a relatively long distance (as a moon around a planet, a planet around a star or a star around a SMBH - it would spiral outwards. All the planets spiral outwards from our sun. Our scientists claim that they do so due to tidal heat transformation/friction.
Therefore, Ligo is not an indication for a falling star into the SMBH' accretion disc or into the SMBH itself (as the ratio between any S star to the SMBH is very high.
The ratio between S stars to the SMBH mass is similar to the ratio between the planets to the sun.
As all the planets are orbiting outwards (due to tidal friction) also all S stars should orbit outwards due to the same tidal friction.
Nothing falls in and nothing would never and ever fall in!!!
However, with regards to the SMBH accretion disc - The plasma at the accretion disc is located very close to the SMBH and has a very high circular orbit. Therefore, theoretically, the plasma should fall in. However, due to the SMBH EM power all the matter in the accretion disc are ejected outwards - to the last particle!
So it is not ejected outwards due to the gravity force, but due to SMBH' mighty EM power.
NoQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:44:41OK, lets go with one of the few rules in physics which can be proven to be true; the conservation of mass. energy.
There must be the same Rules to any theory.
You have a fatal mistake.
The conservation law kills the BBT as you have no valid source for the Energy, but has no negative impact on theory D:
Our scientists clearly claim that there is more than enough energy even in an empty space.
Based on theory D there is no need for any external energy to start our universe as it is stated that even in an empty space there is full of energy or actually that "according to quantum field theory every cubic centimeter of empty space should have more mass-energy than all the mass-energy in the entire observable universe"Therefore, theoretically there is enough energy in the empty space to generate all the matter that we see in our Universe.
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
Quantum field theory allows us to calculate how much energy there should be in the vacuum of space because of these virtual particles. The problem is that when scientists do the calculations, they get a number that is ridiculously wrong. According to this page of a UCLA astronomer, quantum field theory gives a prediction that every cubic centimeter of the vacuum should have an energy density of 10^91 grams. This number is 10 followed by 90 zeroes. That is an amount trillions of times greater than the mass of the entire observable universe, which is estimated to be only about 10^56 grams.
This means that according to quantum field theory every cubic centimeter of empty space should have more mass-energy than all the mass-energy in the entire observable universe."
However, based on the BBT, the energy for our universe is imported from outside.
However, the whole idea of the BBT is that there was no universe and no space before the Big Bang. So, even if you can bypass by this imagination the conservation law, you still have a severe problem about the source of the energy.
Hence, based on theory D - the energy in the empty space is good enough to cover all the mass that we see, while the BBT doesn't explain the source of the energy.
Therefore, the conservation law and Northern theory Kill the BBT, but doesn't negatively affect my modeling.
Is it clear to you by now?
CMBR - Based on theory D, the CMBH is the radiation of our current infinite Universe. I can easily explain how we get that radiation and it would stay the same forever and ever.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:44:41There are countless observations of it.
here is no observation for the Big bang
The two biggest groups are the Hubble constant and the CMBR.
Hubble constant - That constant doesn't prove any sort of expansion in the space itself. It is all about expansion in the galaxies. Theory D gives perfect explanation for that.
There are others such as the lack of blue dwarf stars.There are no old stars in the galaxies as all the stars are drifting outwards. Nothing comes from outside. As the galaxy cross the space it swift away any star that stays it its way. Any star and any dwarf galaxy that we see around our MW galaxy had been ejected from the MW. All the dwarf galaxies around us should be considered as the children of the Milky Way. Each one of them had been evolved from a baby BH that the MW had been created. Therefore, if you wish to find a dwarf star, you need to look very far away from the galaxy (about one million LY away).
So, you have been caught out lying.As the BBT is based on nonsense - it is just irrelevant theory.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:44:41Ok
Ligo isn't about an indication of a falling matter into the SMBH' accretion disc.
You didn't say anything about the accretion disk.
We all agree that we have no observation of any matter/star/Gas cloud that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
However, we also all agree that we clearly observe a constant stream (or molecular jet stream) that is ejected from the accretion disc.
Hence - based on observation
We clearly observe matter as it is ejected outwards from the accretion disc, while we have never ever observed any matter that falls in.
Therefore - if we have to base our knowledge on real data/evidence - we have to agree that the matter is the accretion disc is coming from inside and is ejected outside.
This is the real meaning of real observation!!!
Post by: Kryptid on 30/08/2021 04:34:28
So, from now on we would focus only on real observation and real science of law (for any theory)
So Theory D goes in the garbage because we've never had a real observation of a black hole forming from vacuum energy.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/08/2021 04:50:22
Sorry, there is a big difference between theories D to BBT.So, from now on we would focus only on real observation and real science of law (for any theory)
So Theory D goes in the garbage because we've never had a real observation of a black hole forming from vacuum energy.
In the BBT, the energy had to be imported from outside - while there is no valid source to buy that energy.
Therefore without real energy source there is a violation of the conservation law and the BBT should be set in the garbage.
In theory D - the energy is already in the empty space. Hence, any matter that is created from that energy doesn't violet the conservation law.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/08/2021 04:52:17
In theory D - the energy is already in the empty space. Hence, any matter that is created from that energy doesn't violet the conservation law.
Even if it didn't violate conservation of energy, it still breaks your rule of having to have a "real observation". Without that, it is, to quote you, "unproved imagination".
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/08/2021 08:24:07
Thanks for considering the possibility that Theory D might not violate conservation of energyIn theory D - the energy is already in the empty space. Hence, any matter that is created from that energy doesn't violet the conservation law.
Even if it didn't violate conservation of energy, it still breaks your rule of having to have a "real observation". Without that, it is, to quote you, "unproved imagination".
However, any request for observation must come with some basic logic.
For example:
Based on theory D there is only need for a single bang that took place infinite time ago and create a tinny BH at infinite distance from us.
So what is the possibility to observe that kind of bang?
However, when it comes to the BBT, the story is different. The Big Bang took place only 13.8 BY ago. Our scientists claim that the temp at that moment was ultra high. Even 600,000 years after that bang, the temp of the universe was still quite high. Surprisingly, we can observe galaxies at a distance of 13.2 BLY away from us. Those galaxies had been created when the Universe age was 600,000 years.
Hence, we monitor those galaxies as observe their aria, we actually see the early space of the universe.
Therefore, it is expected that the temp around that galaxy would reflect the temp of the universe at the age of 600,000 years.
However, if I understand it correctly, we didn't find there any special hot universe as expected.
Therefore, that observation (or missing observation) by itself proves that the story about a Big Bang with so much heat after the bang is just a fiction story.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 10:34:25
The conservation law kills the BBT as you have no valid source for the EnergyWhy do you think that, even though I have explained that it is wrong?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 10:35:46
However, when it comes to the BBT, the story is different. The Big Bang took place only 13.8 BY ago.And we still see the afterglow; the CMBR.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/08/2021 15:10:25
However, any request for observation must come with some basic logic.
For example:
Based on theory D there is only need for a single bang that took place infinite time ago and create a tinny BH at infinite distance from us.
So what is the possibility to observe that kind of bang?
It's not my fault that your rules demand observations:
Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more.
They have to prove those ideas ONLY by real observations and verifications.
If you know science as you claim, you should backup your understanding by real observation & article.
If you can't do it, then we all should agree that this is unproved imagination.
it is your obligation to prove your imagination by real observation.
Can you please prove this imagination by real observation?
Science must be based on real observation.
You once even wanted me to force Bored Chemist to back up his arguments with real observations:
Therefore, I request you to force him to backup his imagination/ideas by real observation, real data and real article.
If Bored Chemist has to do it, then so do you. If your model involves a process that we haven't ever seen and can't ever see, then it isn't science according to you. That puts Theory D in the garbage.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/08/2021 16:15:01
You once even wanted me to force Bored Chemist to back up his arguments with real observations:Dear Kryptid
I have never ever asked to observe something that isn't realistic.
When I ask for an observation, then this observation should be valid.
I have never ever ask to see the Big bang moment even that it took place only 13.8 BY ago.
In the same token I do not expect to see a tinny bang that took place at the infinite time ago at the infinite distance from us.
So, if you discuss about my rules - let's make the rules clear.
I only ask to see something that is feasible to see.
for example:
1. The temp of the early universe:
I claim that we should observe and monitor the temp of the early universe.
We can clearly observe a 13.2 By old galaxy.
That galaxy was there when the universe age was already 600,000 Year.
So, if we can clearly observe that galaxy in the early universe when its age was only 600,000 Years, while the universe was still be very hot, then why we do not observe that expected temp at that far away galaxy?
If the temp of that far away galaxy doesn't correlated to the expected universe temp at that age, then it is an indication that the BBT is just imagination.
2. SMBH' Accretion disc - Our scientists clearly observe the hot plasma as it orbits at ultra high velocity in a circular orbit around the SMBH. They clearly observe that plasma as it is ejected outwards from the disc into the Bulge as a UFO.
However, so far they have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls in.
Therefore, while our scientists claim that if something falls, it should come with fireworks, then we should clearly see matter as it makes its way from the bulge into the SMBH or its accretion disc.
However, we don't see any falling star/moon/matter and not any kind of fire works as a star is falling in.
In order to bypass that missing observation BC claim that we should see the star only as it gets to the accretion disc.
This is imagination.
We should see it much before getting that location as its orbital velocity at the disc is as high as the speed of light.
So somehow it must increase its velocity long before getting there and it must be broken long before that location.
But for all of you, a missing observation isn't a problem. You are very kind with the BBT.
You always try to explain why it doesn't work according to our expectations..
BC explain that the stars must be broken ONLY at that disc. So, when the star falls in it must ask the universe to tell him where is the exact location of the Accretion disc as BC told him that it can only break over there.
Is it real?
BC also claim that it breaks there due to a collision with the disc. But sometimes there would be no matter over there and also the accretion disc is so thin and so narrow. So what is the chance that a falling star would hit that disc and what is the chance that this kind of disc can break so massive star as S2?
Even if that star falls in (and we can't see it) then as it breaks or collide over there, it should come with a significant bang or fireworks as the star' matter is ejected in all directions. We don't see that activity in any SMBH accretion disc.
The last issue is that if something falls it must falls all the way and merge with the SMBH. We see the impact of Ligo. Those BH's falls in and merge.
Their matter isn't ejected outwards after the merging in a constant flow.
In the same token - also Phobos spirals in and should merge with Its planet.
So, if something falls - it falls for good.
BC try to use the eccentricity as an indication for matter that falls in and ejected out.
That is a severe mistake.
As in our real universe any orbital object with high eccentricity would NEVER EVER falls in.
All the objects that we observe that spiral inwards - Must be located close to the main mass and orbit at a very circular orbit (with very low eccentricity).
So, the idea of high eccentricity is just a fiction.
Therefore - I claim that as we don't observe any matter as it falls into the accretion disc - while we clearly observe the matter as it is ejected outwards from that same accretion disc - then NOTHING really falls in!!!!
Therefore, in this case I insist to observe the falling matter – if that was real.
You can't just claim that we see the matter as it is ejected outwards but somehow we can't see any matter that falls inwards through the same media.
This is imagination.
Therefore, when I ask to observe something - then if that something was real we have to see it by 100%.
I didn't ask you to observe your big bang moment that took place 13.8 BY ago, and therefore, you shouldn't ask me to observe the tiny bang moment that took place at the infinity time ago.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 18:46:48
I have never ever asked to observe something that isn't realistic.Yes you did.
You repeatedly asked why we didn't have pictures of invisible things , in the dark a long way away.
Don't you remember the "black cat in a coal cellar" comments?
By the way, do you realise that people can just look back through the thread and see that you did it?
Did you think we wouldn't notice that you were not telling the truth?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 18:52:20
So, when the star falls in it must ask the universe to tell him where is the exact location of the Accretion disc as BC told him that it can only break over there.In reality, I didn't say that.
You are just making stuff up.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 18:55:08
I claim that we should observe and monitor the temp of the early universe.If, as you claim, the universe is infinitely old, the idea of " the early universe" has no meaning.
Why do you ask us to monitor it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 18:57:39
You always try to explain why it doesn't work according to our expectations..It works in accordance with our observations- which is the important thing.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 18:59:54
Therefore, when I ask to observe something - then if that something was real we have to see it by 100%.
Well, it is only fair that I can say the same thing.
If your idea about mass popping up out of BH is real then why don't we see it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 19:01:24
BC try to use the eccentricity as an indication for matter that falls in and ejected out.Where?
is this another of your made up things?
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/08/2021 19:58:33
If you hope that the matter in the SMBH' accretion disc falling in from the Bulge, while we only see the plasma as it is ejected outwards into the Bulge then this is clear contradiction to the expected observation.You always try to explain why it doesn't work according to our expectations..It works in accordance with our observations- which is the important thing.
So, how do you dare to claim "It works in accordance with our observations- "?
Don't you remember the "black cat in a coal cellar" comments?Don't you remember that I told you that if there are cats at the cellar, then at least some of them might be white or just not black? Also, the chance that the entire cellars in the planet have coal is not so high.
Therefore, if there were cats in a cellar, then somehow we have to see at least some of them.
In the same token - if something was falling into the SMBH' accretion disc - while we observe so many of them - we have to see somewhere something as it falls in.
As we do not see it - and I can promise you by 100% that we would NEVER EVER see it (Not in a billion years from now and Not if you stay two meters from that accretion disc), then your imagination of falling matter is just a fantasy.
Keep on with this fantasy. It is free of charge as your BBT is also a free of charge fantasy.
If, as you claim, the universe is infinitely old, the idea of " the early universe" has no meaning.You are the one that claim that the BBT took place 13.8 BY ago.
Why do you ask us to monitor it?
So please - don't you have any basic wish to verify if your theory is correct or incorrect?
Yes you did.So, when the star falls in it must ask the universe to tell him where is the exact location of the Accretion disc as BC told him that it can only break over there.In reality, I didn't say that.
You are just making stuff up.
You didn't explain the source of the BBT energy!The conservation law kills the BBT as you have no valid source for the EnergyWhy do you think that, even though I have explained that it is wrong?
You only explain how you could bypass the physics law.
The CMBR isn't an indication for the afterglow.However, when it comes to the BBT, the story is different. The Big Bang took place only 13.8 BY ago.And we still see the afterglow; the CMBR.
It is all about the cosmic microwave background radiation of our infinite Universe.
That radiation is everywhere. in our location and in one million billions LY at any direction. It was already there in our Universe long before that 13.8 By and it would stay (almost the same level) forever and ever.
So, you and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists don't have a basic clue about the real meaning of that CMBR.
I ask myself again and again what kind of data do you need in order to understand that the BBT is just a useless theory.
But it is very clear to me that after 75 pg. that even if God by himself would come and tell you face to face that the BBT is wrong, you would try to convince him that the BBT is the Ultimate theory for our Universe.
You don't care if the Universe is finite or infinite
You don't care about the real age of the Universe.
You don't care about the dark matter or the dark energy.
You don't care about any contradiction in the BBT.
All you care is to hold that lovely BBT theory forever and ever and… ever..
Post by: Kryptid on 30/08/2021 20:02:02
I have never ever asked to observe something that isn't realistic.
When I ask for an observation, then this observation should be valid.
I have never ever ask to see the Big bang moment even that it took place only 13.8 BY ago.
In the same token I do not expect to see a tinny bang that took place at the infinite time ago at the infinite distance from us.
Okay, that's fair. I wouldn't expect to be able to see anything infinitely far away. If we were to see a black hole suddenly form from empty space, then that would imply that your scenario is feasible even though we could never see it directly. That is, however, a big problem in itself, as we have never seen a black hole (or anything at all, for that matter) spontaneous form from empty space. We haven't seen it in the laboratory, or in the Solar System or in the Andromeda Galaxy. We don't even have a theoretical mechanism by which such a thing could happen.
So not only are you proposing something that we can't observe because it's infinitely far away, but also something that we haven't observed locally nor even have a basis to believe it could happen in the first place. You have no observations or math to support your idea for a black hole forming from vacuum energy, so that means it breaks your rules.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 20:04:54
Don't you remember that I told you that if there are cats at the cellar, then at least some of them might be white or just not black?Yes, I remember you telling us that nonsense.
Yes you did.Prove it.
You are the one that claim that the BBT took place 13.8 BY ago.you missed the point.
So please - don't you have any basic wish to verify if your theory is correct or incorrect?
You told us to do something which you think is impossible.
The CMBR isn't an indication for the afterglow.Yes it is- or you have to come up with a different explanation- one which explains the spectrum.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 20:08:13
how do you dare to claim "It works in accordance with our observations- "?Because it does.
It isn't my fault that you don't know what to expect from the BBT.
I have tried telling you to learn some science, but you don't.
You didn't explain the source of the BBT energy!I did put forrward an explanation, at least twice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
On the other hand, you have not explained where your BH comes from, nor how it could ever break the conservation laws and produced mass.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 20:12:47
You don't care if the Universe is finite or infiniteThe BBT works in either case, so it is not relevant.
Why should I care about it?
You don't care about the real age of the Universe.It's about 14 Bn years.
Why should I care about it?
You don't care about any contradiction in the BBT.You have not shown any contradiction in the BBT.
You have contradicted yourself- for example by talking about the early universe when you think it is infinitely old.
On the other hand, you don't care about observations (red-shift and the CMBR).
And you don't care about the laws of physics- the conservation of mass/energy.
Why do you ignore those, but pretend you are doing science?
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/08/2021 20:14:22
Okay, that's fair. I wouldn't expect to be able to see anything infinitely far away. If we were to see a black hole suddenly form from empty space, then that would imply that your scenario is feasible even though we could never see it directly.Thanks
Do appreciate
That is, however, a big problem in itself, as we have never seen a black hole (or anything at all, for that matter) spontaneous form from empty space. We haven't seen it in the laboratory, or in the Solar System or in the Andromeda Galaxy. We don't have have a theoretical mechanism by which such a thing could happen.Let me use the example of the first living ameba creation in our planet.
We all know that the matter in the ameba was there in our planet long before it pop up.
However, with all the technology -
"we have never seen ameba
So does it mean that it can't happen?
So not only are you proposing something that we can't observe because it's infinitely far away, but also something that we haven't observed locally nor even have a basis to believe it could happen in the first place. You have no observations or math to support your idea for a black hole forming from vacuum energy, so that means it breaks your rules.The energy in the vacuum is real.
However, as we can't observe the creation of the first ameba we also can't observe the creation of the first tinny BH.
Post by: Kryptid on 30/08/2021 20:21:17
Let me use the example of the first living ameba creation in our planet.
We all know that the matter in the ameba was there in our planet long before it pop up.
However, with all the technology -
"we have never seen ameba a black hole (or anything at all, for that matter) spontaneous form from empty space. We haven't seen it in the laboratory, or in the Solar System or in the Andromeda Galaxy. We don't have have a theoretical mechanism by which such a thing could happen.
So does it mean that it can't happen?
Your rules seem to think so. Here are some examples where you reject the existence of negative mass/energy because we have never observed it:
Sorry to tell you again and again that there is no negative mass in our Universe.
So please don't even dare to say it again without a solid prove/observation for negative mass.
So far our scientists could not offer any observation that could support this idea.
Therefore - without clear observation that there is negative particle, then this idea is just imagination.
If you reject negative mass because we have never seen it, then you have to reject a black hole forming from vacuum energy because we have never seen that either. It's like you said before, one science rule for everyone. You can't apply the rule sometimes and then not apply it other times.
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 20:21:49
The energy in the vacuum is real.But too small.
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/08/2021 20:24:36
Sorry, the hyperspace is just a fiction.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:58:33I did put forrward an explanation, at least twice.
You didn't explain the source of the BBT energy!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
If it was real, then you couldn't bypass the conservation law.
In any case, somehow you have to explain how it had been created at another hyperspace/dimension and how can you move from one dimension to other.
So, if the BBT energy is based on that imagination it is clearly just imagination.
NoThe energy in the vacuum is real.But too small.
It is very high
Post by: Dave Lev on 30/08/2021 20:29:19
Your rules seem to think so. Here are some examples where you reject the existence of negative mass/energy because we have never observed it:Dear Kryptid
How can you compare that negative mass/energy to the first BH?
Based on the BBT the negative energy/mass is real and located in our current Universe.
It might be located in every BH.
So, if it is real and located TODAY in our real universe - we have to see it.
On the other hand the first tinny BH took place infinite time ago.
So how can we see it today?
Post by: Kryptid on 30/08/2021 20:33:56
It might be located in every BH.
You say this and yet you require us to be able to observe it in order for you to avoid calling it imagination? You do realize that the closest black holes are light-years away and any negative-mass particles produced by them would form close to the event horizon and be far too weak to observe with current technology, right? So you are asking us to observe something unrealistic. That is in direct contradiction to what you said here:
I have never ever asked to observe something that isn't realistic.
So which one is it? Do you require an observation of something unrealistic to support a theory or not?
So how can we see it today?
I'm not talking about that first black hole. I'm talking about any observation of a black hole forming from the vacuum anywhere. We don't have any such observation. Without an observation, your previous quotes call it "imagination".
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 20:34:27
How can you compare that negative mass/energy to the first BH?We have not seen either of them.
On the other hand, they are certainly different.
The negative mass makes sense; the first BH "creating the universe" does not.
we have to see it.It is small, far away and near the EH of a BH.
Why do you imagine we will see it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 30/08/2021 20:50:34
There's a good reason for that.So how can we see it today?
I'm not talking about that first black hole. I'm talking about any observation of a black hole forming from the vacuum anywhere. We don't have any such observation.
Dave thinks that this event happens with a non-zero probability.
I don't know what number he has in mind but it must be something of the nature of " 1 BH per billion billion years per cubic light year" or something.
He also thinks that the universe is infinitely old.
In which case, there should be a BH in my garden and another in my bedroom...
And so on.
Once you multiply any non-zero probability by an infinite time you get an infinite number of BH.
There is no room in Dave's universe for anything except Black Holes.
Either he's wrong about the age, or he's wrong about the mechanism.
So we know he is wrong.
It's just that he won't accept it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2021 19:58:46
Dear BCQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:29:19We have not seen either of them.
How can you compare that negative mass/energy to the first BH?
I would like to remind you that the chance for a negative mass to fall into a BH is equal to the chance for it to be ejected out.
Therefore, from statistical point of view, there is 50% chance for negative mass to be ejected outwards.
Hence, if Hawking radiation was real then around any second BH there should be a negative mass.
It is small, far away and near the EH of a BH.A positive mass has a positive gravity
Why do you imagine we will see it?
A negative mass has a negative gravity.
Therefore, if the negative mass was real we have to see the impact of its negative gravity.
The negative mass makes sense; the first BH "creating the universe" does not.No!
The negative mass is just a fiction.
As we don't observe the impact of the negative gravity around even one BH in the entire Universe then there is no negative mass in our Universe at all.
However, the first BH is real.
Dave thinks that this event happens with a non-zero probability.That shows that there is a possibility for a BH to be created by the energy in the vacuum open space.
I'm not talking about that first black hole. I'm talking about any observation of a black hole forming from the vacuum anywhere.Based on theory D, only one BH is need for our entire infinite BH.
I don't know what number he has in mind but it must be something of the nature of " 1 BH per billion billion years per cubic light year" or something.I don't think that you would find a BH in your Bed Room as only one single BH is needed.
He also thinks that the universe is infinitely old.
In which case, there should be a BH in my garden and another in my bedroom...
And so on.
Once you multiply any non-zero probability by an infinite time you get an infinite number of BH.
There is no room in Dave's universe for anything except Black Holes.
However, even if your assumption about the chance for the BH creation is correct, then please be aware that in a real infinite Universe there are infinite observables universe sizes.
So, the chance to get even one BH in each observable Universe is very low.
Therefore, please don't run to the near shelter. You are protected.
We don't have any such observation. Without an observation, your previous quotes call it "imagination".
Do you require an observation of something unrealistic to support a theory or not?There is no need to observe any BH creation in our current Universe, as only one BH that had been created at the infinity long time ago is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.
Therefore, the chance to observe that kind of BH creation from Vacuum in our observable universe is absolutely low.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 20:13:26
Is the probability of BH forming zero, in which case you are wrong because the universe isn't empty , or more than zero in which case you are wrong because the universe isn't full?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 20:14:35
As we don't observe the impact of the negative gravity around even one BH in the entire Universe then there is no negative mass in our Universe at all.Then you have no way of making the creation of mass by a BH work.
The laws of physics forbid it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 20:15:09
Based on theory D, only one BH is need for our entire infinite BH.But theory D is wrong.
It breaks the conservation laws.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 20:16:26
So, the chance to get even one BH in each observable Universe is very low.You didn't understand the bit about infinite time, did you?
Even a very improbable event happens uncountably often in an infinite time.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2021 21:10:11
Based on theory D, only one BH is need for our entire infinite BH.
You have no solid evidence how such a black hole could come into existence. That makes it, according to your rules, imagination.
There is no need to observe any BH creation in our current Universe, as only one BH that had been created at the infinity long time ago is good enough for our entire infinite Universe.
Therefore, the chance to observe that kind of BH creation from Vacuum in our observable universe is absolutely low.
This is a dodge. Please actually answer the question this time: do you require the observation of something unrealistic to support a theory or not?
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2021 21:20:03
Theory D is the only theory that doesn't break the Conservation law due to the following:Based on theory D, only one BH is need for our entire infinite BH.But theory D is wrong.
It breaks the conservation laws.
1. We all agree that there is more than enough energy in the vacuum empty space. Therefore the creation of the first BH from that energy doesn't break the conservation low. If more BH would pop up, then it is still doesn't break that law.
2. There is no need for any sort of negative mass, dark matter or dark energy in that theory. therefore there is no need to get free of charge dark matter and dark energy as it requested in the BBT.
3. Particle pair creation in the SMBH' accretion disc - I have already explained clearly why the creation of new particle pair at that disc doesn't violate the conservation law. As there is no negative mass, then your 5.5 is just imagination. Please try to find some other idea that could help you to prove that this pair creation violets the conservation law.
However, the BBT clearly violets the conservation law as it doesn't offer any valid source for the BBT energy.
Even based on the imagination idea of other dimension - then somehow that energy should be created over there. But the law must work at any dimension. so even if by twisting the law you can transform energy from dimension to other dimension, you still need to show how that energy had been created at the first dimension. It is very clear that as based on your understanding, energy can't be created - then the BBT energy can't be created at any imagination dimension!
Therefore, the BBT breaks the conservation law by 100%.while theory D works perfectly according that law!
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 21:22:04
You have no solid evidence how such a black hole could come into existence. That makes it, according to your rules, imagination.The "idea" by which the BH produces a universe is also an example of what he calls "imagination".
Except that, in that case, it isn't just that we have never seen it happen; the problem is that we know it cannot happen.
And it relies on the idea that BH "pop up" from time to time, but if that was true, the universe would be full of them (after an infinite time).
So we know that is also wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 21:28:25
We all agree that there is more than enough energy in the vacuum empty space.No, we don't.
There is no need for any sort of negative mass, dark matter or dark energy in that theory.Well... it is real, whether you need it or not
"Physicist Peter Engels and a team of colleagues at Washington State University reported the observation of negative mass behavior in rubidium atoms. On 10 April 2017, "
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_mass
However, the BBT clearly violets the conservation lawIt can not possibly violate the law of conservation of mass.
The conditions required for the law (symmetry in time) did not exist at the moment of the BB.
So why lie about it?
How could it break a law that did not exist?
On the other hand your idea clearly does break the mass conservation law.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 21:28:52
Therefore, the BBT breaks the conservation law by 100%.while theory D works perfectly according that law!You have that the wrong way round,
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2021 21:29:24
do you require the observation of something unrealistic to support a theory or not?Any request for observation must be realistic
You have confirmed that you are working according my rules.
So, I as didn't ask you to offer any observation for that Big bang moment that took place 13.8 BY ago, then please don't ask me to offer an observation for a bang that took place infinite time ago.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 21:31:19
As there is no negative mass, then your 5.5 is just imagination.But negative mass exists- it is studied in labs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39642992
Why are you pretending otherwise?
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2021 21:33:09
Any request for observation must be realistic
Okay then, you shouldn't ask for an observation of negative mass. Hawking radiation for stellar mass black holes is far, far too weak for us to ever hope to detect with current technology. That would include any negative mass particles produced in the process. It would be like trying to detect the thermal radiation given off by a container of liquid helium millions of miles away. It just isn't practical.
then please don't ask me to offer an observation for a bang that took place infinite time ago.
Sure, as long as you agree that, for the same reason, we shouldn't expect to see extremely weak radiation of negative mass particles light-years away.
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2021 21:34:06
The "idea" by which the BH produces a universe is also an example of what he calls "imagination".You know by 100% that you have no answer for how the BBT energy had been created - at any dimension that you wish.
Except that, in that case, it isn't just that we have never seen it happen; the problem is that we know it cannot happen.
Therefore, you know that the BBT is nonsense.
If one day you would be able to clear your mind from that imagination that is called BBT, you would know why theory D is the ultimate theory for our Universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 21:37:37
You know by 100% that you have no answer for how the BBT energy had been created - at any dimension that you wish.That is faulty logic.
Therefore, you know that the BBT is nonsense.
It is like someone saying that they do not know how a car engine works so cars can not move.
However, in addition to being faulty logic, it is built on a false claim.
You say
You know by 100% that you have no answer for how the BBT energy had been createdbut I have already told you several times where I think the energy may have come from.
So you are just lying, and then basing nonsense on your own lies.
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2021 21:40:28
Okay then, you shouldn't ask for an observation of negative mass. Hawking radiation for stellar mass black holes is far, far too weak for us to ever hope to detect with current technology. That would include any negative mass particles produced in the process. It would be like trying to detect the thermal radiation given off by a container of liquid helium millions of miles away. It just isn't practical.Sorry
I don't agree with you.
Do you confirm that the chance for a negative mass to be ejected outwards is the same as the chance for it to fall inwards?
If so, you have to agree that around 50% of the Bhs there must be negative mass.
We see so many BH in our galaxy. some of them are located almost next to our nose. So why we can't monitor the impact of the negative gravity due to that negative mass?
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2021 21:41:49
Do you confirm that the chance for a negative mass to be ejected outwards is the same as the chance for it to fall inwards?
No. According to Hawking's theory, all of it goes into the black hole. We wouldn't be able to detect it even if we were right next to the black hole.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 21:42:02
If one day you would be able to clear your mind from that imagination that is called BBT, you would know why theory D is the ultimate theory for our Universe.That makes no sense.
Even if I discarded the BBT, I wouldn't support an idea like "theory" D which is impossible because
It does not explain where the first BH comes from
It has no mechanism for that BH to produce a universe.
It breaks the conservation laws and
it predicts a universe completely full of BH.
Even the Bible looks like a better account than yours.
If the BBT was wrong, it still wouldn't make "theory" D right.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 21:43:58
I don't agree with you.It isn't Kryptid that you are arguing with.
You are disagreeing with reality.
He said we couldn't see it, and we couldn't see it.
If you really disagree then you need to show us how it would be possible- in detail.
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2021 21:44:41
but I have already told you several times where I think the energy may have come from.No, you didn't!
All you did is pointing some imagination idea about other dimension.
So please try to explain clearly in your own words how the BBT energy had been CREATED. Not transformed - But real creation of Energy
Good luck.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 21:45:44
No, you didn't!Yes I did.
You might not believe it, but your grasp of logic is so flaky we shouldn't rely on it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 21:48:43
please try to explain clearly in your own words how the BBT energy had been CREATEDplease try to explain clearly in your own words how the [the first BH] energy had been CREATED.
As I said, you have run into a well known issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_causation
But you think that only other people need to deal with it.
You excuse your "theory" D by magical thinking.
That's not science.
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2021 21:53:22
Sorry, in that article it is stated that they take a positive mass and try to convert it to negative mass:As there is no negative mass, then your 5.5 is just imagination.But negative mass exists- it is studied in labs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39642992
Why are you pretending otherwise?
To create the conditions for negative mass, the researchers used lasers to trap the rubidium atoms and to kick them back and forth, changing the way they spin.
When the atoms were released from the laser trap, they expanded, with some displaying negative mass."
Can you please explain the meaning of " some displaying negative mass"
Positive mass is always a positive mass while negative mass should be always negative.
There is no way to change the energy from positive to negative just by laser trap.
If you can do it in laser trap why can't we do it in BH trap?
I claim that it is pure imagination.
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2021 21:57:28
No there is no explanation in that article about my request.please try to explain clearly in your own words how the BBT energy had been CREATEDplease try to explain clearly in your own words how the [the first BH] energy had been CREATED.
As I said, you have run into a well known issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_causation
But you think that only other people need to deal with it.
You excuse your "theory" D by magical thinking.
That's not science.
Why is it so difficult for you to explain in your own words the creation of the BBT energy?
So, do you know how it works or it is just imagination as usual?
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2021 21:58:55
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2021 22:00:19
If you did, then please copy the explanation in your own words about the creation of the BBT energy.No, you didn't!Yes I did.
You might not believe it, but your grasp of logic is so flaky we shouldn't rely on it.
Again - Creation (not transformation)
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2021 22:04:51
Do you know how the first black hole came into existence, Dave?Well, Do you know how the Big Bang came into existence?
At least I can offer real energy for that first BH.
You clearly know that you have no valid data about the creation of the BBT energy.
So, before we discuss about how energy could be transformed to a Big Bang or small bang, please offer real explanation how that energy had been created.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 22:05:20
please copy the explanation in your own wordsWhich do you want?
A copy, or my own words?
Why do you ask stupid things like that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 22:05:38
At least I can offer real energy for that first BH.No, you can not.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 22:06:21
Again - Creation (not transformation)That distinction is silly.
It makes no difference.
Post by: Kryptid on 31/08/2021 22:06:59
Well, Do you know how the Big Bang came into existence?
No, I don't. There you go, I answered the question. So now it's your turn to answer the question.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 22:09:54
No there is no explanation in that article about my request.Correct.
Nobody said there was.
There was not meant to me.
What I was doing is pointing out that your problem- the uncaused cause- is well known.
And it applies to "theory" D just as much as to the BBT.
"Where did the first BH come from?" is the same type of question as "where did the energy of the BB come from?".
But you only see the second one as a problem. Because you are not clever enough to see that the same problem happens with your idea.
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 22:10:45
We already answered the question about the BBT.Well, Do you know how the Big Bang came into existence?
No, I don't. There you go, I answered the question. So now it's your turn to answer the question.
We are not sure; the best available theory is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane
It isn't a great answer. But it is better than Dave's lack of an answer for the thing he keeps calling a "theory".
Post by: Dave Lev on 31/08/2021 22:12:01
Even if I discarded the BBT, I wouldn't support an idea like "theory" D which is impossible because1. It does not explain where the first BH comes from - I agree. But it explains the source of energy for that BH and it is real!
It does not explain where the first BH comes from
It has no mechanism for that BH to produce a universe.
It breaks the conservation laws and
it predicts a universe completely full of BH.
2. It has no mechanism for that BH to produce a universe. - Yes it has. I clearly explain how it works.
3. It breaks the conservation laws and - No. It fully meets the conservation laws!
4. it predicts a universe completely full of BH - Yes, the Universe is full with BH. Just in the center of our galaxy there are 10,000 BHs. So what is the problem with it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 22:15:11
You clearly know that you have no valid data about the creation of the BBT energy.We clearly have, because I keep posting it.
On what grounds do you consider it not to be "valid".
Do you think it is not valid because you do not understand it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 31/08/2021 22:20:18
But it explains the source of energy for that BH and it is real!It does not explain how that tiny energy is concentrated into a BH.
And it does not explain why that happens.
And it doe snot explain why , in an infinite time, it only happened exactly once.
The universe should be full of BH by now.
Yes it has. I clearly explain how it works.But your explanation is wrong.
It is impossible.
It makes no sense.
It is forbidden by the laws of physics.
. It breaks the conservation laws and - No. It fully meets the conservation laws!
The conservation of mass says that the mass of an isolated system is constant.
Your idea says the mass of the universe grows with time.
The universe is an isolated system
How is that not a coiontradictoion?
Which words are you not understanding?
Yes, the Universe is full with BHIs there one between your ears?
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/09/2021 16:58:39
It isn't a great answer. But it is better than Dave's lack of an answer for the thing he keeps calling a "theory".Dear BC & kryptid
It is very difficult to set a real discussion when we jump from subject to subject.
So, In order to verify which theory is more realistic let's agree on the following rules:
1. The same rules that we apply to one theory would be apply to the other one.
2. We would focus only on one issue/aspect at a time and just after understanding that issue we would move on to the other issue/aspect. Each side can decide on which aspect we will discuss.
With your perdition I would start with energy conservation
I would like to focus on the energy that each theory is using to start with.
BBT - the BBT doesn't offer how the BBT energy had been created and therefore if clearly breaks the conservation law.
You have offered the following article:
We are not sure; the best available theory is thisHowever, I couldn't find even one word about energy or Conservation law in that article.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane
So, how can you use an article that should explain the creation of energy while it doesn't discuss at all about energy?
Hence, do you confirm that this article doesn't cover the energy source for the BBT and it is just irrelevant for our discussion about the energy creation?
Do you have better idea/article? If so please copy the section that covers specifically the energy creation.
If you don't have then we should agree that the BBT fails to explain its energy creation and therefore it breaks the conservation law?
On the other had
In Theory D the energy for the first BH is taking its energy from the energy in the Vacuum space.
Do you agree that in the Vacuum there should be enough energy to set that first BH?
Please - we do not discuss how the Big Bang or the small bang had started.
We only discuss on the available energy to start with (at both theories) and not on any other issue.
So, just after closing this issue, you are more than welcome to select any issue to compare with.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 17:00:15
However, I couldn't find even one word about energy or Conservation law in that article.Why did you expect to find any mention of a law that can not apply?
So, how can you use an article that should explain the creation of energy while it doesn't discuss at all about energy?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/09/2021 17:01:13
Do you know how the first black hole came into existence, Dave?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 17:04:13
It is very difficult to set a real discussion when we jump from subject to subject.There is one subject.
The subject is "theory" D and its errors.
Because there are a lot of errors, the discussion covers a lot of ground.
Because you ignore facts, it covers the same ground repeatedly.
So, how can you use an article that should explain the creation of energy while it doesn't discuss at all about energy?If you asked what supplied the energy to knock an ornament off the shelf, I might say that the cat did it.
And you would look at the wiki page for "cat" and see if the word "energy" got mentioned.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 17:06:06
BBT - the BBT doesn't offer how the BBT energy had been created and therefore if clearly breaks the conservation law.I have repeatedly explained why that law did not apply to the BBT.
Why are you asking how it breaks a rule that did not exist?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 17:08:11
In Theory D the energy for the first BH is taking its energy from the energy in the Vacuum space.By magic?
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/09/2021 18:50:37
There is no magic. I have already offered the following explanation from our scientists about the energy in the empty space:In Theory D the energy for the first BH is taking its energy from the energy in the Vacuum space.By magic?
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
"Quantum field theory allows us to calculate how much energy there should be in the vacuum of space because of these virtual particles. The problem is that when scientists do the calculations, they get a number that is ridiculously wrong. According to this page of a UCLA astronomer, quantum field theory gives a prediction that every cubic centimeter of the vacuum should have an energy density of 10^91 grams. This number is 10 followed by 90 zeroes. That is an amount trillions of times greater than the mass of the entire observable universe, which is estimated to be only about 10^56 grams."
So, it is not a magic and not imagination.
That energy was there before starting Theory D.
It is real and it is based on real understanding from our scientists.
However, when it comes to the BBT, you have no valid data to cover the creation of the BBT energy.
Sorry. You have NEVER EVER offered any real article that clearly specifies how the energy had been created BEFORE the Big BANG.BBT - the BBT doesn't offer how the BBT energy had been created and therefore if clearly breaks the conservation law.I have repeatedly explained why that law did not apply to the BBT.
Why are you asking how it breaks a rule that did not exist?
If you did, then please offer it again.
However, I would not except any more an article of nonsense that you ask me to read and find the imagination.
If you offer an article - please quote the message in the article that specifies how and where the energy for the BBT had been created without breaking the conservation law!
I have offered the energy that was there before starting Theory D. You should do it also for the BBT.
However, Please - not nonsense - only clear explanation about ENERGY creation before the Big bang.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/09/2021 18:54:35
I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:We will discuss this issue after closing the current issue about the energy source for both theories.
Do you know how the first black hole came into existence, Dave?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 19:19:52
There is no magic.Then how does it happen?
Sorry. You have NEVER EVER offered any real article that clearly specifies how the energy had been created BEFORE the Big BANG.I do not need to.
The conservation law does not apply.
So you were wrong to say
I would like to focus on the energy that each theory is using to start with.
BBT - the BBT doesn't offer how the BBT energy had been created and therefore if clearly breaks the conservation law.
It does not break a law that did not exist.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 19:22:34
We already closed that issue.I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:We will discuss this issue after closing the current issue about the energy source for both theories.
Do you know how the first black hole came into existence, Dave?
There is no credible way for your idea to work, because it breaks lots of conservation laws.
So your idea is impossible.
The conservation of mass/ energy did not apply to the BBT.
So the BBT is possible.
There's nothing useful you can say.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 19:23:37
If you offer an article - please quote the message in the article that specifies how and where the energy for the BBT had been created without breaking the conservation law!Which part of "that law did not apply" do you not understand?
It is like asking how it didn't break the law about parking on yellow lines.
That law was not there at the time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 19:26:17
I have offered the energy that was there before starting Theory D. You should do it also for the BBT.You have offered a model in which the whole universe is packed with BH.
That is wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/09/2021 19:48:08
Well, I have no problem that you claim that the conservation law doesn't apply to the BBT.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:50:37I do not need to.
Sorry. You have NEVER EVER offered any real article that clearly specifies how the energy had been created BEFORE the Big BANG.
The conservation law does not apply.
However, you need to explain why the conservation law doesn't apply.
If I understand it correctly, the whole idea in the BBT is that before the Big Bang there was no space and no time.
If that is correct, then can you explain how energy could be created while there is no time and no space?
So, your assumption that the conservation law didn't apply - kills the possibility to create new energy for the BBT.
If you think differently, please explain why the conservation law doesn't apply for the BBT and how under those conditions the BBT energy could be created.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 19:52:48
If I understand it correctly, the whole idea in the BBT is that before the Big Bang there was no space and no time.Not quite.
It's just that the BBT changed the rules- because it was, the start of the laws of physics as we know them.
It isn't clear that "before the BB" has a meaning but if it does, whatever was there before isn't the Universe that is here now.
If you think differently, please explain why the conservation law doesn't apply for the BBT and how under those conditions the BBT energy could be created.HOW MANY TIMES?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#Models_of_brane_cosmology
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 19:55:40
How do you explain the fact that the Universe isn't full of BH?
Post by: Dave Lev on 01/09/2021 20:18:10
It's just that the BBT changed the rules- because it was, the start of the laws of physics as we know them.Why is it so difficult to get from you clear answer???
You claim that the BBT starts the laws of physics but you don't explain why is it?
Please explain the conditions before the Big Bang that convinced you to believe that at the moment of the Big Bang those laws of physics did not apply?
Sorry, I couldn't find an answer to my question in that article.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:48:08HOW MANY TIMES?
If you think differently, please explain why the conservation law doesn't apply for the BBT and how under those conditions the BBT energy could be created.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#Models_of_brane_cosmology
HOW MANY TIMES are you going to offer the same article without quoting the message in the article that should answer my question?
Why is it so difficult for you to quote the message in the article that answers my question?
I claim that this article is just irrelevant to my question.
If you think that this article explains the creation of the energy for the BBT, then please quote the explanation.
If you can't do so, then it proves that you just offer me nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 20:28:47
HOW MANY TIMES are you going to offer the same article without quoting the message in the article that should answer my question?Until you realise that the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes.
How many times do I have to tell you the same thing?
Post by: Bored chemist on 01/09/2021 20:29:39
You claim that the BBT starts the laws of physics but you don't explain why is it?Because the laws of physics are part of the universe so they start when the universe starts.
Isn't that obvious?
Post by: Kryptid on 01/09/2021 20:59:35
We will discuss this issue after closing the current issue about the energy source for both theories.
Nice dodge, but I asked you that question before you made that post about focusing solely on the energy source. So what is your answer?
Why is it so difficult to get from you clear answer???
I could ask you the same thing. Why have you been dancing around my question like a ballerina?
Post by: Bored chemist on 02/09/2021 19:05:37
If you can't do so, then it proves that you just offer me nonsense.No.
It might prove that you just aren't clever enough to understand.
Post by: Dave Lev on 03/09/2021 08:25:44
Until you realise that the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes.What is brane:
https://www.britannica.com/science/brane
"Brane, an object extended in one or more spatial dimensions, which arises in string theory and other proposed unified theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity. A 0-brane is a zero-dimensional object, a point; a 1-brane is a one-dimensional object, a string; a 2-brane is a two-dimensional object, a membrane; and a p-brane is a p-dimensional object. Because some versions of string theory have 9 spatial dimensions, p-branes may exist for values of p up to 9."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/brane
Physics
An extended object with any given number of dimensions, of which strings in string theory are examples with one dimension. Our universe is a 3-brane.
So, Brane is an object extended in one or more spatial dimensions.
Our universe is a 3-brane.
There is no limit for the number of branes:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960077900001302
Infinite-dimensional branes and the topology of heterotic superstrings
Therefore, as our universe has 3 branes and there are infinite branes please answer the following:
1. Infinite Universes -
Do you agree that based on branes theory, as our universe use only 3-branes there might be infinite Universes around us?
2. Energy creation and conservation law
How the energy in the brane had been created at the first place?
You claim that: "the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes."
So, those branes were already there before the Big Bang moment.
Each one of them has real dimension and real energy.
Therefore, do you confirm that for each one of them the conservation law was also real?
Therefore, how those branes got their energy for the first place?
Please don't tell me that they got it from other branes.
Somehow energy has to be created somewhere.
Therefore, you can't just base a theory on energy transformation from a brane to brane. You have to show how that energy in the first brane had been created.
3. the laws of physic
Because the laws of physics are part of the universe so they start when the universe starts.Sorry, the the laws of physic started to work when the first brane pop up. If you wish to transfer energy from brane to brane you have to obey all the laws of physic.
Isn't that obvious?
Therefore, the creation of our 3-branes universe must work according all the laws of physic as there were already other branes before it pop up.
Therefore, your imagination that each 3-brane universe can pop up while it breaks all the laws of physic is just incorrect.
4. Energy transformation
As each brane has a different dimension then it must be orthogonal to all the other branes dimensions.
Therefore, technically, branes can't collide with each other. So how can you set a collision between two branes dimensions that are fully octagonal to each other?
Therefore, how energy from one brane can be transformed or jump to other brane?
5. Universe creation.
As there was already infinite branes with infinite universes, how can you create a new 3-branes Universe by collision with two other branes that can't collide with each other as they are orthogonal to each other?
Therefore, even if the idea of the branes are real, and even if they can transform energy from one brane to other, and even if we ignore the request how they got their energy for the first place - then how can a collision between two octagonal branes create new 3-branes universe?
6. End of the Universe.
If your imagination about: "the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes" is correct, then do you agree that theoretically our 3-branes universe could potentially collide with other 3-branes and end its life?
Conclusion:
You idea of those imagination branes don't help the BBT to get free of charge energy.
Somehow energy must be created somewhere. You can't just transformer it from one brane to other.
Therefore, as the BBT is using the energy from imaginary branes - then it is your obligation to prove that the idea of infinite branes or infinite numbers of 3-branes universe as our universe is real. You should also start the BBT from the moment of the creation of the first brane and explain how that brane got its energy without breaking the laws of physic.
Post by: Bored chemist on 03/09/2021 08:39:48
So, those branes were already there before the Big Bang moment.Before is not defined unless one of the dimensions involved is time, and it's not clear what happens if there are more than 1 temporal dimension.
So your argument is meaningless.
Therefore, you can't just base a theory on energy transformation from a brane to brane. You have to show how that energy in the first brane had been created.Again, your "logic" is simply wrong.
Once more you are saying that we couldn't have a theory about how cars work until we knew about the energy formation in the Sun.
It's just not true.
6. End of the Universe.Yes it could. There's a whole thread about the idea of more than one big bang.
If your imagination about: "the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes" is correct, then do you agree that theoretically our 3-branes universe could potentially collide with other 3-branes and end its life?
But that's another story entirely.
We need you to realise that your idea about the start of the universe is wrong before we move on to that.
You should also start the BBT from the moment of the creation of the first brane and explain how that brane got its energy without breaking the laws of physic.Again, you are wrong about how theories work.
They don't need to cover everything.
you need to understand how we make progress in science.
In the mean time, you also need to recognise that your "universe packed with black holes theory" must be wrong.
Post by: Kryptid on 03/09/2021 17:23:28
Well, Do you know how the Big Bang came into existence?
So how about being courteous enough to answer my original question?
Do you know how the first black hole came into existence, Dave?
It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. It wouldn't take you more than a few seconds to type the answer.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/09/2021 05:23:12
Before is not defined unless one of the dimensions involved is time, and it's not clear what happens if there are more than 1 temporal dimension.Is it real?
You have clearly stated that:
the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes.Therefore, based on a simple logic, those two branes must exists before the bang.
I know that you have a very special logic.
Again, your "logic" is simply wrong.Are you sure that your "logic" is logic
So please explain how based on your special "logic" as they didn't exist before the bang, then how they could collide with each other while they were not there before?
Once more you are saying that we couldn't have a theory about how cars work until we knew about the energy formation in the Sun.Car is all about its material.
It's just not true.
Without that material there is no car.
When you try to produce a car you have to have the material for that car.
Try to produce a car without any material and then show us your car.
In the same token, BBT is all about its energy.
Without energy there is no BBT.
Hence, before starting your car imagination - it is your obligation to have the requested material for this care and before you tell us about your imagination BBT it is your obligation to offer a valid source of energy for that bang.
There is no room for "probably" in your following message:
the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes.Only real source of energy.
Again, you are wrong about how theories work.I agree.
They don't need to cover everything.
However, you must explain the key issue in each theory.
The BBT is all about energy.
You can tell us that you don't know how the bang had started and from where did you get the spark that set the Big bang.
That is perfectly OK.
But you have to offer the energy source!
Without it, the BBT should be set deep in the imagination garbage.
This isn't another story.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 08:25:44Yes it could. There's a whole thread about the idea of more than one big bang.
6. End of the Universe.
If your imagination about: "the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes" is correct, then do you agree that theoretically our 3-branes universe could potentially collide with other 3-branes and end its life?
But that's another story entirely.
This is the real story.
Our Universe would never and ever end.
As your BBT story leads you to the conclusion that the universe could be ended, then it's better for you to keep it there in the garbage.
We need you to realise that your idea about the start of the universe is wrong before we move on to that.My modeling is the ONLY real modeling for our Universe.
I have offered ultimate energy source to start my modeling - The vacuum energy source.
You all know that it is real and it was always there in the vacuum space of our infinite Universe that is there forever and ever.
you need to understand how we make progress in science.Your BBT "science" is just imagination science.
You clearly see that the Universe works differently from your expectations and you don't care.
You just update this imagination to meet any new discovery.
You want to force the Universe to accept your BBT, while it tells you again and again by real observations and real evidence that the BBT is useless.
Unfortunately, you ignore all the evidences.
It's better for you to find a Universe that would agree to work according to your "imagination science".
That is wrong!
In real theory - any new observation MUST meet your expectations.
If not - it is your obligation to set your theory in the garbage and start from Zero.
That's the way that I and all the other electronic engineers work in our electronic developments.
Therefore, you have got today a supper advanced electronic equipments.
However, when it comes to cosmology, you and all BBT scientists stuck in the assumption that you are correct and all the others are wrong.
You behave exactly as those "scientists" that claim 500 years ago that our planet is at the center of the Universe.
There were sure that they are correct.
They set in jail any person that didn't accept their "Theory"
You almost behave like them.
You set my thread in this desert that is called "That can't be true" while the only theory that can't be true is the BBT.
I really appreciate that at least you have no intention (so far) to set me on jail.
In the mean time, you also need to recognise that your "universe packed with black holes theory" must be wrong.In the mean time it's better for you to understand that somehow energy must be created somewhere.
You can't escape from that.
Any theory that doesn't cover the energy creation is just useless.
You can't just borrow/transform energy from some imagination source and claim that this energy can be used even for the infinite universe.
It is OK to assume that somehow some very minimal energy could be used to start your theory (as Vacuum Energy), but you must find a way how energy could be created especially as our scientists claim that our real universe is actually – infinite universe.
Again - without it, any theory is just useless.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2021 13:47:02
Therefore, based on a simple logic...Yes, but we have to use complicated logic.
If time does not exist then the laws of causation change.
When you try to produce a car you have to have the material for that car.But the important thing is that you do not need a theory about where that material came from.
The BBT is all about energy.Not really.
It's about what happened between then and now.
But let's look briefly at "theory" D
It obviously needs energy to get together to make a BH.
And , according to oyou, we need to explain that; as you say...
But you have to offer the energy source!
Without it,
Do you really not see that , if you insist on knowing where the energy comes from for the BBT, you also have to insist on knowing where the energy comes from in "theory" D.
But you can't do that. Kryptid keeps asking you to, but you stubbornly refuse.
The vacuum energy came from the BB.
You can't say "we will use the vacuum energy that was created by the BB to make the first BH"
Because, without the BB, that vacuum energy isn't there.
So where did the energy for the first BH come from?
And why isn't the universe full of BH?
Post by: Kryptid on 04/09/2021 17:43:26
I have offered ultimate energy source to start my modeling - The vacuum energy source.
You all know that it is real and it was always there in the vacuum space of our infinite Universe that is there forever and ever.
Theory D just broke another one of your rules:
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/09/2021 18:46:10
If time does not exist then the laws of causation change.Dear BC
I have some news for you and for all the other BBT scientists.
The time was ALWAYS existed. Forever and ever from the infinity long time ago up to the infinity.
Therefore, any theory must obey to the law of physics starting from the infinite time ago.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:23:12Show me one car' manufacturer that don't care where the material for its car comes from.
When you try to produce a car you have to have the material for that car.
But the important thing is that you do not need a theory about where that material came from.
Without material there is no car. Not even one.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:23:12No
The BBT is all about energy.
Not really.
It's about what happened between then and now.
So, please explain how can you run the BBT without energy.
If you can, then please go ahead.
If you know that without energy the BBT is useless, then how can you calim that the energy isn't important?
Your answer proves that you have no clue about the BBT energy source especially as you claim that there was no time before the BBT.
If there was energy before the BBT, then the time was always there.
So, the BBT is all about severe contradiction.
Before the Big Bang there is no time and there is no energy.
That's good enough to prove that the BBT is a fiction.
But let's look briefly at "theory" DYes, that is correct.
It obviously needs energy to get together to make a BH.
The vacuum energy came from the BB.Are you sure about it?
The Big Bang can't even explain the energy of the visable Universe, the dark energy and even the dark matter.
Now you wish that it would cover the Vacuum energy.
What a nonsense.
The Universe was there long before your imagination and the vacuum energy was always there in our Universe.
So please, the BBT isn't the master of our universe and therefore, you can't claim that the vacuum energy is all about the BBT.
On the contrary - it is your obligation to show how the BBT could get its energy for all the matter, dark energy, dark matter and vacuum energy even if the universe is infinite.
Sorry - you and all the other BBT scientists don't have a basic clue how the BBT could get any sort of energy - even for just single Atom. So, please don't tell us that the Vacuum energy should thank the BBT for its existence, while the BBT can't show real energy source for just one atom.
You can't say "we will use the vacuum energy that was created by the BB to make the first BH"The vacuum energy was always there.
Because, without the BB, that vacuum energy isn't there.
So where did the energy for the first BH come from?
Don't give the BBT a credit for its existence.
The first BH got its energy from that Vacuum energy at the infinity time ago.
But you can't do that. Kryptid keeps asking you to, but you stubbornly refuse.the question is as follow:
Do you know how the first black hole came into existence, Dave?You have answered that question:
Even a very improbable event happens uncountably often in an infinite time.So, you fully confirm that even if the creation of a BH from the Vacuum energy is very improbable event, it "happens uncountably often in an infinite time".
So, this is your answer to kryptid' question.
However, you also claim:
And why isn't the universe full of BH?
And it relies on the idea that BH "pop up" from time to time, but if that was true, the universe would be full of them (after an infinite time).The answer is quite simple:
So we know that is also wrong.
BHs can pop up from time to time.
Due to infinite age of the Universe and due to its infinite size, I agree that theoretically infinite no of BHs could be created.
However, a BH by itself is useless.
In order for a BH to generate new particle pairs it must have EM radiation.
Therefore, only if two BHs starts to orbit around each other, their increasing spin could generate EM radiation.
The moment that the first BH or actually, the twin BH's got the ability to generate EM radiation - the Universe started to live.
Theory D just broke another one of your rules:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/08/2021 20:54:26
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.
No it's not.
Theory D starts with only one BH with the ability to generate EM radiation.
That BH would create new energy/mass and new galaxies up to the infinity.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2021 18:58:49
Show me one car' manufacturer that don't care where the material for its car comes from.If any car manufacturer knew where the material came from, we could ask them if it was from a black hole, or a big bang.
That's more or less my point.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2021 19:12:13
So, please explain how can you run the BBT without energy.Like the car maker who can not tell you where the iron came from, I can't tell you where the energy came from (though there's a reasonable suggestion in brane cosmology) .
If you can, then please go ahead.
If you know that without energy the BBT is useless, then how can you calim that the energy isn't important?
But also, like the car maker who can tell you how that iron becomes a car, I can tell you how the energy becomes a universe.
That's what the BBT does.
It was never intended to explain anything before the BB.
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.You said it was.
No it's not.
The answer is quite simple:The answer is wrong.
BHs can pop up from time to time.
Due to infinite age of the Universe and due to its infinite size, I agree that theoretically infinite no of BHs could be created.
However, a BH by itself is useless.
In order for a BH to generate new particle pairs it must have EM radiation.
Therefore, only if two BHs starts to orbit around each other, their increasing spin could generate EM radiation.
The moment that the first BH or actually, the twin BH's got the ability to generate EM radiation - the Universe started to live.
There are a list of problems with it.
You will need to do a lot better.
BHs can pop up from time to time.That's my point. By now there should be one in my garden and one in the street next to my house.
Due to infinite age of the Universe and due to its infinite size, I agree that theoretically infinite no of BHs could be created.
There should be BH everywhere.
That's what happens when you give a process an infinite time.
In order for a BH to generate new particle pairs it must have EM radiation.They all do- that's what Hawking radiation is.
Therefore, only if two BHs starts to orbit around each other, their increasing spin could generate EM radiation.That wouldn't generate any EM field.
On the other hand, any two BH that are created , unless they are moving away from each other at the escape velocity, will be in orbit.
And if you have many black holes, they can't all move away from eachother unless you have, in effect, a BB.
Almost all of them would be in orbits- in the same way that most of the matter in the universe is in orbit round other matter.
So your "answer" has made things much worse.
Previously you had to find room for an infinite number of BH in the universe, but now you have to find space for an infinite number of universes.
The moment that the first BH or actually, the twin BH's got the ability to generate EM radiationThat would be as soon as the first one existed.
But you still have to tell us where the energy to make it came from.
The only "answer" you have given so far is the vacuum energy, but that was produced by the BB, so you can't use it unless you say the BBT is correct.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2021 19:13:08
That BH would create new energy/mass and new galaxies up to the infinity.Creating mass and energy is impossible.
Your "mechanism" is wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 04/09/2021 20:34:17
Like the car maker who can not tell you where the iron came from, I can't tell you where the energy came fromAny car maker gets the iron and see it before he converts that iron into car.
So, the car maker doesn't need to tell you where the iron comes from as he sees it, it is real and its existence is proved
Anyone can tell you how iron is created.
However, a car maker won't set one car without real iron in his hand.
Try to give a car maker some imagination iron and try to verify if he can do with that an imaginary car.
So, by using imaginary iron a car maker might get at the maximum imaginary car.
The BBT energy is imaginary by definition.
No one really knows how that energy had been created while there is no space and no time.
Therefore, you offer an imaginary energy to be used by the BBT.
Hence, by using imaginary/unproved energy you might get at the maximum imaginary/unproved universe.
That's what the BBT does.Sorry - any story/theory must start with "before"
It was never intended to explain anything before the BB.
We were not coming to our planet if our parents were not there "before"
Theory D is based on real vacuum energy that was there "Before".
As in the BBT isn't based on real energy that was there before, then this theory is just imagination.
So, let's agree
The BBT fails to show the source for its energy
Theory D is based on real vacuum energy.
Therefore - Theory D is based on real energy while BBT is based imagination energy.
Once we agree with that we have to agree that there is no need to discuss any more about the BBT imagination, but we can move on with the next phase of theory D and verify if it is feasible.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/09/2021 20:48:21
Also, Theory D doesn't start off with a single black hole. It starts off with an infinitely-large, empty Universe. Since each cubic centimeter of space contains a finite amount of energy, then Theory D starts off with an infinite amount of energy. That breaks your rule.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2021 21:02:15
Sorry - any story/theory must start with "before"A theory concerning the start of time can not possibly start with "before".
How did you think "before there was time" was a sensible thing to ask about?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2021 21:04:31
Anyone can tell you how iron is created.OK, tell us.
But don't start with iron ore- that isn't "creating" iron. It already has iron nuclei and ions in it.
Tell us what created those iron atoms.
Tell us where the neutrons and protons came from.
Or do you think that is absurd?
Do you realise you can have a theory of "making a car" without needing a theory about "making neutrons"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2021 21:05:53
The BBT fails to show the source for its energyBut the vacuum energy came from the BB.
Theory D is based on real vacuum energy.
So if you say the BBT is wrong, where is the vacuum energy from?
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2021 21:06:57
Theory D is based on real vacuum energy.No.
Therefore - Theory D is based on real energy while BBT is based imagination energy.
That means that "theory" D is based on the BBT.
Post by: Bored chemist on 04/09/2021 21:08:42
Sorry - any story/theory must start with "before"You stopped just as it got interesting.
We were not coming to our planet if our parents were not there "before"
Theory D is based on real vacuum energy that was there "Before".
The next obvious question in that series is what was there before the vacuum energy; where did it come from?
Until you can answer that , "Theory" D is dead.
Post by: Kryptid on 04/09/2021 23:21:19
Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more.
That thing about vacuum energy having a density of 1091 grams per cubic centimeter is a mathematical prediction and has never actually been measured. That being said, it violates these rules of Dave's as well:
How can we distinguish between real theories to science fiction theory?
Don't you think that the only way to prove any theory is to set an expectation and validate those expectations by real measurements?
Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/09/2021 17:01:56
Sorry - any story/theory must start with "before"You stopped just as it got interesting.
We were not coming to our planet if our parents were not there "before"
Theory D is based on real vacuum energy that was there "Before".
The next obvious question in that series is what was there before the vacuum energy; where did it come from?
Until you can answer that , "Theory" D is dead.
Dear BC
You have a fatal misunderstanding.
When you see/observe something, you don't need to prove its existence.
Therefore, a car maker doesn't need to understand how the iron that he is using is created.
All is needed is to observe that Iron.
In the same token, we clearly observe TODAY the energy in the vacuum space.
So, theory D doesn't need to explain how that energy had been created as that vacuum energy that we see today in the empty space was good enough to start that theory.
However, the story with the BBT is totally different.
We don't see today the entire energy that started the BBT.
It is just in our BBT scientist's imagination.
Therefore, our scientists must prove that this energy was real.
They can do it in the following steps:
1. Show the source of that energy
Now we all know that our scientists don't have a basic clue how that energy had been created.
Therefore - the BBT should be set in the garbage.
2. Set the calculation for the requested energy for our universe and verify why that energy won't end as a SSS..SMBH.
Our scientists claim that the only way for the BBT to escape from ending its life as a SSS...SMBH is due to the rapid expansion. However, we all agree that for infinite Universe and infinite energy is needed. So, how that rapid expansion could overcome the infinite energy from ending as that SSS..SMBH.
It is very clear that the rapid expansion velocity should higher than trillions over trillions speed of light. That clearly breaks the physics law. However, as those laws must work immediately at the moment of the bang, than the requested rapid expansion is just unrealistic. Therefore - that is one more example why the BBT should be set in the garbage.
3. Show that the observed heat energy/temp works according the BBT exactions.
Our scientists claim that at the Big Bang moment our Universe temp was ultra high.
Even after 600,000 Years the temp was still very high.
We clearly observe far end galaxies from that time period. So, why don't you verify the temp of those galaxies? If their temp meets the BBT expectations, it is good indication for the BBT. If not, then please set the BBT in the nearest garbage for good.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/09/2021 17:12:17
That thing about vacuum energy having a density of 10^91 grams per cubic centimeter is a mathematical prediction and has never actually been measured. That being said, it violates these rules of Dave's as well:No its not.
Our scientists claim that the CURRENT vacuum energy is real.
So, even if they have some sort of mistake and it isn't 10^91 but only 10^10 or less it is still ok.
Theory D needs only some energy for the first BH.
I hope that we all agree that this kind of energy is available in the empty vacuum energy.
Once we agree with that - Theory D can start to work.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2021 17:23:57
No its not.They claim the BBT is real too.
Our scientists claim that the CURRENT vacuum energy is real.
Did you not realise how stupid your argument was?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2021 17:25:27
a car maker doesn't need to understand how the iron that he is using is created.And a theory of how the universe evolved since the BB does not need to understand where the BB came from.
Why don't you recognise that it is the same principle?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2021 17:27:06
Theory D needs only some energy for the first BH.It also needs a mechanism to turn that energy into a BH.
But the real problem is that you need to tell us where the energy came from.
(In fact it came from the BB)
And then you need to explain why, if that energy forms BH, why isn't the universe full of BH.
Basically, your idea is hopeless.
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2021 17:31:37
I hope that we all agree that this kind of energy is available in the empty vacuum energy.Only because something created it.
What created it?
Please tell us.
Post by: Kryptid on 05/09/2021 17:35:34
Our scientists claim that the CURRENT vacuum energy is real.
Since when have you cared about what scientists claimed?
So, even if they have some sort of mistake and it isn't 10^91 but only 10^10 or less it is still ok.
What if the mistake is that there is zero energy? When was the vacuum measured to have any energy at all? Measurements are required, remember? It's one of your rules. It's also your rule that math alone is not enough.
Once we agree with that - Theory D can start to work.
Okay, then how about we get to the next step? Do you know how that vacuum energy turned into a black hole?
Only because something created it.
What created it?
Please tell us.
I second this question. Please tell us what created that vacuum energy, Dave.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/09/2021 20:12:20
What if the mistake is that there is zero energy? When was the vacuum measured to have any energy at all? Measurements are required, remember? It's one of your rules. It's also your rule that math alone is not enough.The vacuum energy is located in front of our eyes.
Our scientists could measure that energy by a recent supernova.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
"The recent supernova results suggest that the vacuum energy density is close to this limit: rho(vacuum) = 0.75*rho(critical) = 6*10-30 gm/cc."
So, this time they do not claim for 10^91 but at least they claim that they have made real measurement for that vacuum energy.
Since when have you cared about what scientists claimed?There is big difference between the imagination of the BBT scientists to that real measurements by our scientists.
Therefore, how can you compare the BBT imagination of our BBT scientists about the energy that had created in the universe 13.8BY ago from nothing to real measurements that they do today?
Okay, then how about we get to the next step? Do you know how that vacuum energy turned into a black hole?Did you read the message from BC.
He claims that it is feasible.
However, he is really afraid that there will be too many of those BH. Therefore, after infinite time some of those BHs might hide in his room under his bed.
I second this question. Please tell us what created that vacuum energy, Dave.There is no need for that.
As we can measure that energy it proves that it is real.
If it is real then it isn't my job to explain it.
I can just use it in theory D.
Post by: Dave Lev on 05/09/2021 20:23:15
But the real problem is that you need to tell us where the energy came from.Theory D doesn't need the BBT.
(In fact it came from the BB)
So, as I don't force you to use theory D in your BBT, please don't force me to use your imagination BBT in my modeling.
The vacuum energy is real and it doesn't need the BBT for that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
"Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum. These particles are always created out of the vacuum in particle–antiparticle pairs, which in most cases shortly annihilate each other and disappear."
So please keep the BBT away from theory D.
Post by: Kryptid on 05/09/2021 20:48:33
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2021 21:19:14
Theory D doesn't need the BBT.Theory D needs the vacuum energy.
So it needs to tell us where the vacuum energy comes from .
Without it, there's no explanation of where the energy comes from.
In the same was you want us to explain where the energy comes from that drives the BBT, you need to explain where the vacuum energy comes from.
It makes no sense to say
As we can measure that energy it proves that it is real.For a start we can not measure it.
But more importantly, you don't seem to understand that we can measure the BB- we see the Hubble constant and the CMBR.
We see the energy in the universe so we don't need to explain it.
Or, if you think we do need to explain it, then you do too.
You seem to have one set of rules for what teh BBT has to do, but a totally different view on what "Theory" D has to do.
Why can "Theory" D get away with saying " there is vacuum energy" but the BBT can't get away with saying "there is BB energy"?
What's the difference?
As far as I can tell the only differences are that the BBT doesn't break the conservation laws and it doesn't predict a universe full of nothing but black holes and it doesn't need "magic" to turn the vacuum energy into a BH. (I say magic, because we all know that physics will not do that).
Why are you giving "Theory" D a free ride?
Post by: Bored chemist on 05/09/2021 21:27:07
He claims that it is feasible.As usual, you miss the point.
However, he is really afraid that there will be too many of those BH. Therefore, after infinite time some of those BHs might hide in his room under his bed.
I said that it was feasible enough to consider what would happen if it was true.
And I considered what would happen if there was some mechanism that generated BH.
And the answer is that, if such a mechanism existed, and if (as you claim) it has had infinite time, then there must be an infinite number of BH.
So they should be everywhere.
So we know that , while it might be "feasible", it is incompatible with your ideas and the observation that we are not in a BH.
So, either it's wrong, or your idea is wrong.
But your idea depends on it, so your idea is wrong anyway.
That is not a yes or no answer, Dave. Give me an actual yes or no. Do you know how vacuum energy turned into the first black hole? I will not stop asking until you give a proper answer. So if you don't want me to keep asking you for the next ten pages, go ahead and answer it.I second this question.
So it looks like Kryptid and I will just keep on asking
"Do you know where the vacuum energy came from, and do you know how it made a black hole?"
until you answer.
Post by: Dave Lev on 06/09/2021 09:55:50
How can you reject the clear observation/measurements of our scientists?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:12:20For a start we cannot measure it.
As we can measure that energy it proves that it is real.
The vacuum energy is located in front of our eyes.So, the vacuum energy is real and therefore we do not need to explain its existence.
Our scientists could measure that energy by a recent supernova.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
"The recent supernova results suggest that the vacuum energy density is close to this limit: rho(vacuum) = 0.75*rho(critical) = 6*10-30 gm/cc."
But more importantly, you don't seem to understand that we can measure the BB- we see the Hubble constant and the CMBR.Yes, the CMBR is real and Hubble measurements are real.
We see the energy in the universe so we don't need to explain it.
Therefore, we also do not need to explain their existence.
However, those observations don't prove any aspect of the BBT due to the following:
1. CMBR - the CMBR lever is only 2.7K. That is the real story of the CMBH. So if you can take this specific energy and set your BBT that would be perfectly OK. However, we all agree that this energy by itself can't help the BBT. You need much more energy. So you took that energy and multiply it by millions over billions and hope that this assumption is real. I claim that this is a fatal mistake. The CMBR is real but your assumption that you can multiply it by any number that you wish is fatal error.
Please be aware that for an infinite universe you need infinite energy. That is absolutely not realistic.
I would also like to remind you that so far you didn't find any observation that could support your imagination about the CMBR level in the past.
You refuse to answer my following question:
3. Show that the observed heat energy/temp works according the BBT exactions.We clearly observe far away galaxies.
Our scientists claim that at the Big Bang moment our Universe temp was ultra high.
Even after 600,000 Years the temp was still very high.
We clearly observe far end galaxies from that time period. So, why don't you verify the temp of those galaxies? If their temp meets the BBT expectations, it is good indication for the BBT. If not, then please set the BBT in the nearest garbage for good.
Why none of them reflects the imagination CMBR that you dream on?
You have totally failed to prove that the CMBR in the past was higher that its current Level.
That by itself is good enough to set the BBT deep in the garbage.
2. Hubble measurements - Hubble measurements are real. However, Hubble only measured the far end galaxies expansions. He didn't measure the expansion of the space itself. Therefore, your assumption that the galaxies expansion means by definition the space expansion is one of the highest sever mistake of our scientist!
So, far you couldn't prove that there is any sort of expansion in the space. It is all deep your imagination without any real prove for that. You just failed to understand why the far end galaxies moving away from us at that ultra high velocity and therefore, you invent that useless theory of space expansion.
Please - without real prove for that space expansion - your imagination should be set deep in the garbage.
Why can "Theory" D get away with saying " there is vacuum energy" but the BBT can't get away with saying "there is BB energy"?There is no difference.
What's the difference?
If the CMBR - AS-IS can help you for the BBT, then your can do so.
Its ok for us to agree that the CMBR represents the average temp of the current Universe. You can claim that in some arias the temp might be higher and at other arias the temp might be lower. Therefore if it help you, you can multiply that energy/temp by some numbers (10, 50, 100). But please, you can't just take it almost to the infinity just because that what is needed for the BBT.
Therefore, as both, the CMBR and the vacuum energy were confirmed by our scientists, then as I accept the existence of the CMBR, you have to except the existence of the vacuum energy.
However, I agree that somehow I need to explain how the Vacuum energy could set the first BH.
That is not a yes or no answer, Dave. Give me an actual yes or no. Do you know how vacuum energy turned into the first black hole? I will not stop asking until you give a proper answer. So if you don't want me to keep asking you for the next ten pages, go ahead and answer it.Yes, I can offer an answer for you.
However, before I start, I would like highlight that you don't have any prove for how the BIg Bang got its energy and how that imagination energy turned into that Big Bang.
Therefore, if you try to criticize other theory, please first verify that your theory can bypass your questions.
Hence -
1. The BBT totally failed to prove the source of Big Bang energy
2. The BBT totally failed prove/explain how that imagination energy turned into that Big Bang
However, I can do it much better than the BBT.
The Vacuum energy is real and it was measured by our scientists.
They also explain the following:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energyHence, Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of vacuum fluctuations which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum.
"Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum. These particles are always created out of the vacuum in particle–antiparticle pairs, which in most cases shortly annihilate each other and disappear."
They also claim that due to the annihilate process they pop up and disappear
Therefore,
When our scientists use that supernova to measure the Vacuum energy, they actually observe that energy that pop up and disappear.
Our scientists have calculated that the total energy in the vacuum could get up to 10^91.
Therefore, I would compare it to the light energy of a blinking long line of Leds. Each led light on at different time and their lights disappear short after. Therefore, the following 6*10-30 gm/cc represent the average energy per cc in the blinking vacuum fluctuations.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.htmlHence, in each cc the vacuum energy could move from zero up to 10^91 while the average energy is only 6*10-30 gm/cc.
"The recent supernova results suggest that the vacuum energy density is close to this limit: rho(vacuum) = 0.75*rho(critical) = 6*10-30 gm/cc."
Therefore, if the energy in a specific cc is high enough it could potentially be converted into a BH.
I really don't know the chance for that activity
However, I agree with BC that in the Infinite Universe after the infinite time that activity should take place.
In any case, I have proved that theory D can use the real energy that is there in the empty vacuum space of the infinite Universe. I hope that I have found the feasibility how the first BH had been created from that real energy.
Please remember that the BBT failed on those two criteria.
Therefore, do you confirm that even if you are not fully convinced with my explanation, it is very clear that theory D offers much more realistic solutions in those two criteria than the BBT?
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2021 10:45:51
So, the vacuum energy is real and therefore we do not need to explain its existence.The universe is real. We do not need to explain its existence.
"Theory D" is a waste of time.
You can stop now.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2021 10:49:11
Please be aware that for an infinite universe you need infinite energy. That is absolutely not realistic.OK, what happens if you have an infinitely large universe- as you claim, and a vacuum energy of
6*10-30 gm/cc."as you claim.
The answer is that you get an infinite energy.
So, you have contradicted yourself.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2021 10:53:31
We clearly observe far away galaxies.Because the galaxies and the CMBR are completely different things.
Why none of them reflects the imagination CMBR that you dream on?
Show that the observed heat energy/temp works according the BBT exactions.Very roughly, the universe expanded a lot and that stretched the wavelengths from BBR corresponding to about 10,000 K to about 2.7K or so.
The galaxies formed a long time after the inflation so their radiation was not affected by it.
Why would it be?
Your question is absurd- that's why I didn't answer it.
Post by: Bored chemist on 06/09/2021 10:53:59
"Do you know where the vacuum energy came from, and do you know how it made a black hole?"
Post by: Kryptid on 06/09/2021 21:36:09
Yes, I can offer an answer for you.
However, before I start, I would like highlight that you don't have any prove for how the BIg Bang got its energy and how that imagination energy turned into that Big Bang.
Therefore, if you try to criticize other theory, please first verify that your theory can bypass your questions.
Hence -
1. The BBT totally failed to prove the source of Big Bang energy
2. The BBT totally failed prove/explain how that imagination energy turned into that Big Bang
The Big Bang theory isn't "my" theory. I'm not even defending it anymore. I fully recognize that the Big Bang theory does not explain everything.
Our scientists have calculated that the total energy in the vacuum could get up to 10^91.
You can't use that 1091 g/cc figure, though. No such incredible density of vacuum energy has ever been measured or proven (remember, it's just a mathematical prediction). According to your own posts, only 6 x 10-30 g/cc has been measured. Measurements and proof are required, according to your rules:
How can we distinguish between real theories to science fiction theory?
Don't you think that the only way to prove any theory is to set an expectation and validate those expectations by real measurements?
Science is not a wishful list.
If you think something - you have to prove it by solid evidence.
I think differently – "Science is all about proof".
Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more.
Please remember - the OBSERVATION is above any law and any mathematics.
There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.
We must adjust our mathematics to meet the real observation!!!
They have to prove those ideas ONLY by real observations and verifications.
Hence, in each cc the vacuum energy could move from zero up to 10^91 while the average energy is only 6*10-30 gm/cc.
According to what measurement or proof?
Therefore, if the energy in a specific cc is high enough it could potentially be converted into a BH.
What real measurement has been done that demonstrates vacuum energy can actually attain that kind of energy density in reality? Remember math alone can't be used as evidence:
Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/09/2021 07:15:41
You can't use that 10^91 g/cc figure, though. No such incredible density of vacuum energy has ever been measured or proven (remember, it's just a mathematical prediction). According to your own posts, only 6 x 10-30 g/cc has been measured. Measurements and proof are required, according to your rules:Yes, the 10^91 g/cc Vacuum energy figure is based on our scientists mathematical prediction. Therefore, our scientists told us what might be the upper level of that vacuum energy (although they have never measured that king of energy).
From the other side, we all know that this energy pop up and disappear short after.
Therefore, we can expect that there are cc's with just zero energy.
Hence, when our scientists have clearly measured the 6 x 10-30 g/cc level this level represents the average energy in that volume per cc.
Now read again my explanation:
When our scientists use that supernova to measure the Vacuum energy, they actually observe that energy that pop up and disappear.
Our scientists have calculated that the total energy in the vacuum could get up to 10^91.
Therefore, I would compare it to the light energy of a blinking long line of Leds. Each led light on at different time and their lights disappear short after. Therefore, the following 6*10-30 gm/cc represent the average energy per cc in the blinking vacuum fluctuations.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 05/09/2021 20:12:20
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
"The recent supernova results suggest that the vacuum energy density is close to this limit: rho(vacuum) = 0.75*rho(critical) = 6*10-30 gm/cc."
Hence, in each cc the vacuum energy could move from zero up to 10^91 while the average energy is only 6*10-30 gm/cc.
The whole idea is that the 6*10-30 gm/cc doesn't really represents the real energy in each and every cc from our location to that supernova.
It just represents the average measured energy per cc.
As we clearly know that in some (or even most) of the cc the vacuum energy should be zero, than in order to get that 6*10-30 gm/c in some other cc the energy must be higher.
Hence, if for example at 50% of the cc the energy is zero, than in the other 50% the energy must be 2*6*10-30 gm/cc
Don't you agree that the chance for the vacuum energy to pop up is quite low?
Therefore, I would estimate that in any given moment just a few cc (in that long distance from our location all the way to that supernova) would pop up and disappear short after.
Therefore, do you agree that due to the nature activity of the vacuum fluctuations it is very clear that in order to get to that average measured 6*10-30 gm/cc those few cc that pop up must have very relatively high vacuum energy?
It is also very clear that almost all of those vacuum fluctuations would die before setting any impact.
Our scientists had confirmed that this vacuum fluctuations could potentially carry an energy of almost 10^91 gm/cc.
Therefore, do you agree that after trillions over trillions over.... trillions vacuum fluctuations pop ups, there is a chance that one of them would carry enough energy to set the first BH?
The Big Bang theory isn't "my" theory. I'm not even defending it anymore. I fully recognize that the Big Bang theory does not explain everything.The BBT is Unbeatable.
Our scientists would do whatever it takes to keep it forever and ever and ever.
They don't care that they have no real energy source for that Big Bang.
They also don't care why and how the Big Bang started.
In any theory it is expected that you have to set expectations. If you observe something that contradicts your theory, then you should set this theory deep in the garbage.
That is correct to all the theories that our scientists have developed with one exception - The BBT theory.
In that BBT, Our scientists set the expectations, but those expectations are very flexible. Therefore, they really don't care on any observation that contradicts the BBT, as they are ready to update the BBT to meet any contradicted observation.
As an example:
The agre of the Universe - You have stated that if you would discover that the age of the Universe must be higher than 13.8 BY than it proves that the BBT is useless.
Therefore, There was a time that our scientists thought that the maximal radius of the entire universe is just 13 .8 BY (Visible universe)
Later on they have changed it to 46 BLY (Observable Universe).
Now they start to understand that the Universe size could be even infinite.
So, how can you fit infinite universe in only 13.8 BY?
BC found the solution. He calls it - Inflation.
So, by using just one word converts an expected finite universe with a relatively compact size to infinite size.
Please be aware that the meaning of infinite size is infinite universes of the observable size.
Hence, you take a story that could at that maximal meet a universe which is bigger by three times than the maximal expansion of the speed of light and multiply it by infinite.
How lovely.
Let's focus on the CMBR
Well, the CMBR story is quite simple:We clearly observe far away galaxies.Because the galaxies and the CMBR are completely different things.
Why none of them reflects the imagination CMBR that you dream on?Show that the observed heat energy/temp works according the BBT exactions.Very roughly, the universe expanded a lot and that stretched the wavelengths from BBR corresponding to about 10,000 K to about 2.7K or so.
The galaxies formed a long time after the inflation so their radiation was not affected by it.
Why would it be?
Your question is absurd- that's why I didn't answer it.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html
"Protons and electrons combine to form neutral hydrogen. Universe becomes transparent. Temperature is T=3000 K, time is 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Ordinary matter can now fall into the dark matter clumps. The CMB travels freely from this time until now, so the CMB anisotropy gives a picture of the Universe at this time."
So, the CMBR starts when the age of the Universe was 380,000 years at T=3000K.
The age of the earliest observed galaxy is only 200 M years after the Big Bang.
https://www.space.com/11386-galaxies-formation-big-bang-hubble-telescope.html
Using several different telescopes, astronomers have discovered a distant galaxy whose stars appear to have formed 200 million years after the Big Bang, the explosive event that brought the universe into being.
Therefore, based on the BBT, that galaxy existed while the CMB was still quite high.
In order to verify if the BBT is real or fiction we just need to verify the following:
1. What is the expected CMBR when the age of the Universe was only 200 MY
2. Verify the CMBR temp at that earliest observed galaxy.
If we discover a fit between the expected CMBR temp, to the measured BBT then we can use this fit as an indication that supports the BBT.
However, I'm sure that our BBT scientists would never abandon the BBT.
If they would discover sever temp difference, they would just update their exactions to the measured temp.
So, the BBT strategy is quite simple:
Whenever there is a contradiction between the BBT' expectation to the observed data, then our scientists update the BBT' expectation and close the gap.
Do you know how many times this BBT theory had been update to meet a new contradicted observation?
Therefore, the BBT is unbeatable.
The universe is real. We do not need to explain its existence.Well, the BBT is just imagination but it is unbeatable, while theory D is the only ultimate theory for our Universe.
"Theory D" is a waste of time.
You can stop now.
I start to think that I waste my time as it seems that you and all the BBT scientists would never ever give up.
Therefore, in order for me to take a decision.
Would you kindly tell me what kind of observation/evidence/discovery could convince once and for all that BBT is useless (or actually nothing can do so and therefore I really waste my time)?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2021 08:44:02
The BBT is Unbeatable.Whereas "theory" D is beaten on a number of counts- not least that the universe should be full of BH, but isn't.
It's just that Dave doesn't understand his own theory.
It also doesn't deal with Olber's paradox.
Hence, when our scientists have clearly measured the 6 x 10-30 g/cc level this level represents the average energy in that volume per cc.
When and how did they measure it?
If, as you claim, the universe is infinite, how do you measure an average over the whole of it- when most of it is too far away to observe?
Would you kindly tell me what kind of observation/evidence/discovery could convince once and for all that BBT is useless (or actually nothing can do so and therefore I really waste my time)?We already did that.
An object that's clearly older than 40 billion years would do.
There was a brief discussion about blue dwarf stars.
Why are you asking the question after we already answered it clearly for you?
Also why do you not answer our question?
Is it because you know that you are wrong?
"Do you know where the vacuum energy came from, and do you know how it made a black hole?"
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2021 08:56:31
In order to verify if the BBT is real or fiction we just need to verify the following:
1. What is the expected CMBR when the age of the Universe was only 200 MY
2. Verify the CMBR temp at that earliest observed galaxy.
If we discover a fit between the expected CMBR temp, to the measured BBT then we can use this fit as an indication that supports the BBT.
For what it is worth, the estimated temperature of the 200 M year old universe is about 60K.
The stars in the galaxy would have been much hotter.
So what?
Instead of applying that to some distant past- 200 M years after the big bang, let's apply it to today.
We see the CMBR is about 2.7K
And we see the stars in that galaxy as much much hotter than that.
Obviously, the stars are always going to be much hotter than the background, that's why stars shine.
So your question only shows that you do not understand the situation.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2021 08:57:46
So, the BBT strategy is quite simple:Updating theories in the light of new information is how science works.
Whenever there is a contradiction between the BBT' expectation to the observed data, then our scientists update the BBT' expectation and close the gap
Why did you not know that?
Post by: Kryptid on 07/09/2021 19:05:27
(although they have never measured that king of energy).
So your rules mean we have to throw it out.
Therefore, do you agree that due to the nature activity of the vacuum fluctuations it is very clear that in order to get to that average measured 6*10-30 gm/cc those few cc that pop up must have very relatively high vacuum energy?
No. You can have an average energy density of 6 x 10-30 g/cc when the maximum possible density is 7 x 10-30 g/cc and the minimum possible density is 5 x 10-30 g/cc. The maximum possible energy density of the vacuum has never been measured.
Our scientists had confirmed that this vacuum fluctuations could potentially carry an energy of almost 10^91 gm/cc.
Actually, that was predicted to be the vacuum's actual energy density, not merely a maximum possible energy density. The fact that the actual measured energy density of the vacuum is many, many times lower than the predicted value has been called the "cosmological constant problem". The difference between the measured value and the predicted value is around 120 orders of magnitude. So the actual, measured energy density of the vacuum is around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times lower than the predicted value. Here's what you said about math conflicting with observations:
We have to prove what we see based on real universe and not on some sort of unrealistic mathematical assumptions/calculations.
Please remember - the OBSERVATION is above any law and any mathematics.
There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.
We must adjust our mathematics to meet the real observation!!!
So again, I reiterate, you cannot use that 1091 g/cc figure. According to your rules, you can only use what has been measured.
Therefore, do you agree that after trillions over trillions over.... trillions vacuum fluctuations pop ups, there is a chance that one of them would carry enough energy to set the first BH?
Not if it can't reach the needed density. You need to show that it can by using actual observational evidence and measurements.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/09/2021 21:09:12
As long as you agree that at least one BH could be created from the Vacuum energy, then theory D can start working without any need for any external source of energy as the BBT needs.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:15:41Whereas "theory" D is beaten on a number of counts- not least that the universe should be full of BH, but isn't.
The BBT is Unbeatable.
Therefore, theory D is real while BBT is just imagination.
It's just that Dave doesn't understand his own theory.I have already explained why theory D overcomes on Olber's paradox.
It also doesn't deal with Olber's paradox.
The explanation is very simple:
When we observe an object with a redshift of 1 it means that this object is moving away from us at the speed of the light.
When we observe an object with a redshift of 13 it means that this object is moving away from us 13 times the speed of the light.
The redshift of the CMBR is about 1100.
That is an indication that we get radiation from a sphere of objects that are moving away from us at about 1100 the speed of light.
Hence, in any direction that we would look, there are infinite no of stars and galaxies.
However, as they are moving away from us at a velocity faster than the speed of light, there is a limit for how many stars/galaxies we can really see.
Therefore, as we only observe a finite number of stars/galaxies in our infinite universe Olber's paradox is not relevant.
On the other hand, that activity proves that at any location that we would be in that infinite universe we would get the same CMBR radiation, and therefore, we could think that we are located at the center on the universe (which is - incorrect).
Did you had the chance to read the article?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:15:41When and how did they measure it?
Hence, when our scientists have clearly measured the 6 x 10-30 g/cc level this level represents the average energy in that volume per cc.
Why do you ask me this question? Its better for you to ask them.
If, as you claim, the universe is infinite, how do you measure an average over the whole of it- when most of it is too far away to observe?Our scientists have specifically indicated that they are using the supernova to verify the Vacuum energy.
So, the distance from our location to that supernova is finite. Hence, the get the result of the vacuum energy in that finite distance all the way to the supernova,
Why only 40 BY?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:15:41We already did that.
Would you kindly tell me what kind of observation/evidence/discovery could convince once and for all that BBT is useless (or actually nothing can do so and therefore I really waste my time)?
An object that's clearly older than 40 billion years would do.
There was a brief discussion about blue dwarf stars.
What wrong with 15BY or even 18BY?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-scientists-determi/
According to our best available estimates, stars having about 90 percent of the sun's mass are just now starting to die in the globulars. These stars are most probably around 15 billion years old, but they could conceivably be as young as 12 billion years or as old as 18 billion years. It is very unlikely that most of them could be either younger or older than this range. This estimate is already accurate enough to place some very interesting limits on the age and life history of the universe."
Our scientists focus on the globular cluster. Those stars are relatively young as all of them had been created in the center of the MY and ejected outwards.
They further they would look the older stars they would find.
It is very clear to me that when we would improve our technology and look further away, we would see some stars with age of over than 100 BY.
"Do you know where the vacuum energy came from, and do you know how it made a black hole?"Dear BC
It is really not fair to ask a question when you don't have an answer for that in your BBT.
In Theory D I'm using the Vacuum energy that is there in the empty space.
You think that this energy is there due to your lovely BBT.
However, you have totally failed to explain the source of the BBT energy.
So, as you can't offer any real valid source of energy for the BBT, please don't try to claim that the vacuum energy is there due to the BBT.
For what it is worth, the estimated temperature of the 200 M year old universe is about 60K.CMBR radiation is different from the star radiation.
The stars in the galaxy would have been much hotter.
So what?
We should find a technology to monitor that CMBR at that far away galaxy.
Only if we can find that the CMBR there is 60K instead of our current 2.7K we can know that the BBT is realistic.
That is correct ONLY if your mission is to hold this theory forever and ever.So, the BBT strategy is quite simple:Updating theories in the light of new information is how science works.
Whenever there is a contradiction between the BBT' expectation to the observed data, then our scientists update the BBT' expectation and close the gap
Why did you not know that?
In real life if you have a contradiction between observations to the theory, you MUST set the theory in the garbage and start from zero.
If you were really wish to focus on science, than you had to clear the table from the BBT, set all the observations and start from zero.
If you do so, you would get to theory D.
Unfortunately for all of us, you and all the other BBT scientists have only one mission - protecting the BBT.
You would never let any evidence/observation to convince you that you are wrong.
Therefore, you would continue to ignore any evidence/observation that contradicts the BBT and try to find a way how to hold that BBT imagination forever and ever and ever.
Good Luck
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2021 21:12:37
Therefore, do you agree that after trillions over trillions over.... trillions vacuum fluctuations pop ups, there is a chance that one of them would carry enough energy to set the first BH?If there is, then over an infinite time, there are an infinite number of BH.
The universe should be full of them.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2021 21:32:37
then theory D can start working without any need for any external source of energy as the BBT needs.That is not true.
Your idea of a BH making a universe is impossible.
You pretend that it works because you miss out the vital step in the BH evaporation process where a negative mass particle falls into the BH.
You say that you can do that because ew never observe negative mass particles.
But, in fact, we have.
So your bleating that "negative mass is an imagination" is wrong.
So you have no excuse for ignoring the conservation of mass
So your "process" for making a universe from a BH is a mistake.
It is based on your mistaken belief that there are no negative mass particles.
But we see them.
Physicist Peter Engels and a team of colleagues at Washington State University reported the observation of negative mass behaviour in rubidium atoms.
So the "imagination" as you would call it is the idea that BH can create a universe.
Since "Theory" D is plainly wrong, you should bin it.
That is correct ONLY if your mission is to hold this theory forever and ever.You just said that you only change the theory if you want it to stay the same for ever.
That is nonsense, isn't it?
Updating theories (and occasionally binning them) is what science does.
Why only 40 BY?Sorry, I mistyped it 14 billion would do.
But... you don't have any, do you?
So it hardly matters.
I have already explained why theory D overcomes on Olber's paradox.It is also plainly wrong.
The explanation is very simple:
So you only think you have solved it, in fact, you just didn't understand it.
You say that the distant stars are moving away so fast that we can not see them.
But consider a speck of dust that is half way to that star.
It is surrounded by stars, so it will get hot.
Now consider a speck a tenth of the way to the distant star It is also surrounded by stars. \It will get hot.
And now consider that photon-photon scattering, while rare, does happen.
So you don't even need the dust.
The light itself will do the job.
That's the problem, once you have an infinite number of stars, any non-zero fraction of their light is still impossibly bright.
And, of course, you have no actual mechanism for producing the stars because you ignore the importance of negative mass (which you absolutely must have, to get round the mass conservation problem).
So, you have no mechanism for a BH making a universe, though you mistakenly think you have.
You have no way to address Olber's paradox, though you mistakenly think you have.
You have no explanation for the vacuum energy, though you mistakenly think you have.
You have no explanation of how that energy would form a BH , though you mistakenly think you have.
You have nor explanation for the fact that, if your ideas were right the universe would be literally full of BH , though you mistakenly think you have.
And yet you think your joke of a "theory" is better than the BBT and all the people who do understand science are wrong- because you don't understand much of anything.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 10:53:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/09/2021 21:27:07
"Do you know where the vacuum energy came from, and do you know how it made a black hole?"
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/09/2021 21:39:52
Would you kindly discuss it with kryptid and get to final conclusion?Therefore, do you agree that after trillions over trillions over.... trillions vacuum fluctuations pop ups, there is a chance that one of them would carry enough energy to set the first BH?If there is, then over an infinite time, there are an infinite number of BH.
The universe should be full of them.
You tell me about infinite BHs due to Vacuum energy and he tells me about zero BH.
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:15:41So, you fully confirm that the predicted vacuum energy should be higher.
Our scientists had confirmed that this vacuum fluctuations could potentially carry an energy of almost 10^91 gm/cc.
Actually, that was predicted to be the vacuum's actual energy density, not merely a maximum possible energy density. The fact that the actual measured energy density of the vacuum is many, many times lower than the predicted value has been called the "cosmological constant problem". The difference between the measured value and the predicted value is around 120 orders of magnitude. So the actual, measured energy density of the vacuum is around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times lower than the predicted value. Here's what you said about math conflicting with observations:
Therefore, why is it so difficult for you to understand that potentially, the energy in the vacuum could be higher than the measured level?
So again, I reiterate, you cannot use that 1091 g/cc figure. According to your rules, you can only use what has been measured.That is incorrect.
The measured level doesn't contradict the predicted level.
Please remember that this energy isn't stable.
It actually disappears almost as soon as it pop up.
So, the chance to catch the maximal average higher energy is not so high.
Therefore, we are lucky that we got some energy.
Hence, why can't we think that the current measured level (although it is very low) is excellent indication that the Vacuum energy is real.
Not if it can't reach the needed density. You need to show that it can by using actual observational evidence and measurements.We all agree that the Vacuum energy is real.
We also agree that the predicted energy (r let me call it the potential vacuum energy) is also there.
Therefore, you have to agree that there is a possibility after infinite time for creating a BH from this energy without any need to import external energy from unknown source as it is in the BBT.
So, the energy for the first BH in theory D is much more realistic than the imagination ultra high energy request for the BBT that came out of nothing.
How can you claim that it is realistic to consider that the whole energy for our entire infinite universe had been delivered by BBT without any valid source for that, while creating single BH from the vacuum energy that exists in our infinite universe is not realistic?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/09/2021 21:43:53
Dear BCQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 21:09:12That is not true.
then theory D can start working without any need for any external source of energy as the BBT needs.
Your idea of a BH making a universe is impossible.
You pretend that it works because you miss out the vital step in the BH evaporation process where a negative mass particle falls into the BH.
You say that you can do that because ew never observe negative mass particles.
But, in fact, we have.
So your bleating that "negative mass is an imagination" is wrong.
We are dealing with the first step of theory D.
Once we all agree that BH's could be created from the Vacuum energy without any request for imaginary energy (as it is needed for the BBT) we will move on to the next step that you have just mentioned.
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2021 21:50:25
We are dealing with the first step of theory D.Why?
None of the steps work but.... ok.
Here's the first step
Where did the vacuum energy come from?
The real scientists say it was produced by the BB.
What's your "imagination"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 07/09/2021 21:51:23
You tell me about infinite BHs due to Vacuum energy and he tells me about zero BH.Either way, you are wrong, aren't you?
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/09/2021 21:52:12
So, you have no mechanism for a BH making a universe, though you mistakenly think you have.You have no explanation for the source of the BBT energy, though you mistakenly think you have.
You have no way to address Olber's paradox, though you mistakenly think you have.
You have no explanation for the vacuum energy, though you mistakenly think you have.
You have no explanation of how that energy would form a BH , though you mistakenly think you have.
You have nor explanation for the fact that, if your ideas were right the universe would be literally full of BH , though you mistakenly think you have.
And yet you think your joke of a "theory" is better than the BBT and all the people who do understand science are wrong- because you don't understand much of anything.
That is good enough to kill the BBT at the starting point.
On he other hand, the vacuum energy is real and its predicted energy should be much higher than the measured energy.
Therefore, theory D has real energy source to start with.
Hence, theory D can cross the first stage of its life, while BBT can't do so.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/09/2021 21:56:17
And how the BBT got its imagination energy?We are dealing with the first step of theory D.Why?
None of the steps work but.... ok.
Here's the first step
Where did the vacuum energy come from?
The real scientists say it was produced by the BB.
What's your "imagination"?
As long as you can't explain the source of energy for the BBT and how that energy had been created, you can't claim that the vacuum energy had been produced by the BBT.
Post by: Dave Lev on 07/09/2021 22:05:04
The BBT doesn't offer a real energy source even for one tiny particle.
So, how do you dare to claim for having the energy for the entire Universe including all the energy in the vacuum?
Therefore, when we discuss on real energy (as vacuum energy), it's better for you to grab the BBT and hide under the table.
Post by: Kryptid on 07/09/2021 22:58:05
Would you kindly discuss it with kryptid and get to final conclusion?
You tell me about infinite BHs due to Vacuum energy and he tells me about zero BH.
Bored chemist and I are entitled to our different opinions. Although I do agree with him that the total number of black holes in the Universe should be infinite in your model if it is possible for black holes to form from vacuum energy. That's the important word, though: "if". Well, actually, not really infinite. There should actually only be a single, infinitely-large black hole with infinite mass that formed from the merger of all of those infinite black holes. If the Universe was filled with such a single, giant black hole, there wouldn't be room for stars, planets or galaxies. But I'll leave that to Bored Chemist to explain for now.
Therefore, why is it so difficult for you to understand that potentially, the energy in the vacuum could be higher than the measured level?
Since we are playing by your rules, we can only use what is measured to be true. The measured value is 6 x 10-30 g/cc (which is less than a single electron per cubic centimeter), not 1091 g/cc. Here are some quotes of yours to, once again, remind you of your own requirements:
How can we distinguish between real theories to science fiction theory?
Don't you think that the only way to prove any theory is to set an expectation and validate those expectations by real measurements?
Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more.
We have to prove what we see based on real universe and not on some sort of unrealistic mathematical assumptions/calculations.
Science is not a wishful list.
If you think something - you have to prove it by solid evidence.
Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.
But, and this is the most relevant rule of all when it comes to vacuum energy:
Please remember - the OBSERVATION is above any law and any mathematics.
There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.
We must adjust our mathematics to meet the real observation!!!
Oh, and regards to your quote of, "the energy in the vacuum could be higher", you have this quote about "could be":
You prefer to set it under "Could be" infinite, (or: "We don't know"?).
Sorry, you must know the clear answer.
Is it infinite or not?
"Could be" is nice first step but it's not good enough
So "could be" isn't good enough. Your rules say that we "must know the clear answer".
The measured level doesn't contradict the predicted level.
If I predicted water to have a density of 1 million g/cc but measure it to have a density of 1 g/cc, then I have a major contradiction. It's the same thing with vacuum energy.
Hence, why can't we think that the current measured level (although it is very low) is excellent indication that the Vacuum energy is real.
Vacuum energy being real isn't the same as it being capable of collapsing into a black hole.
We also agree that the predicted energy (r let me call it the potential vacuum energy) is also there.
Since we agree to abide by your rules, I'm going to have to say "no" to this. Your previous quotes say that observations trump math. There are no observations that support a predicted vacuum energy of 1091 g/cc:
We have to prove what we see based on real universe and not on some sort of unrealistic mathematical assumptions/calculations.
That means we have to throw that number in the garbage.
Therefore, you have to agree that there is a possibility after infinite time for creating a BH from this energy without any need to import external energy from unknown source as it is in the BBT.
No, because you haven't provided a plausible mechanism based on real measurements. You are relying on unverified math, which is against your rules.
How can you claim that it is realistic to consider that the whole energy for our entire infinite universe had been delivered by BBT without any valid source for that, while creating single BH from the vacuum energy that exists in our infinite universe is not realistic?
I never said that. What I'm saying is that you have yet to demonstrate that a black hole popping up out of the vacuum as being realistic.
The BBT doesn't offer a real energy source even for one tiny particle.
Neither does Theory D. We've never seen vacuum energy in empty space turn into one tiny particle either (let alone a black hole).
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/09/2021 07:04:06
Since we are playing by your rules, we can only use what is measured to be true.Please - it isn't my personal rules.
I'm using logical rules.
If you don't agree with any rule - then let's discuss it.
The first rule is that you can't create anything without real energy source.
I hope that you agree with this rule.
If so, then based on your following reply we first must set the BBT deep in the garbage.
You fully confirm that the BBT has no real energy source.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 22:05:04Neither does Theory D. We've never seen vacuum energy in empty space turn into one tiny particle either (let alone a black hole).
The BBT doesn't offer a real energy source even for one tiny particle.
Therefore, with or without theory D, you and all the other BBT scientists must agree that the BBT is useless theory and should be set in deep in the garbage.
It is much better for all of us to have no theory for our universe instead of holding imagination one that is called BBT.
Therefore, once we all agree that the BBT has no real energy source and it is just irrelevant theory, we would go on and look for better theory as theory D.
If at the end we will discover that theory D is also useless, we will set it in the garbage and look for other better theory.
Therefore- Do we all agree that we should not hold any theory that has no energy source to start with?
If so, we will move on to theory D and verify the real story about its energy source that is called vacuum energy.
Based on that verification we will decide if it is going to follow the BBT into the garbage or if it can at least cross the first phase of creating a tinny BH out of that available vacuum energy in the infinite Universe.
So before we start our deep discussion about the vacuum energy, do we all agree that the BBT should be set in the garbage as it has no real energy source to start with?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 08:49:26
I'm using logical rules.No, you are not.
You have no explanation for the source of the BBT energy, though you mistakenly think you have.No it is not.
That is good enough to kill the BBT at the starting point.
For the same logical reason I explained earlier.
A theory does not have to explain everything.
But, in fact I have put forward an explanation.
the problem is that you do not understand that "before time began" makes causality a more complex issue.
However, I will see if I can make you understand your problem by a different approach.
If you think the vacuum energy was there "forever" and gave rise to a BH even though you have no idea where it came from or how that happened, I can say the same of the BB
The energy was provided by the vacuum energy and I don't know how, but it doesn't require any more magic than your idea.
That's what logic says; if you can use the vacuum energy to create a universe, then I can too.
The difference is that your idea of a BH making a universe is impossible- the mechanism you suggested is wrong because it breaks the mass/energy conservation law.
The BBT doesn't offer a real energy source even for one tiny particle.Nor does "Theory" D.
I keep asking how you make the first BH and you don't have a sensible answer.
Any answer you have given so far must be wrong because it would give an infinite number of BH
And that's not what we see.
You make a lot of noise about a theory having to agree with observation; yours does not.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 08:54:10
The first rule is that you can't create anything without real energy source.So you can not create the vacuum energy.
And without it, you certainly can not use that VE to create the first BH.
And even if you had a mechanism for that, it would (in an infinite time) create an infinite number of BH
The universe would collapse into a single hyper-massive BH.
And it has not.
But, even if you magically only have 1 BH
You are still wrong about a BH having a mechanism to create the universe because that would break the conservation laws.
So your idea is three impossible things balanced on top of eachother.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/09/2021 10:24:18
So you can not create the vacuum energy.No one needs to create the vacuum energy.
We do not need the BBT or any imagination theory to confirm the existence of the VE.
It is there in the infinite open space as it represents a natural activity in the infinite empty space.
In order to get better understanding, please read the following article:
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
“Vacuum Catastrophe” Should Be Called the Vacuum Miracle
"We tend to think of science as something that gives us the right answers. Almost always science does give us the right answer. But there is at least one case when science gives us the wrong answer – a really, really wrong answer. In fact, there is one case in which science gives us an answer wronger than any answer that you ever gave in school, even on those tests when you wrote wild guesses on your exam sheet because you had daydreamed through every class session.
The wrong answer given by science is the answer that it gives to the question: how much energy is in a vacuum?
A person not familiar with quantum mechanics tends to think of a vacuum as being just empty space. But according to quantum mechanics, empty space is not really empty. It is instead a seething froth of very short-lived particles called virtual particles. A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later. Scientist think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
You can get an idea of the modern concept of the vacuum by looking at the animation below. Each of the fleeting little specks represents one of the virtual particles that pop into existence, disappearing a fraction of a second later."
Once you confirm that the VE was always there in the infinite universe without any help from any BBT imagination, we can start our discussion about your following question:
I keep asking how you make the first BH and you don't have a sensible answer.
That's what logic says; if you can use the vacuum energy to create a universe, then I can too.Yes you can.
You can also use the VE as a starting source of energy for the BBT.
I'm ready to consider this possibility.
So, do we all agree that the VE was always there in the empty space without any need for external help from any imagination external energy source?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/09/2021 10:47:37
Please - it isn't my personal rules.
That's not what you said here:
You have confirmed that you are working according my rules.
I'm using logical rules.
Apparently, you consider the requirement of measurements and observations to be a logical rule, otherwise you wouldn't have made the following statements:
How can we distinguish between real theories to science fiction theory?
Don't you think that the only way to prove any theory is to set an expectation and validate those expectations by real measurements?
Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more.
Please remember - the OBSERVATION is above any law and any mathematics.
There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.
We must adjust our mathematics to meet the real observation!!!
Any law of science must be based on clear observation.
They have to prove those ideas ONLY by real observations and verifications.
The first rule is that you can't create anything without real energy source.
I hope that you agree with this rule.
Sure.
If so, then based on your following reply we first must set the BBT deep in the garbage.
So before we start our deep discussion about the vacuum energy, do we all agree that the BBT should be set in the garbage as it has no real energy source to start with?
It's been in the garbage for pages now. At least, that's the stance I've been taking. Bored Chemist isn't me, though, so he's free to defend the Big Bang theory all he wants.
No one needs to create the vacuum energy.
That goes against this quote of yours:
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/09/2021 11:13:20
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:04:06It's been in the garbage for pages now. At least, that's the stance I've been taking. Bored Chemist isn't me, though, so he's free to defend the Big Bang theory all he wants.
So before we start our deep discussion about the vacuum energy, do we all agree that the BBT should be set in the garbage as it has no real energy source to start with?
Do appreciate.
No it's notQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:24:18That goes against this quote of yours:
No one needs to create the vacuum energy.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/08/2021 20:54:26The Universe was always infinite.
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.
The Vacuum energy was always there, with or without the observable matter.
So, theory D starts while there is only VE in the empty infinite Universe.
My job is to explain how that energy sets the first BH and how that first BH sets our wonderful infinite universe.
Therefore, I do not start the theory while all the energy is already in our infinite Universe.
So, can we start now the discussion while the VE is there in the infinite empty Universe and there is no BBT?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 11:36:10
The Vacuum energy was always thereWhere did it come from?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 11:39:08
My job is to explain how that energy sets the first BH and how that first BH sets our wonderful infinite universe.You have not done either of those things.
You have put forward a fairy tale.
No one needs to create the vacuum energy.No one needs to create the big bang.
Like the VE, it is "just there".
Do you not understand that if you can start with the assumption that what you need is there, so can anyone else?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 11:41:12
Do appreciate.
Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 10:47:37
Quote
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:24:18
No one needs to create the vacuum energy.
That goes against this quote of yours:
No it's not
Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 10:47:37
Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/08/2021 20:54:26
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.
The Universe was always infinite.
Kryptid has pointed out the fact that you contradict yourself. You saying "No it's not" does not solve the contradiction.
It just makes you look foolish.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/09/2021 14:06:17
Vacuum energy is the property of the space itself.The Vacuum energy was always thereWhere did it come from?
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/20/what-keeps-space-empty/
"Even a "perfect" vacuum would still hold vacuum energy, the Higgs field, and spacetime curvature."
Hence, Even if all the matter and energy could be removed and blocked out from a certain region of space, there would still be three things we could never remove according to Dr. Genz: (1) vacuum energy, (2) the Higgs field, and (3) spacetime curvature.
Hence, you can't just take the vacuum energy from the space as you take a star or a galaxy from the space as it is a property of the space itself.
Therefore, no one needs to deliver that energy to the space..
Wherever there is a space (even a totally empty space) - it still carry that vacuum energy with it.
Is it clear to you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 14:08:01
Vacuum energy is the property of the space itself.Where did the space come from?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 14:10:03
Is it clear to you?I know what it is.
I asked where it came from.
You did not answer.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/09/2021 14:18:43
You have asked about the vacuum energy of the space.Vacuum energy is the property of the space itself.Where did the space come from?
Now you ask about the space itself.
So, the space was always there in our infinite 3D Universe.
You can't move it, you can't expand it.
The space is the property of the 3D infinite universe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/09/2021 14:23:02
No one needs to create the big bang.No
Like the VE, it is "just there".
The BBT energy isn't a property of space.
Therefore, you can take all of the BBT energy/mass from the space without affecting the property of the space.
Hence, Even if all the BBT energy/matter is removed and blocked out from a certain region of space, there would still be three things we could never remove according to Dr. Genz: (1) vacuum energy, (2) the Higgs field, and (3) spacetime curvature.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 14:38:02
the space was always there in our infinite 3D Universe.Please provide experimental evidence for this statement (in accordance with your own insistence that only experimental evidence should be used to support theories.)
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 14:39:24
The BBT energy isn't a property of space.Your statement, made without any evidence, can be dismissed without any evidence.
The BBT is a property of space; specifically, it is the CAUSE of space.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 14:40:22
I know what it is.You still have not answered the question.
I asked where it came from.
You did not answer.
Where did the VE come from?
Post by: Kryptid on 08/09/2021 16:16:54
Therefore, I do not start the theory while all the energy is already in our infinite Universe.
Your model starts with an infinite amount of total vacuum energy. Then your model posits that the total amount of matter and energy in the Universe today is infinite as well. So the amount of energy at the start is the same as it is now. You can't have more than infinite energy. So you are indeed starting your model off with the maximum possible energy, and thus contradict this rule:
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/09/2021 16:30:13
The ONLY real meaning of red shift is velocity.the space was always there in our infinite 3D Universe.Please provide experimental evidence for this statement (in accordance with your own insistence that only experimental evidence should be used to support theories.)
A redshift of 0.1 means 0.1c
A redshift of 1 means 1c
A redshift of 13 means 13c
A redshift of 1100 means 1100c
A far away galaxy with its redshift of 13 means that it is drifting away from us at 13 times the speed of light.
The CMBR with its redshift of about 1100 means that we get it from objects that are drifting away from us at 1100 times the speed of light.
Therefore, it proves that our universe is very very big.
Some scientists claim that it is infinite.
The meaning of infinite universe is infinite sizes of the observable universe.
Only our BBT scientists with their twisted mind don't wish to understand the real meaning of a redshift and the simple idea that you can't fit an infinite universe in only 13.8 BY.
I claim that as our current universe is infinite, then it was already infinite infinity time ago.
Therefore, our universe was always infinite in its size and in its age and it will stay infinite forever and ever.
Any real theory must fit to a universe with infinite size and infinite age.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/09/2021 16:47:57
Your model starts with an infinite amount of total vacuum energy. Then your model posits that the total amount of matter and energy in the Universe today is infinite as well. So the amount of energy at the start is the same as it is now. You can't have more than infinite energy. So you are indeed starting your model off with the maximum possible energy, and thus contradict this rule:
Well, the current VE is 6*10-30 gm/cc.
I fully agree with you that even if the VE was only 1*10^-100 gm/cc in infinite universe it would represent an infinite energy.
However, the VE is the property of the space.
You can take all the observable matter from the space but you can't take the VE from the space.
Therefore, it is our obligation to show how the observable matter had been evolved in that infinite Universe.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/09/2021 17:10:29
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/09/2021 17:39:24
So does that mean you are getting rid of this rule?No, there is no contradiction.Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.
As we can take out the observable matter from the space, then it proves that it isn't part of the empty space energy.
Therefore, as the universe started without the observable matter, the VE of the empty space doesn't include the energy of the observable matter.
Somehow we must find a way how that observable matter/energy is added to the empty space.
Therefore, new energy must be added to the universe in order to explain the evolvement of the observable matter in the infinite universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 18:13:49
No, there is no contradiction.Yes there is.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 18:14:49
I claim that as our current universe is infinite, then it was already infinite infinity time ago.But we know that's wrong, by Olber's paradox.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 18:16:51
Somehow we must find a way how that observable matter/energy is added to the empty space.There's a widely known theory about that, you may have heard of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
It has a number of interesting feature.
It agrees with all the known observations.
It does not break any of the laws of physics.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 18:17:40
As we can take out the observable matter from the spaceWe can't actually do that.
The uncertainty principle means it is impossible.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 18:20:19
The CMBR with its redshift of about 1100 means that we get it from objects that are drifting away from us at 1100 times the speed of light.No, It shows that space has expanded about 1100 fold since that radiation was emitted.
You still have not got the hang of this.
It isn't that things are moving through space faster than light- that is impossible.
What is happening is that space is expanding.
Post by: Dave Lev on 08/09/2021 20:00:56
The space is fixed and it was fixed forever and ever.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 16:30:13No, It shows that space has expanded about 1100 fold since that radiation was emitted.
The CMBR with its redshift of about 1100 means that we get it from objects that are drifting away from us at 1100 times the speed of light.
Redshift is all about velocity of far away objects/galaxies and ONLY about velocity for those objects.
Our BBT scientists have decided to twist the real meaning of redshift in order to support their BBT imagination.
Therefore, the redshift doesn't give any indication about the expansion of the space itself.
Only the twisted mind of our scientists set the connection between the expansion of the space to the redshift of those far away objects.
No.I claim that as our current universe is infinite, then it was already infinite infinity time ago.But we know that's wrong, by Olber's paradox.
I have already explained why theory D overcomes on Olber's paradox.
The explanation is very simple:
When we observe an object with a redshift of 1 it means that this object is moving away from us at the speed of the light.
When we observe an object with a redshift of 13 it means that this object is moving away from us 13 times the speed of the light.
The redshift of the CMBR is about 1100.
That is an indication that we get radiation from a sphere of objects that are moving away from us at about 1100 the speed of light.
Hence, in any direction that we would look, there are infinite no of stars and galaxies.
However, as they are moving away from us at a velocity faster than the speed of light, there is a limit for how many stars/galaxies we can really see.
Therefore, as we only observe a finite number of stars/galaxies in our infinite universe Olber's paradox is not relevant.
On the other hand, that activity proves that at any location that we would be in that infinite universe we would get the same CMBR radiation, and therefore, we could think that we are located at the center on the universe (which is - incorrect).
Well, no one is going to take out the observable matter from the space.As we can take out the observable matter from the spaceWe can't actually do that.
The uncertainty principle means it is impossible.
However, the matter is not part of the space itself.
Therefore, if theoretically we would take out all the observable matter from certain region of space we still stay with the VE at that region.
Vacuum energy is the property of the space itself.
https://www.wtamu.edu/~cbaird/sq/2012/12/20/what-keeps-space-empty/
"Even a "perfect" vacuum would still hold vacuum energy, the Higgs field, and spacetime curvature."
Hence, Even if all the matter and energy could be removed and blocked out from a certain region of space, there would still be three things we could never remove according to Dr. Genz: (1) vacuum energy, (2) the Higgs field, and (3) spacetime curvature.
Hence, you can't just take the vacuum energy from the space as you take a star or a galaxy from the space as it is a property of the space itself.
Post by: Kryptid on 08/09/2021 20:40:02
Somehow we must find a way how that observable matter/energy is added to the empty space.
Do you know how?
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 20:53:04
drifting away from us at 1100 times the speed of light.You can not travel faster than light.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 20:55:43
But, even if you could, I already explained why it wouldn't work.
You say that the distant stars are moving away so fast that we can not see them.
But consider a speck of dust that is half way to that star.
It is surrounded by stars, so it will get hot.
Now consider a speck a tenth of the way to the distant star It is also surrounded by stars. \It will get hot.
And now consider that photon-photon scattering, while rare, does happen.
So you don't even need the dust.
The light itself will do the job.
That's the problem, once you have an infinite number of stars, any non-zero fraction of their light is still impossibly bright.
So there are two reasons why you are wrong about Olber's paradox.
Post by: Bored chemist on 08/09/2021 20:58:36
You can take all the observable matter from the space
Well, no one is going to take out the observable matter from the space.
You are getting very good at contradicting yourself.
Therefore, if theoretically we would take out all the observable matter from certain region of space we still stay with the VE at that region.So what?
The question was not "what happens if you do something impossible with matter?"
The question was (and still is) "Where did the energy come from?".
Can you answer it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2021 06:07:32
Yes you can.drifting away from us at 1100 times the speed of light.You can not travel faster than light.
Redshift is all about velocity and only about velocity.
When we observe an object with a redshift of 2 it means that this object is moving away from us at twice the speed of light.
This is real observation.
However, that observation contradicts the BBT rules.
Therefore, instead of setting the BBT in the garbage, our scientists have decided to set the real meaning of the redshift observation in the garbage/jail.
Hence, (as expected) they have twisted the meaning of the redshift by "normalized" it to meet the BBT rules.
Therefore, they have told the redshift that it can't just give us an indication for pure velocity as it should, but now it has to work according to the BBT RULES as it is the King of the Universe.
This is wrong.
You can't just twist the redshift observation just to meet your theory rules.
Therefore, you and all the 100,000 BBT scientists are totally wrong!
Far away objects at a different space-time can move away from us much faster than the speed of light and their redshift is a solid evidence/observation for that.
Hence, you must IMIDIATLY free the redshift observation from its current "normalize" garbage/jail location. Based on its real observation meaning (that the CMBR radiation is coming from objects that are moving away from us at almost 1100 the speed of light) you have to set your lovely BBT much deeper in the garbage.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2021 08:31:17
Yes you can.Only in science fiction can you travel faster than light.
If your "theory" D required FTL travel then it's wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2021 08:46:11
Only in your BBT fiction far away galaxies can't move away faster than the speed of light.Yes you can.Only in science fiction can you travel faster than light.
If your "theory" D required FTL travel then it's wrong.
Please show the evidence (only real evidence) which confirms this imagination.
Do you confirm that redshift is all about velocity?
Do you agree that based on real science (without twisting it by the BBT rules), when the redshift is 1 it means a velocity of the speed of light?
If so, how could our scientists twist the real meaning of the redshift?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2021 09:00:51
Only in science fiction can you travel faster than light.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2021 09:07:17
Do you agree that based on real science (without twisting it by the BBT rules), when the redshift is 1 it means a velocity of the speed of light?No, that's only an approximation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Doppler_effect
And, no matter what you may think, the experiments have been done and they show that your interpretation is wrong.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ives%E2%80%93Stilwell_experiment
The universe does not agree with you, and you somehow thing it is because of 100,000 scientists.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2021 18:54:30
Only in science fiction can you travel faster than light.Well, do you agree with the following?
https://www.quora.com/If-nothing-is-faster-than-light-how-did-the-Big-Bang-happen-in-less-than-a-nanosecond
"At no point during the evolution of the universe did any object move faster than the vacuum speed of light at the object’s location.
However, in curved space-time, there is absolutely no rule that says that an object cannot be faster than light relative to a distant observer.
So even today, there are parts of the universe, which are inaccessible to us through observation, which (as far as we know) are moving faster than light relative to us. But that’s okay. They are not moving faster than light at their own location."
Therefore, Lorentz factor isn't applicable in curved space-time.
Based on that input, it is forbidden to use Lorenz factor that was developed for local space time on redshift that we get from far away space time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2021 19:08:47
It is completely at odds with your idea of
The space is fixed and it was fixed forever and ever.So it hardly matters if I agree with it or not.
You don't agree with it.
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2021 20:06:55
Do you realise that's talking about expanding space?Do you realize that our scientists do not measure the space expansion but ONLY the galaxies expansion/velocities?
It is completely at odds with your idea ofThe space is fixed and it was fixed forever and ever.So it hardly matters if I agree with it or not.
You don't agree with it.
Theory D clearly covers that expansion.
Actually, there is quite high similarity between the movements of the galaxies in both theories.
In the BBT each space segment is expanding and expands/moves the galaxy with it.
Therefore, if due to the expansion of each space segment each galaxy (in each segment) is moving away at velocity x (with reference to the next segment), then after 10 space segments, due to the expansion the last galaxy velocity is 10 times x with reference to the first space segment.
Exactly in the same token, in theory D each space segment represents new generation of galaxy. Therefore, if the velocity of a galaxy in each space segment is x (with reference to its mother galaxy), then after 10 segments/generations the velocity of the far end galaxy is also 10 time x.
Therefore, if based on the BBT, galaxies at far away space-time can move faster than light, then due to theory D and based on the same token galaxies at far away space time can move faster than the speed of light.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2021 20:09:07
Theory D clearly covers that expansion.Then why did you say
The space is fixed and it was fixed forever and ever.
Are you an idiot, or a liar?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2021 20:16:30
Don't you understand that there is no expansion in space in theory D, only expansion in the galaxies due to generation over generation activity?Theory D clearly covers that expansion.Then why did you sayThe space is fixed and it was fixed forever and ever.Are you an idiot, or a liar?
So, the space is fixed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2021 20:32:14
Exactly in the same token, in theory D each space segment represents new generation of galaxy. Therefore, if the velocity of a galaxy in each space segment is x (with reference to its mother galaxy), then after 10 segments/generations the velocity of the far end galaxy is also 10 time x.If you imagine filming that, and then playing the film backwards you will see everything collapse to a point.
That's the basis of the BBT.
It's good to see you are starting to realise that you have been wrong all this time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2021 20:33:24
Don't you understand that there is no expansion in space in theory D,Then you do not have this.
However, in curved space-time, there is absolutely no rule that says that an object cannot be faster than light relative to a distant observer.Because that's based on deforming space.
So even today, there are parts of the universe, which are inaccessible to us through observation, which (as far as we know) are moving faster than light relative to us. But that’s okay. They are not moving faster than light at their own location."
Therefore, Lorentz factor isn't applicable in curved space-time.
Based on that input, it is forbidden to use Lorenz factor that was developed for local space time on redshift that we get from far away space time.
So, make up your mind; are you wrong, or wrong?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2021 20:43:30
Because that's based on deforming space.In both theories the 10th galaxy gets to the same distance and same velocity with reference to the first galaxy.
So, make up your mind; are you wrong, or wrong?
So, why is it important to you to know if it is there in that same location and same velocity due to galaxies expansion or space expansion?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2021 20:53:14
So, why is it important to you to know if it is there in that same location and same velocity due to galaxies expansion or space expansion?Expansion of space gets things apparently travelling faster than light.
Expansion of matter- such as a galaxy- does not.
It's important to me because only one of them is physically possible.
Why is it not important to you?
Do you not understand it?
Have you forgotten that, when you talked a lot of nonsense about "rocket over rocket" early on in this thread, we explained to you that velocities do not add up the way you thought they did?
We explained that you have to use relativistic formulae and they show that you are wrong.
Did you not understand?
Did you think we would forget?
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2021 21:31:33
Expansion of space gets things apparently travelling faster than light.Do you confirm that our scientists can't measure the space itself?
If so, you have to agree that they can ONLY measure the velocity and locations of galaxies in space.
They have failed to explain how the far end galaxies could expand at so high velocity.
Therefore, they have invented the imagination of space expansion.
So, do you confirm once and for all that you and all the 100,000 scientists don't have any real confirmation for the expansion in the space itself?
It's important to me because only one of them is physically possible.Why is it?
How can you call the imagination of space expansion as "physically possible".
Can you please prove this "physically possible" imagination by real measurements of the space itself?
Why is it so important for you how the galaxies get to their current locations and gain their current velocities?
As an example, if American airlines and delta can carry you to the same location and exactly at the same velocity, (if we ignore the service) why do you claim that one is Ok and the other one isn't?
So, if theory D by its expansion in galaxies can deliver the 10th galaxy to the same location in space as the BBT with its space expansion and also at the same velocity, then why the imagination of space expansion is ok for you while the real expansion in galaxies isn't ok?
Please remember - we can only measure the galaxies movement and not the space movement!
Post by: Dave Lev on 09/09/2021 21:40:50
Have you forgotten that, when you talked a lot of nonsense about "rocket over rocket" early on in this thread, we explained to you that velocities do not add up the way you thought they did?You are wrong.
We explained that you have to use relativistic formulae and they show that you are wrong.
As the 10th galaxy gets to the same location and at the same velocity based on both theories, then you just can't qualify the space expansion imagination without a valid evidence for that expansion in the space itself.
Post by: Kryptid on 09/09/2021 22:16:24
Somehow we must find a way how that observable matter/energy is added to the empty space.
Do you know how?
Post by: Bored chemist on 09/09/2021 22:43:32
Do you confirm that our scientists can't measure the space itself?No
LIGO measures changes in the size of space- it follows the stretch and shrink of space as gravity waves pass through it.
Did you not realise that science actually all works?
How can you call the imagination of space expansion as "physically possible".Because we measured it.
Why do you keep calling real things "imagination"?
As an example, if American airlines and delta can carry you to the same location and exactly at the same velocity, (if we ignore the service) why do you claim that one is Ok and the other one isn't?If booth planes fly 1000 miles, but one measures their flight by looking at the ground, and the other measures it by looking at airspeed, only on plane will actually get to the destination.
Please remember - we can only measure the galaxies movement and not the space movement!No.
Why would I try to remember something which is wrong?
That would be silly.
In the real world, we can measure displacements of space itself.
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/09/2021 15:40:56
Why do you carry the name of Ligo for nothing?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:31:33No
Do you confirm that our scientists can't measure the space itself?
LIGO measures changes in the size of space- it follows the stretch and shrink of space as gravity waves pass through it.
Did you not realise that science actually all works?
In Ligo we observe how the matter (as twin BHs) affects the space due to their gravitational wave.
However, based on the BBT the space must affect the matter. (As the space itself expands it carry the matter (stars/galaxies) with it.
So, the BBT represents an opposite activity with regards to the Ligo observation.
If you still think that Ligo is the correct observation for the BBT imagination, then please introduce the article that proves that Ligo is correct indication for the expansion of the space ITSELF.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:31:33Because we measured it.
How can you call the imagination of space expansion as "physically possible".
Why do you keep calling real things "imagination"?
Please show the coordinates of the Space frame and proves that those coordinates are expanding over time (with or without the galaxies in that space).
I call it imagination, that only those 100,000 scientists can base hold so unrealistic theory as the BBT without any prove/observation for the expansion in the space itself.
You claim that you have an evidence for that - so please introduce your imagination evidence by real article.
What a nonsense.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:31:33If booth planes fly 1000 miles, but one measures their flight by looking at the ground, and the other measures it by looking at airspeed, only on plane will actually get to the destination.
As an example, if American airlines and delta can carry you to the same location and exactly at the same velocity, (if we ignore the service) why do you claim that one is Ok and the other one isn't?
I tell you that you get exactly to the same location and exactly at the same speed, so why is it so important for you how do you get over there?
Theory D is realistic as it is all about expansion of the galaxies.
The BBT is imagination as there is no valid way to verify if there is any expansion in the space itself/frame.
Can you please show the evidence/article for your "NO" imagination?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:31:33No.
Please remember - we can only measure the galaxies movement and not the space movement!
If I remember correctly, Kryptid had already confirmed that we can ONLY observe the matter in the space but we can't observe the space frame.
If you are not sure about it - please ask him about it.
Do you know how?Yes I know
Please let me finish that important discussion with BC.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/09/2021 17:15:06
Yes I know
I'm skeptical.
Quote
Please let me finish that important discussion with BC.
Based on the rest of this thread, that will never happen.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2021 17:42:31
The evidence shows that Dave is wrong.
So the discussion is really over.
But Dave isn't able to understand this, so we might be here for a while.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2021 17:47:07
Can you please show the evidence/article for your "NO" imagination?I did.
It's still LIGO.
I tell you that you get exactly to the same location and exactly at the same speed, so why is it so important for you how do you get over there?Moving with the air and moving through the air are different things for a plane.
That's why flight times UK to US are different from flight times US to UK.
The jet stream is with you in one direction and against in the other.
It's the same for galaxies.
They move through space (the oddly named "peculiar velocity") but they also move with space as space expands.
So, the problem is, you say they get to the same place, but they don't.
One gets carried a lot further because the space moves much faster than the galaxy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/09/2021 17:49:01
If I remember correctly, Kryptid had already confirmed that we can ONLY observe the matterWe observe the matter.
It has an apparent velocity which is faster than light.
But we know that's impossible.
So we know that most of the velocity is due to the expansion of space.
Kryptid's view does not contradict mine.
Your view contradicts reality...
Post by: Dave Lev on 10/09/2021 20:42:00
You have totally failed to show that Ligo gives any indication for space expansion.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:40:56I did.
Can you please show the evidence/article for your "NO" imagination?
It's still LIGO.
If that all you have then you have to know that you have no evidence for the space expansion.
It's a matter of definition.Sorry - you are using wrong evidence.
The evidence shows that Dave is wrong.
Our scientists have no indication for that imagination that is called space expansion.
Therefore, any one that would dare to claim again that we have evidence for the space expansion without offering that evidence by real article is twisting the true.
Moving with the air and moving through the air are different things for a plane.As I have stated, our scientists have no evidence for that imagination that is called space expansion.
That's why flight times UK to US are different from flight times US to UK.
The jet stream is with you in one direction and against in the other.
It's the same for galaxies.
They move through space (the oddly named "peculiar velocity") but they also move with space as space expands.
The real evidence is that we only observe the expansion of the galaxies.
Therefore, you can call the velocity due to the imagination space expansion in any name that you wish, but as long as you can't prove that imagination by real observation/evidence then your expansion is just irrelevant.
We observe the matter.So, you confirm that matter moves faster than the speed of light.
It has an apparent velocity which is faster than light.
This contradicts your other statement that nothing can move faster than light
Hence, you already knew that Olber's paradox is just nonsense
Therefore, your statement that the universe can't be infinite is absolutely wrong.I claim that as our current universe is infinite, then it was already infinite infinity time ago.But we know that's wrong, by Olber's paradox.
So, why do you waste our time for nothing???
But we know that's impossible.You have no basic clue how our universe really works.
So we know that most of the velocity is due to the expansion of space.
Instead of fighting on that imagination that is called BBT, why don't you open your mind to the real theory?
So the discussion is really over.I would never even agree ith that space expansion imagination.
But Dave isn't able to understand this, so we might be here for a while.
Therefore, the discussion on this imagination is over.
Now it's the time for me to work on the answer for Kryptid question.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/09/2021 21:07:41
Now it's the time for me to work on the answer for Kryptid question.
Just make sure your explanation follows all of your rules. Here is a sample of your quotes for you to keep in mind:
"Could be" is nice first step but it's not good enough
Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.
I think differently – "Science is all about proof".
Science is not a wishful list.
If you think something - you have to prove it by solid evidence.
We have to prove what we see based on real universe and not on some sort of unrealistic mathematical assumptions/calculations.
This is how real theory works -
You set an expectation - and you prove it by real evidence!!!
How can we distinguish between real theories to science fiction theory?
Don't you think that the only way to prove any theory is to set an expectation and validate those expectations by real measurements?
Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more.
The law of physics must be based on observation.
If we see a contradiction between any law of science to the observation - then we must change the law of science and not the observation.
The observation is the Ultimate evidence for our Universe.
There is no way to bypass the observation!
You have no authority to ignore or to bypass it even if you call yourself "scientist"
Please remember - the OBSERVATION is above any law and any mathematics.
There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.
We must adjust our mathematics to meet the real observation!!!
Any law of science must be based on clear observation.
So, can you please prove that your idea is not just an opinion?
Therefore, I request you to force him to backup his imagination/ideas by real observation, real data and real article.
They have to prove those ideas ONLY by real observations and verifications.
Any modeling must be based on real science.
What we see is what we have.
If you know science as you claim, you should backup your understanding by real observation & article.
If you can't do it, then we all should agree that this is unproved imagination.
Even if you don't like my modeling, a theory without valid source of energy is just useless theory.
We all agree that without energy for my modeling or for the BBT those two modeling should be set in the garbage.
That transformation/creation process must represent a real physical process/law.
However, if you claim that the BBT is real science, then there is no room for - we don't know" or "Hope" in real science.
There is no room for "we don't know or "Maybe".
If our scientists don't know - then please they can't tell us that they know.
If it is "maybe" then maybe they just don't know the real theory for our Universe?
How can we accept the answer of: "we don't know".
Sorry, if we speak in the name of science, we must know.
Your "We don't Know" is not an acceptable real science' answer!!!
Sorry - if you do not know than please stop all your nonsense.
Well, any theory that doesn't give full solution (which is based on real science) for the evolvement of the Universe should be set in the garbage.
As long as you ignore them all and just wait to see that maybe in the future you would find something to support your imagination, then you can't represent the science any more.
You have to explain what we see TODAY
Is it clear to you?
Don't you understand that our current Theories including the BBT is based on what we can see and not on what we haven't observed yet?
Sorry - we must base our understanding on what we see and observe.
Sorry - we can't claim that we should see something that we didn't see yet!
We must base our theory on what we clearly see and not on something that we didn't see yet.
Sorry - our scientists must explain how the Universe works based on all the CURRENT observations & evidences. They shouldn't use any sort of hope or lie as an observation.
it is your obligation to prove your imagination by real observation.
Can you please prove this imagination by real observation?
Science can't be base on "pretty sure" or expectation!
You need to prove your expectation.
Without it - any expectation is just imagination!
How could they base science or "pretty sure"???
Is it pretty sure - "yes" or "no"
Sorry - science must be based on real measurements and not on "pretty sure".
Science must be based on real observation.
The Observations and evidences are much more important than any physics law.
In order to call it a theory, First you must understand clearly how it works and then try to convince us that what you understand is correct.
There is no way to convince us that what you "don't know" is correct.
Hence - As long as you "don't know" how the BBT really works step by step - then you and all the BBT believers lie when you call the BBT as a "Theory".
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2021 00:46:46
You have totally failed to show that Ligo gives any indication for space expansion.That's the thing it does.
It monitors the expansion and contraction of space.
What point did you think you were making?
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2021 00:50:47
Sorry - you are using wrong evidence.There is no such thing as "the wrong evidence".
All evidence is essentially equivalent, but you are quite good at showing that not all interpretations of evidence are valid.
As I have stated, our scientists have no evidence for that imagination that is called space expansion.You have falsely made this statement.
Declaring yourself to have told lies does not help your case.
So, you confirm that matter moves faster than the speed of light.No
I confirm that space travels faster than light.
Stop telling lies about what I confirm.
You have no basic clue how our universe really works.No statement which I have made is at odds with the laws of physics.
Many of your statements are.
why don't you open your mind to the real theory?No real theory will contradict the laws of physics as your "theory" D does.
I would never even agree ith that space expansion
Scientists agree with evidence.
Why don't you?
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/09/2021 07:58:17
I confirm that space travels faster than light.How can you confirm that space travels faster than light, while you have no evidence/observation to prove that it even moved by one Pico mm per 13.8BY?
Stop telling lies about what I confirm.
You should know by 100% that we can only measure the observable objects and their radiation.
Therefore, there is no way for us to measure the movement/velocity of the space itself or its coordinates.
Hence, once and for all.
You have stated that: "I confirm that space travels faster than light" not because we monitor the space velocity but as we monitor the far away galaxies velocity.
As you and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists can't explain that phenomenon, you have invented the space expansion imagination.
It is not realistic to claim that the matter/galaxies in our Universe is moving faster than the speed of light due to the space expansion, and we know that there is a space expansion as the matter/galaxies in our Universe are moving faster than the speed of light.
For the last time:QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:42:00Scientists agree with evidence.
I would never even agree with that space expansion
Why don't you?
If you have evidence that proves the imagination of the space expansion/movement by real data on the space itself - then please introduce that article:
If not, then please let's close this discussion while we all agree that you have failed to offer any evidence to prove the expansion in the space itself.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2021 11:20:51
If you have evidence that proves the imagination of the space expansion/movement by real data on the space itself - then please introduce that article:LIGO
For the last time:I sincerely hope so.
How can you confirm that space travels faster than light, while you have no evidence/observationThe observation is the large red shift of distant objects.
There are two "explanations" for that.
Either there are things travelling faster than light, or the space itself is expanding.
And since we know that things do not travel through space faster than light, we (well, the ones of us who understand logic) know that the space is expanding.
As Sherlock Holmes put it "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth"
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/09/2021 14:51:20
Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:58:17No.
If you have evidence that proves the imagination of the space expansion/movement by real data on the space itself - then please introduce that article:
LIGO
You are confused.
Ligo doesn't offer any measurement for the space itself. It is all about the expansion of the matter/galaxies in the universe.
I have found the following relevant article for you:
https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-GW170817Hubble/
MEASURING THE EXPANSION OF THE UNIVERSE WITH GRAVITATIONAL WAVES
So, based on this title you might think that they have an evidence for the space expansion, But when you read it, you do understand that it is all about the galaxies expansion and not about the space expansion.
In the article it is stated that Ligo is all about data observation on GW170817:
"We have used the gravitational-wave source GW170817, which was detected by Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo on August 17 2017, to make the first-ever standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant."
Therefore, Ligo proves that this object is correlated to the Hubble constant, but it doesn't prove that the space itself is expanding.
Hence, based on Ligo we have better understanding on the expansion of the matter in the Universe, but again it doesn't offer any data on the space itself.
Hence, I fully understand your confusion.
Our scientists had confused you with that wrong impression about the expansion of the Universe.
They have to call it - the expansion of the matter in the Universe.
Actually, they don't claim for the expansion of the space itself, but the title is very confusing.
Therefore, I claim that in some way those scientists twist the true.
Theory D gives perfect explanation for that observation f the matter expansions in the Universe.
So, the results of Ligo for the expansion of this GW170817 are fully covered by theory D without any need for help by the space expansion.
ThanksQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:58:17The observation is the large red shift of distant objects.
How can you confirm that space travels faster than light, while you have no evidence/observation
There are two "explanations" for that.
Either there are things travelling faster than light, or the space itself is expanding.
I fully agree with that explanation.
So, either there are things travelling faster than light, or the space itself is expanding.
However, we all agree that in our current universe things are travelling faster than light.
That is a key message.
Therefore, from now on please do not dare to claim again that in our Universe things aren't travelling faster than light!!!
And since we know that things do not travel through space faster than light we (well, the ones of us who understand logic) know that the space is expanding.As you have no solid evidence for the expansion in the space itself, then you and all the other 100,00 BBT scientists just don't wish to know how the universe really works.
Our scientists clearly know that they only observe the galaxies but they mislead all of us with this imagination of space expansion.
I have proved that Ligo is all about galaxies expansions and not about space expansions.
Therefore, as you have totally failed to prove that the space of our universe is increasing by one Pico mm per 13.8 By, then it's the time for you to set the space expansion imagination in the garbage and open your mind to the real theory for our Universe.
As Sherlock Holmes put it "when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truthAs you have eliminated the true than whatever remains is untrue.
The galaxies expansion is the real true - Based Hubble and Ligo observation.
The space expansion is not true - Not by any kind of measurements including Ligo.
Please remember - Hubble also observed the expansion of the far end galaxies and not the expansion of the space itself.
Theory D perfectly explains that activity.
Conclusions -
You and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists have failed to offer even one real observation to support the imagination of space expansion.
Ligo & Hubble are real verification for the galaxies expansion and not for the space expansion.
Therefore, Let's agree that you have no evidence for space expansion and let me move on to the next subject.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2021 16:44:31
However, we all agree that in our current universe things are travelling faster than light.No.
The ones who understand relativity say that things can not tarvel through space faster than light.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2021 16:46:59
But when you read it, you do understand that it is all about the galaxies expansion and not about the space expansion.You missed the point.
The "message" about the galaxy was carried here on a wave traveling in spacetime.
That wave is an expansion of space in a similar way to sound being compression and expansion of air.
Ligo detects that expansion and contraction of space.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2021 16:47:31
Therefore, Let's agree that you have no evidence for space expansion and let me move on to the next subject.We can't move on until you understand this subject.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/09/2021 17:14:51
The ones who understand relativity say that things can not tarvel through space faster than light.The relativity doesn't prevent from galaxies at far away space-time to move faster than the speed of light.
Ligo detects that expansion and contraction of space.No
This is incorrect!!!
Our scientists specifically claim in LIGO that they measure a specific object.
So it is not about the expansion of the space but about the expansion of that object.
We can't move on until you understand this subject.Until you set clear evidence for the space expansion itself, then you can continue with your imagination.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2021 17:17:54
Our scientists specifically claim in LIGO that they measure a specific object.No, they measure the space between two objects- two mirrors.
So it is not about the expansion of the space but about the expansion of that object.
We can't move on until you understand this subject.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2021 17:19:13
The relativity doesn't prevent from galaxies at far away space-time to move faster than the speed of light.Relativity allows the expansion of space.
But it does forbid travel through space at more than C.
Post by: Dave Lev on 11/09/2021 21:12:29
The space doesn't reflect any radiation.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:14:51No, they measure the space between two objects- two mirrors.
Our scientists specifically claim in LIGO that they measure a specific object.
So it is not about the expansion of the space but about the expansion of that object.
So, as I have stated, they measure the expansion of those two objects- two mirrors.
In other words, they do not measure the expansion of the space itself (as the space itself has no radiation to indicate its coordinates) but they measure those two objects/mirror as they cross the space.
Based on that they can detect their expansion.
So, it is all about matter/objects expansion and not space expansion.
Relativity allows the expansion of space.I have already explained it to you that at far away space time object can move faster than the speed of light with reference to us. However, at their location they can't move faster than the speed of light.
But it does forbid travel through space at more than C.
https://www.quora.com/If-nothing-is-faster-than-light-how-did-the-Big-Bang-happen-in-less-than-a-nanosecond
"At no point during the evolution of the universe did any object move faster than the vacuum speed of light at the object’s location.
However, in curved space-time, there is absolutely no rule that says that an object cannot be faster than light relative to a distant observer.
So even today, there are parts of the universe, which are inaccessible to us through observation, which (as far as we know) are moving faster than light relative to us. But that’s okay. They are not moving faster than light at their own location."
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/09/2021 22:11:40
The space doesn't reflect any radiation.Nobody said it did.
The fact that you say that suggests that you still do not understand.
So, as I have stated, they measure the expansion of those two objects- two mirrors.No. You said they measured the expansion of an object
in LIGO that they measure a specific object.But what they measure is how far apart the two mirrors are.
And the gap between two mirrors is space, and that's what they measure.
It is important in science to be able to count to at least two.
There are plans to build more sensitive gravity wave detectors where the mirrors are on separate satellites.
That makes it even more obvious that (1) they ae measuring the space between the things and (2) you are wrong.
So, it is all about matter/objects expansion and not space expansion.No.
You still need to find out how LIGO works.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:47:31
We can't move on until you understand this subject.
I have already explained it to you that at far away space time object can move faster than the speed of light with reference to us. However, at their location they can't move faster than the speed of light.That's because they can move with space with an apparent speed greater than C but they can not move through space faster than C
Which is what I have been saying all along.
The only way you can have things travel faster than light is for space to be expanding.
The problem here is that you posted someone else's words from Quora, but you did not understand them.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:47:31
We can't move on until you understand this subject.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/09/2021 05:07:49
Yes, what they measure is how far apart the two mirrors are which means what is the distance between those two objects.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:14:51But what they measure is how far apart the two mirrors are.
in LIGO that they measure a specific object.
And the gap between two mirrors is space, and that's what they measure.
It is important in science to be able to count to at least two.
Therefore, the gap between two mirrors is not the space frame itself but it is just the distance between the two objects, and that's what they measure.
There are plans to build more sensitive gravity wave detectors where the mirrors are on separate satellites.You are wrong
That makes it even more obvious that (1) they are measuring the space between the things and (2) you are wrong.
They only can measure the distance between the two objects (not the space frame itself).
That's because they can move with space with an apparent speed greater than C but they can not move through space faster than CBased on the change in the distance per time our scientists can calculate the velocity between those two objects.
You call it "apparent speed" but that is the real velocity between the two objects and it is greater than the speed of light.
So this is all.
You can claim that it is due to the space expansion and I can claim that it is due to galaxies expansion as in reality you know by 100% that we can only measure the distance between the objects and not the space frame itself.
You can claim that the space itself is expanding and I claim that the space is not moving even by 0.00....0001 Pico mm per trillion over trillion years.
You can explain this observation by BBT and I can explain it by theory D.
Therefore, the apparent speed is actually the real speed and it is greater than the speed of light
Which is what I have been saying all along.Which is what I have been saying all along.
The only way you can have things travel faster than light is for space to be expanding.
The only way you can have things travel faster than light is when they are far away at different space-time while in each local space-time nothing can move faster than the speed of light.
Therefore, there is no need to ask the space to expand; the movement of the galaxies based on theory D is a perfect explanation for this real observation.
Please let the space do what it should do - Stay fix forever and ever!
There is also big advantage in theory D.
The space expansion imagination is Ok for far away galaxies but it can't explain the activity at relatively close distance (as the MW and Andromeda)
Therefore, you need some help from another theory that is called gravity.
However, if gravity works to explain the idea that Andromeda is moving in the direction of the MY while they are still quite far away, why that gravity doesn't pull triangulum galaxy in the direction of Andromeda while they are so close together?
Are you going to invent third theory for that?
In theory D, based on the same theory/Idea we can explain the activity at the local aria and at the ultra far away aria.
Therefore, in BBT when you use one imagination (space expansion), you need a help from other imagination (gravity) and then try to find one more imagination for galaxies that refuse to work according to your two imaginations.
In theory D the same simple explanation for "local" works perfectly also for "ultra far away" location.
That is the meaning of real science!
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2021 10:32:22
Therefore, the gap between two mirrors is not the space frame itself but it is just the distance between the two objects, and that's what they measure.Then why does it change?
You are wrongIt's not that I am wrong.
They only can measure the distance between the two objects (not the space frame itself).
It isn't my idea.
However, the people working on LIGO , who are the people who actually understand this (i.e. not you), say they are measuring space.
You failed (as I expected) to understand my other point, so here it is again.
You missed the point.
The "message" about the galaxy was carried here on a wave traveling in spacetime.
That wave is an expansion of space in a similar way to sound being compression and expansion of air.
Ligo detects that expansion and contraction of space.
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/09/2021 14:08:34
The distance between the the two objects is increasing due to the expansion in the galaxies.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:07:49Then why does it change?
Therefore, the gap between two mirrors is not the space frame itself but it is just the distance between the two objects, and that's what they measure.
Once you would open to understand that theory, you would verify how simple it is.
It's not that I am wrong.No. They don't even claim that they measure the space itself
It isn't my idea.
However, the people working on LIGO , who are the people who actually understand this (i.e. not you), say they are measuring space.
it is stated:
https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-GW170817Hubble/
"We have used the gravitational-wave source GW170817, which was detected by Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo on August 17 2017, to make the first-ever standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant."So, they actually verified by those two objects in space that the Hubble constant is correct.
Therefore, Ligo proves that this object is correlated to the Hubble constant, but it doesn't prove that the space itself is expanding.
Therefore, the do not claim that they measure the space itself and please remember that even Hubble didn't observe the space expansion. They all can just observe the galaxies/objects expansions.
It is all about objects and Only about objects.
You missed the point.This is wrong.
The "message" about the galaxy was carried here on a wave traveling in space-time.
That wave is an expansion of space in a similar way to sound being compression and expansion of air.
Ligo detects that expansion and contraction of space.
They do not even try to claim that the detected gravity wave carries the galaxies with it.
It is only your pure imagination.
Please read again the article.
If you speak about a wave, let's compare it to the sea wave:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=80881.new;topicseen#quickreply
Ocean waves transport energy over vast distances, although the water itself does not move, except up and down.
Therefore as the ocean wave doesn't move the water itself, the gravity wave also can't move any galaxy in space.
Is it clear to you by now?
You have also totally ignore my message about the activity of the galaxies in relatively short distance.
There is also big advantage in theory D.
The space expansion imagination is Ok for far away galaxies but it can't explain the activity at relatively close distance (as the MW and Andromeda)
Therefore, you need some help from another theory that is called gravity.
However, if gravity works to explain the idea that Andromeda is moving in the direction of the MY while they are still quite far away, why that gravity doesn't pull triangulum galaxy in the direction of Andromeda while they are so close together?
Are you going to invent third theory for that?
In theory D, based on the same theory/Idea we can explain the activity at the local aria and at the ultra far away aria.
Therefore, in BBT when you use one imagination (space expansion), you need a help from other imagination (gravity) and then try to find one more imagination for galaxies that refuse to work according to your two imaginations.
In theory D the same simple explanation for "local" works perfectly also for "ultra far away" location.
That is the meaning of real science!
Can you please explain why Andromeda is moving in the direction of the MW?
As it is moving today directly in our direction, can you estimate what was the distance to the MW 5 By ago or 12.5 By ago?
Can you please explain why Triangulum that is located so close to the Andromeda, isn't falling into that supper massive galaxy?
Can you explain the Hydrogen Bridge between triangulum and Andromeda?
Sorry, You and all your 100,000 BBT scientists don't have a basic clue how our Universe really works.
You all are so wise and knowledgeable.
However, you all have decided to block your wisdom with that BBT.
If you would be able one day to clear your mind from that nonsense, you would understand how our Universe works on just one simple rule - new pair creation (real positive pair)!
That's all you need for our entire infinite Universe
No more imagination:
No space expansion
No gravity wave that carries galaxies
No need for gravity to backup the expansion - locally
No dark energy
No dark matter
No ....
No density wave.
Just one simple rule - Real pair creation by BH
By that simple ONE rule you get our infinite Universe with all is features up to the last one.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2021 14:19:48
They do not even try to claim that the detected gravity wave carries the galaxies with it.Nobody said they did.
Why did you even say that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2021 14:21:09
Ocean waves transport energy over vast distances, although the water itself does not move, except up and down.So, the water moves.
And yet you are using this as a reason to say the water does not move.
Do you realise how silly that is?
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2021 14:27:22
No. They don't even claim that they measure the space itselfYou have not understood the point.
it is stated:
https://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-GW170817Hubble/
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:51:20
"We have used the gravitational-wave source GW170817, which was detected by Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo on August 17 2017, to make the first-ever standard siren measurement of the Hubble constant."
Therefore, Ligo proves that this object is correlated to the Hubble constant, but it doesn't prove that the space itself is expanding.
So, they actually verified by those two objects in space that the Hubble constant is correct.
Therefore, the do not claim that they measure the space itself and please remember that even Hubble didn't observe the space expansion. They all can just observe the galaxies/objects expansions.
If I say I use a ruler to measure the height of a plant and I find that it grows more in the day than in the night, do you think that the ruler measures light?
There is only one thing which LIGO really measures, and that's gravity waves.
So, if someone is using the LIGO data to measure anything, they are using LIGO to measure gravity waves.
Gravity waves are an expansion and contraction of space.
So, anything to do with the LIGO data is a proof of the expansion of space.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:17:54
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:47:31
We can't move on until you understand this subject.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2021 14:28:53
Just one simple rule - Real pair creation by BHBut we know that is impossible.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:17:54
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:47:31
We can't move on until you understand this subject.
Post by: Kryptid on 12/09/2021 14:44:33
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/09/2021 15:40:58
There is only one thing which LIGO really measures, and that's gravity waves.Ligo is all about gravity wave due to twin BHs that spiral inwards and merge.
So, if someone is using the LIGO data to measure anything, they are using LIGO to measure gravity waves.
Gravity waves are an expansion and contraction of space.
So, anything to do with the LIGO data is a proof of the expansion of space.
That merging activity sets contraction in a very local point in space.
So, it is all about how the matter (as twin BHs) affects its local point in space and not how the expansion affects those twin BHs.
So, please don't claim again that the gravity wave is an indication for the space expansion.
Please answer the following:
Can you please explain why Andromeda is moving in the direction of the MW?
As it is moving today directly in our direction, can you estimate what was the distance to the MW 5 By ago or 12.5 By ago?
Can you please explain why Triangulum that is located so close to the Andromeda, isn't falling into that supper massive galaxy?
Can you please explain the Hydrogen Bridge between triangulum and Andromeda?
I'm still waiting for an explanation,Soon
Promise
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2021 15:44:53
So, please don't claim again that the gravity wave is an indication for the space expansion.Gravity waves are an expansion and contraction in space.
They are real.
They show that you are wrong because you said
I would never even agree ith that space expansion imagination.and
So, the space was always there in our infinite 3D Universe.
You can't move it, you can't expand it.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 22:11:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:17:54
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:47:31
We can't move on until you understand this subject.
Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 14:44:33What are you waiting for?
I'm still waiting for an explanation,
Soon
Promise
Post by: Dave Lev on 12/09/2021 20:27:32
how the first black hole formed.
Scientists think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
For every 10,000,000,000 anti-matter particles there are 10,000,000,001 matter particles, an asymmetry of 1 particle out of 10 billion. And the endresult is that every 10 billion matter/anti-matter pairs annihilated each other leaving behind 1 matter particle and 10 billion photons.
After infinite time, our infinite universe was already full with infinite particles due to VE.
Over time, gravity slowly shepherded the densest regions of particles into compact clouds, which ultimately collapsed to form the first BH.
Those BHs didn't spin. Therefore, they couldn't generate EM radiation.
Over time twin BHs spirals inwards around each other and merge.
At that moment we get gravity wave but also a new BH that can generate EM radiation as it spin at high velocity.
That BH would generate new particle pair and will be the father and mother of the matter in our entire infinite Universe.
Source:
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
https://astronomy.com/news/2018/03/fingerprinting-the-very-first-stars
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec26.html
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2021 21:44:51
Those BHs didn't spin. Therefore, they couldn't generate EM radiation.I explained earlier why this is wrong.
The simple reason is that in your idea , along with the BH, there are lots of other parties.
They do have charge so, when they get pulled by the gravity of a BH they grenade EM radiation.
There's also the fact that, along with
both electrons and quarksYou get photons as part of the vacuum energy.
So you still have to explain why, if your mechanism works, the universe is not full of BH.
Essentially, we know you are wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 12/09/2021 21:48:27
For every 10,000,000,000 anti-matter particles there are 10,000,000,001 matter particles, an asymmetry of 1 particle out of 10 billion.The only evidence for this is the BBT.
You can't use it to show that the BBT is wrong.
Post by: Origin on 13/09/2021 00:49:35
Scientists think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding...You're a hoot Dave, half the time you say scientist don't know what they are talking about and the other half of the time you are trying to using them for support of your ideas.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/09/2021 01:13:52
Scientists think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
For every 10,000,000,000 anti-matter particles there are 10,000,000,001 matter particles, an asymmetry of 1 particle out of 10 billion. And the endresult is that every 10 billion matter/anti-matter pairs annihilated each other leaving behind 1 matter particle and 10 billion photons.
After infinite time, our infinite universe was already full with infinite particles due to VE.
Over time, gravity slowly shepherded the densest regions of particles into compact clouds, which ultimately collapsed to form the first BH.
How did those short-lived virtual particles in the vacuum turn into long-lived real particles?
Post by: Dave Lev on 13/09/2021 06:01:54
The only evidence for this is the BBT.There are several positive aspects in the BBT.
You can't use it to show that the BBT is wrong.
I can use any positive aspect as I wish.
In theory D I do not invent the wheel.
It is based on real science.
Even the creation of real particle pair from VE energy is real:
Source:
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
Scientists think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).Our scientists also claim that:
"Imagine if there was a weird rule in your living room that every second 10,000 fireflies had to pop into existence, but that each of them would disappear a fraction of a second later. You might then see in your living room these weird little streaks of motion and flashes that would be the signs of short-lived fireflies existing for an instant before disappearing. Scientists think that the vacuum of space is a little like that, except that the fireflies are subatomic virtual particles, so we can't see anything like the streaks and flashes."
"A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later."
However, there is high similarity between the VE to the EM energy.
So, if due to VE A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later, then the same activity should also take place due to the BH's EM near its event horizon.
Therefore, the rule of new particle creation by the BH must be real.
The BBT as is is incorrect as our scientists totally failed to show its source of energy.
I have already offer the BBT to start with the VE energy that is always there in the infinite space of our Universe.
So, the BBT should start while the space of the Universe is infinite and fixed and VE is there in the empty space.
If you do so, and understand that new virtual particle pair can pop up due to the EM, you get to theory D.
So simple and easy.
Again - In theory D I do not invent the wheel.
All the real data is there infront of our nose. We only need to verify what is real and what imagination is.
How did those short-lived virtual particles in the vacuum turn into long-lived real particles?I agree, they can't live forever.
You get photons as part of the vacuum energy.You have got the answer by Kryptid.
So you still have to explain why, if your mechanism works, the universe is not full of BH.
The New created particles can't live forever.
Therefore, if after some time they won't set a BH, they would just die.
Hence, there is no BH is every cc of the universe.
However in the infinite universe there must be infinite stars, infinite galaxies and also infinite BHs, but that doesn't mean that in every cc there is a massive spiral galaxy or a BH.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2021 08:30:53
You have got the answer by Kryptid.No point trying to blame someone else.
The New created particles can't live forever.
Therefore, if after some time they won't set a BH, they would just die.
Hence, there is no BH is every cc of the universe.
You have not understood the problem.
If the probability of getting a BH is zero then, even in an infinite time there will be no BH so we would not be here.
If the probability is greater than zero then, in an infinite times there would be an infinite number of BH and we would not be here.
Which sort of wrong are you?
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2021 08:33:05
There are several positive aspects in the BBT.You can not do that unless you have finally accepted that the BBT is true.
I can use any positive aspect as I wish.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2021 08:39:19
After infinite time, our infinite universe was already full with infinite particles due to VE.And this process would continue.
Over time, gravity slowly shepherded the densest regions of particles into compact clouds, which ultimately collapsed to form the first BH.
Gravity would shepherd the BH into clouds which would collapse into bigger BH.
Eventually, the whole of the universe would have "fallen in".
But that's not what we see, so we know your idea is wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 11/09/2021 22:11:40
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 17:17:54
Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 16:47:31
We can't move on until you understand this subject.
Post by: Origin on 13/09/2021 12:47:35
There are several positive aspects in the BBT.Of course you can since all you are doing is making uninformed guesses about things which you don't understand.
I can use any positive aspect as I wish.
Post by: Kryptid on 13/09/2021 15:00:43
I agree, they can't live forever.
That didn't answer the question. In order to become a black hole, those virtual particles must turn into real particles. Otherwise, they will just disappear back into the vacuum from which they came.
Post by: Bored chemist on 13/09/2021 16:05:55
Essentially, his reply is "They can't live forever, but they do".I agree, they can't live forever.
That didn't answer the question. In order to become a black hole, those virtual particles must turn into real particles. Otherwise, they will just disappear back into the vacuum from which they came.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/09/2021 16:10:15
That didn't answer the question. In order to become a black hole, those virtual particles must turn into real particles. Otherwise, they will just disappear back into the vacuum from which they came.I have already answered this question by the following message:
For every 10,000,000,000 anti-matter particles there are 10,000,000,001 matter particles, an asymmetry of 1 particle out of 10 billion. And the endresult is that every 10 billion matter/anti-matter pairs annihilated each other leaving behind 1 matter particle and 10 billion photons.Do you have any problem with this explanation?
Source:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec26.html
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/09/2021 16:21:40
You claim that I don't understand.There are several positive aspects in the BBT.Of course you can since all you are doing is making uninformed guesses about things which you don't understand.
I can use any positive aspect as I wish.
So, it is expected that at least you do understand.
If so, would you kindly explain how the entire energy for the BBT theory had been created while there was no Space and No Universe. If it comes from some Brane or other imagination - then please explain how it had been created there without breaking the conservation law.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/09/2021 16:26:09
I have already answered this question by the following message:
That does not explain how the virtual particles became real particles.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2021 16:40:18
If it comes from some Brane or other imagination - then please explain how it had been created there without breaking the conservation law.The laws of physics apply in our universe (or, at least, our bit of it).
There is no reason for them to apply outside of it- for example in Brane cosmology.
Again it's one of those "did you think this was difficult" questions you ask.
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/09/2021 16:44:30
What about the following:I have already answered this question by the following message:
That does not explain how the virtual particles became real particles.
Scientists think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2021 16:44:52
Do you have any problem with this explanation?Yes.
Those numbers are for the BB where we know roughly the proportion of matter to antimatter.
But we have less evidence for any process happening today.
In particular, if there were about ten billion annihilation events for each particle, we would expect to see the characteristic gamma rays.
But we don't.
Because virtual particles don't normally become real.
Which leads, once more, to this question, which you have not answered.
How did those short-lived virtual particles in the vacuum turn into long-lived real particles?and also
how the virtual particles became real particles.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2021 16:45:17
Did you even read the question?What about the following:I have already answered this question by the following message:
That does not explain how the virtual particles became real particles.Scientists think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
Post by: Kryptid on 14/09/2021 16:47:16
What about the following:
Telling me the vacuum is filled with virtual particles does not tell me how those virtual particles supposedly became real particles.
If it comes from some Brane or other imagination
Why do you call branes imagination?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/09/2021 16:54:42
The laws of physics apply in our universe (or, at least, our bit of it).Our space is also a brane. It is even called a 3D brane
There is no reason for them to apply outside of it- for example in Brane cosmology.
So, as the laws of physics apply in our 3D brane, why those laws can't apply in any other external 3D brane
Why do you call branes imagination?If it is real, then the laws of physics must apply over there.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/09/2021 17:00:45
If it is real, then the laws of physics must apply over there.
That's not what I asked. I asked why you considered branes to be imagination.
Also, how do virtual particles become real particles?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/09/2021 17:12:55
how do virtual particles become real particles?
Telling me the vacuum is filled with virtual particles does not tell me how those virtual particles supposedly became real particles.Do you agree that our Scientists think that:
"the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles)."
If you still worry about it then:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X
Virtual particles in vacuum. According to quantum electrodynamics (QED) and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), virtual particle pairs are continuously being created and annihilated in the vacuum. These virtual particles can be revealed in several experiments, for example, when placing two uncharged metallic plates in the vacuum (the Casimir effect).
This phenomenon is predicted by CEN. In fact, CEN is the only theory that predicts the exact mechanism responsible for this phenomenon. In CEN terms, these virtual particles are referred to as “potentially additional elements” that appear from ‘nothing’ and nullify each other (see Section 2.2). Note that although in Section 2.2 the potentially additional elements are presented as ‘bits,’ the same mechanism allows also the appearance of nullifying bit compounds, like virtual particle pairs. This is an integral process in CEN that happens on a regular basis, and everywhere in space.
Moreover, according to CEN, potentially additional elements are served as triggers for changes in the Universe. This notion is supported by experiments in which virtual particles serve as triggers to physical processes. For example, β-decay (in which a neutron decays to a proton, an electron, and an anti-neutrino) is carried-out via a virtual (mediating) W boson. In fact, as stated in [21], most particle processes are mediated by virtual-carrier particles.
3.
Matter and anti-matter. The existence of matter and antimatter is a built-in property in CEN. According to CEN, the Universe was formed by bits and anti-bits, or particles and anti-particles (see above). In addition, the first infoelements could represent information and anti-information (the existence of ‘something’ and the non-existence of this ‘something’).
CEN also predicts the creation of matter and anti-matter from the vaccum in the following way. According to CEN, matter and antimatter can be originated as virtual particle pairs (potentially additional elements), and become “real” due to their attachment to information in the Universe, by causing a symmetry break. This notion of matter and antimatter creation from the vacuum is supported by experiments. For example, the work in [22] show how it is possible to generate matter and antimatter from the vacuum using high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse."
If that is not good enough for you, then we have a problem.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/09/2021 17:15:40
For example, the work in [22] show how it is possible to generate matter and antimatter from the vacuum using high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse."
Your model starts off with an empty Universe. There were no high-energy electron beams or intense laser pulses back then.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2021 17:24:04
This phenomenon is predicted by CEN.Who is Cen?
In the context of
Do you agree that our Scientists think that:Do you understand what
"the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles)."
If you still worry about it then:
incredibly short-livedmeans?
Post by: Dave Lev on 14/09/2021 17:48:15
Your model starts off with an empty UniverseOur scientists claim that there is energy in the empty/vacuum space that is called VE.
There were no high-energy electron beams or intense laser pulses back then.It is just an example for the VE:
For example, the work in [22] show how it is possible to generate matter and antimatter from the vacuum using high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse.
Post by: Bored chemist on 14/09/2021 18:12:39
It is just an example for the VE:No. it is an example of something totally different from the VE.
Post by: Kryptid on 14/09/2021 21:22:05
For example, the work in [22] show how it is possible to generate matter and antimatter from the vacuum using high-energy electron beam combined with an intense laser pulse.
So then how would you do it when you don't have either an electron beam or a laser? Remember, this is the beginning of the Universe where there was nothing around yet.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/09/2021 06:02:49
Did you had the chance to read the following:It is just an example for the VE:No. it is an example of something totally different from the VE.
Do you agree that our Scientists think that:Do you agree with our scientists that the energy in the empty pace that is called vacuum energy - VE has real energy (as we detect by Casimir effect) that can convert virtual pair into real mass pair?
"the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles)."
If you still worry about it then:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221268641300037X
Virtual particles in vacuum. According to quantum electrodynamics (QED) and quantum chromodynamics (QCD), virtual particle pairs are continuously being created and annihilated in the vacuum. These virtual particles can be revealed in several experiments, for example, when placing two uncharged metallic plates in the vacuum (the Casimir effect).
Yes or no please.
Post by: Dave Lev on 15/09/2021 06:05:42
So then how would you do it when you don't have either an electron beam or a laser? Remember, this is the beginning of the Universe where there was nothing around yet.There is no need for any sort of matter/electron beam or a laser in the empty space to get that VE.
It had been proved by Casimir effect that the energy is there in the empty vacuum space.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2021 08:34:54
Did you had the chance to read the following:Yes.
It talks about
" incredibly short-lived virtual electrons,"
Did you read this
Do you understand what
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:12:55
incredibly short-lived
means?
There is no need for any sort of matter/electron beam or a laser in the empty space to get that VE.Nobody said there was, did they?
Do you agree with our scientists that the energy in the empty pace that is called vacuum energy - VE has real energy (as we detect by Casimir effect) that can convert virtual pair into real mass pair?No, of course not.
Yes or no please.
That's why they talk about
incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks
Do you not understand what "virtual" means either?
Virtual particles are not real.
Post by: Bored chemist on 15/09/2021 08:35:52
Post by: Kryptid on 15/09/2021 16:53:49
There is no need for any sort of matter/electron beam or a laser in the empty space to get that VE.
It had been proved by Casimir effect that the energy is there in the empty vacuum space.
That's not the issue. The issue is that you have yet to describe a plausible mechanism based on real observations by which those virtual particles became real particles in an otherwise empty universe.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/09/2021 04:17:43
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 06:02:49Why don't you read the whole message?
Did you had the chance to read the following:
Yes.
It talks about
" incredibly short-lived virtual electrons,"
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
"A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later. Scientist think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
So they specifically discuss about: "A virtual particle with mass":
"A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later."
Therefore, that virtual particle with mass pop into real existence (as real electron and positron) due to VE and then a tinny second later it pop out of existence due to annihilation process.
Is it clear to you?
That's not the issue. The issue is that you have yet to describe a plausible mechanism based on real observations by which those virtual particles became real particles in an otherwise empty universe.Those virtual particles with mass that pop into real existence (as real electron and positron) due to VE are all real for only a tinny second.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/09/2021 06:32:38
Those virtual particles with mass that pop into real existence (as real electron and positron) due to VE are all real for only a tinny second.
Okay then, so what mechanism keeps them from popping out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later, as your link specifies?
"A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later.
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/09/2021 07:59:41
Excellent question.Those virtual particles with mass that pop into real existence (as real electron and positron) due to VE are all real for only a tinny second.
Okay then, so what mechanism keeps them from popping out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later, as your link specifies?"A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later.
It is all about the asymmetry/parity solution:
Scientists think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
For every 10,000,000,000 anti-matter particles there are 10,000,000,001 matter particles, an asymmetry of 1 particle out of 10 billion. And the endresult is that every 10 billion matter/anti-matter pairs annihilated each other leaving behind 1 matter particle and 10 billion photons.
Source:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec26.html
It is also stated:
"In the 1960's, it was found that some types of particles did not conserve left or right-handedness during their decay into other particles. This property, called parity, was found to be broken in a small number of interactions at the same time the charge symmetry was also broken and became known as CP violation."
"One time out of a thousand, an anti- noun will decay to the right, a violation of charge-parity of CP rule"
Therefore, due to that Asymmetry/parity some particles would survive the annihilation process.
If it is one to one thousand or one to 10 Billion it is still ok.
I also don't care about the type of particle as there is no need to set any real Atom. As long as it has mass and it survive the annihilation process - it is OK.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2021 08:36:35
Is it clear to you?
Why don't you read the whole message?I did.
"A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later.
You can't build a universe from virtual particles.
If you read the whole sentence you see that those particles pop out of existence.
They are "incredibly short-lived virtual electrons" etc.
They don't last long.
Why didn't you understand this, either when you read the article, or, at least, when I pointed it out?
That's not science you are failing to understand there, it's just basic thinking.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2021 08:38:48
I also don't care about the type of particle as there is no need to set any real Atom. As long as it has mass and it survive the annihilation process - it is OK.Well, where do the atoms come from?
You can't make a universe full of atoms by annihilating a single black hole.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2021 08:41:29
Therefore, due to that Asymmetry/parity some particles would survive the annihilation process.No
That would violate the conservation of mass.
(and the uncertainty principle).
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/09/2021 09:42:30
The Asymmetry/parity idea is based on the BBT theory.Therefore, due to that Asymmetry/parity some particles would survive the annihilation process.No
That would violate the conservation of mass.
(and the uncertainty principle).
That article is all about how the virtual particles had been transformed into real mass particles by using the BBT energy.
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec26.html
"Spacetime arrives when supergravity separates into the combined nuclear forces (strong, weak, electromagnetic) and gravitation. Matter makes its first appearance during this era as a composite form called Grand Unified Theory or GUT matter. GUT matter is a combination of what will become leptons, quarks and photons. In other words, it contains all the superpositions of future normal matter. But, during the GUT era, it is too hot and violent for matter to survive in the form of leptons and quarks."
Therefore, if that theory works for the BBT then it should also work for theory D.
If it violates the conservation of mass (as you claim) then it won't work for both theories.
"In the 1960's, it was found that some types of particles did not conserve left or right-handedness during their decay into other particles. This property, called parity, was found to be broken in a small number of interactions at the same time the charge symmetry was also broken and became known as CP violation."In 1960 our scientists verified that this theory is real
Therefore, it must be real.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2021 10:30:25
In 1960 our scientists verified that this theory is realYes, it is real, but it does not do what you say it does.
Therefore, it must be real.
If it did, that would break the conservation of mass.
The Asymmetry/parity idea is based on the BBT theory.No, it is not.
It is based on the observation that there is mass in the universe.
If it violates the conservation of mass (as you claim) then it won't work for both theories.How many times do I have to point out that the conservation of mass does not apply to the BB?
Post by: Dave Lev on 16/09/2021 12:43:41
How many times do I have to point out that the conservation of mass does not apply to the BB?
How many time do I have to point out that the conservation of mass does apply for any brane.
Our infinite space universe is by definition a 3D brane.
Therefore, even if you are personally the master of the branes and you can generate or eliminate 3D branes in a brief of a second and transform the energy between the branes - at any brane the energy must obey to the conservation of mass.
Therefore, you can't just assume that the BBT energy had been created at some other 3D brane without breaking the conservation of mass especially as there is no evidence that there is any other brane.
There is no free lunch in our 3D brane or at any other imagination brane.
Hence, if something break the conservation of mass - it is only the BBT itself.
Your assumption that the BBT energy had been created at other brane without breaking the conservation of mass is wrong!
If you wish to get energy to your imagination theory - you must explain how that energy had been created and where.
The BBT is all about energy transformation. That isn't good enough.
Even so, once you get your BBT energy at that early universe - the conservation of mass must work.
Therefore, you can claim that the BBT energy generates new virtual mass particles.
However, those particles would have to be a short living particles:
A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later.Hence, once you get the BBT energy in your early infinite small universe, you can't bypass the conservation law any more.
Therefore, if any virtual particle with mass at that early universe time can pop into existence and stay at existence due to asymmetry or parity idea then this idea can also work for theory D.
Sorry – even if you are the real master of the Universe I still request one law for any theory.
Post by: Bored chemist on 16/09/2021 16:12:34
How many time do I have to point out that the conservation of mass does apply for any brane.You can say that as often as you like.
But it isn't true, or, at least, it isn't relevant.
The mass conservation law is a consequence of a symmetry, and that symmetry does not exist at the moment of the BB.
The private lives of branes are irrelevant.
Therefore, you can't just assume that the BBT energy had been created at some other 3D brane without breaking the conservation of massI never did.
However, those particles would have to be a short living particles:No
Because they are real particles, not virtual ones.
Therefore, you can claim that the BBT energy generates new virtual mass particles.The claim- based on actual science- is that the BB created real particles.
Certainly , something created real particles because you and I are made from them.
Your claim is that they are created by magic when virtual particles become real for no reason.
That's clearly impossible because it breaks the conservation laws.
The BBT says they were created from the energy of the BB
That does not break the conservation laws- it's the conversion of energy to mass which is a process that actually happens and can be observed.
That's the big difference between the two ideas.
One is idea possible, and the other is yours.
Hence, once you get the BBT energy in your early infinite small universe, you can't bypass the conservation law any more.Nobody said you could.
Sorry – even if you are the real master of the Universe I still request one law for any theory.OK, lets have one law.
The conservation of mass/ energy in accordance with the laws of physics which we see today and which follow (via No ether's theorem) from the observed symmetry of the universe.
The mass/ energy conservation law makes your fairy tale process for a BH creating the universe impossible.
Do you accept that?
I already proved it, BTW.
Post by: Kryptid on 16/09/2021 17:18:40
Therefore, due to that Asymmetry/parity some particles would survive the annihilation process.
You're talking about two completely different things. Virtual particle pairs appearing and then disappearing in the vacuum doesn't have anything to do with asymmetry in the decay paths of real particles. If you think it does, then you are going to need to describe the specifics of the process. Explain to us, for example, how to get an electron out of the vacuum without it disappearing back into the vacuum again.
Therefore, if any virtual particle with mass at that early universe time can pop into existence and stay at existence due to asymmetry or parity idea then this idea can also work for theory D.
Decay asymmetry isn't going to help virtual particles become real, because they are two fundamentally different things.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/09/2021 06:06:54
The mass conservation law is a consequence of a symmetry, and that symmetry does not exist at the moment of the BB.No
That is incorrect.
In the following article it is clearly stated:
https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problem
"The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe"
Therefore, at the big bang moment itself you can twist the law of physics, get your imagination energy from imagination source but once the energy is there in that new born space then the conservation law must work.
Hence, at the time that the energy is transformed to particle pairs - they all must obey to the physics law.
It is stated:
"Antimatter particles share the same mass as their matter counterparts, but qualities such as electric charge are opposite. The positively charged positron, for example, is the antiparticle to the negatively charged electron. Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. "
So, it is expected that any particle pair that is created by the BBT energy would be symmetrical.
However it is also stated:
One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter."
"Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. During the first fractions of a second of the Big Bang, the hot and dense universe was buzzing with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. If matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy."
So, they don't have a clear answer for that Asymmetry phenomenon at the Big Bang event.
As It is stated: "if matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy" then it is also clear that they don't have an answer why there is asymmetry as they do understand that after the bang the universe must work symmetry.
However, they came with the following solution:
"Nevertheless, a tiny portion of matter – about one particle per billion – managed to survive. This is what we see today. In the past few decades, particle-physics experiments have shown that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. Physicists are keen to discover the reasons why. Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay. Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter."
It is clearly stated: ". Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter"
So, they don't know why there was asymmetry after the bang and it is clearly not due to the Bang itself as they call it: "Some unknown entity intervening in this process"
Therefore, they claim that only one in a billion pair might be asymmetry as it was some statistical error.
If the asymmetry was real in the BBT then it is expected that all the new pair would be converted to real particles.
Hence, with the Big Bang or without it, it is expected that one of a billion new created pair would be asymmetry.
If that asymmetry idea (as statistical error) due to that "Some unknown entity intervening in this process" can work for the BBT, then it should also work to theory D.
You can't just use some hypothetical idea as "Some unknown entity intervening in this process" to justify your theory and then claim that no one else can use this idea.
I do recall that you did.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 12:43:41I never did.
Therefore, you can't just assume that the BBT energy had been created at some other 3D brane without breaking the conservation of mass
Never the less, do you claim now that the BBT energy had not been created at some imaginary brane?
If so, would you kindly explain where that BBT Energy had been created and how?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2021 08:31:21
The particles generated by the VE are virtual; half of them are antimatter.
The parity violation (of the order of 1 particle in ten billion) which you discussed at length refers to real particles. It explains why there is matter in the universe.
But it can not apply to virtual particles so it does not rescue your wrong idea about virtual particles becoming real.
You really should try learning science.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2021 08:32:26
I do recall that you did.How often are you affected by these hallucinations?
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2021 08:34:20
If so, would you kindly explain where that BBT Energy had been created and how?The same place that you think the vacuum energy came from.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/09/2021 09:59:26
The particles generated shortly after the BB were real, though half of them were antimatter.The virtual particles in the empty space are transformed by the VE to real particles as it is stated:
The particles generated by the VE are virtual; half of them are antimatter.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/
"Virtual particles" can become real photons--under the right conditions
"virtual photons reflecting off it can receive enough energy from the bounce to turn into real photons."
Real photons mean real particles.
Therefore, those virtual photons in the vacuum can transformed to real photon by VE energy.
But it can not apply to virtual particles so it does not rescue your wrong idea about virtual particles becoming real.Yes it is
If the particles that had been created by the BBT are real, then also those created by VE are real as they are converted to real photons.
You really should try learning science.You really should try learning real science and also try to clear your mind from that BBT imagination
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2021 13:07:42
Until you do that, you are just wasting everybody's time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2021 13:08:58
under the right conditionsThose conditions do not exist in a vacuum, do they?
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/09/2021 13:32:53
Do not bother to reply until you find out the difference between real and virtual particles.That article is all about Vacuum:
Until you do that, you are just wasting everybody's time.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/something-from-nothing-vacuum-can-yield-flashes-of-light/
Even the title it is stated:
"A Vacuum Can Yield Flashes of Light"
It is also stated:
"A vacuum might seem like empty space, but scientists have discovered a new way to seemingly get something from that nothingness, such as light."
"These virtual particles often appear in pairs that near-instantaneously cancel themselves out. Still, before they vanish, they can have very real effects on their surroundings. For instance, photons—packets of light—can pop in and out of a vacuum. "
So, they specifically claim that in the empty vacuum, virtual particles can pop up into real photon.
It is very clear to me that you have no intention to accept that explanation from our science as real science. For you there is only one ultimate science. - That is called the BBT imagination.
Any message from our scientists that contradicts your BBT or even positions other idea at a feasible level is irrelevant for you.
Therefore, it is very clear that I'm wasting my time while you don't wish to accept the clear messages from our scientists.
From now on I have no intention to waste my time and try to convince you that our scientists are correct and you are wrong.
Just stay there at your BBT palace.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/09/2021 13:37:35
You're talking about two completely different things. Virtual particle pairs appearing and then disappearing in the vacuum doesn't have anything to do with asymmetry in the decay paths of real particles.That is correct
Explain to us, for example, how to get an electron out of the vacuum without it disappearing back into the vacuum again.Our scientists claim that it is all about "Some unknown entity intervening in this process":
"Nevertheless, a tiny portion of matter – about one particle per billion – managed to survive. This is what we see today. In the past few decades, particle-physics experiments have shown that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. Physicists are keen to discover the reasons why. Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay. Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter."
It is clearly stated: ". Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter"
So, they don't know why there was asymmetry after the bang and it is clearly not due to the Bang itself as they call it: "Some unknown entity intervening in this process"
Therefore, they claim that only one in a billion pair might be asymmetry as it was some statistical error.
If the asymmetry was real in the BBT then it is expected that all the new pair would be converted to real particles.
Hence, with the Big Bang or without it, it is expected that one of a billion new created pair would be asymmetry.
If that asymmetry idea (as statistical error) due to that "Some unknown entity intervening in this process" can work for the BBT, then it should also work to theory D.
You can't just use some hypothetical idea as "Some unknown entity intervening in this process" to justify your theory and then claim that no one else can use this idea.
Post by: Bored chemist on 17/09/2021 14:41:45
So, they specifically claim that in the empty vacuum, virtual particles can pop up into real photon.Where do they make that claim?
Have you mistaken the fact that the virtual photons can exert a pressure for evidence that they are no longer virtual and have become real?
Is that your current mistake?
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.
Post by: Kryptid on 17/09/2021 17:19:53
"Virtual particles" can become real photons--under the right conditions
The experiment used superconducting quantum-interference devices. Those don't exist in an empty universe.
Our scientists claim that it is all about "Some unknown entity intervening in this process":
So in other words, you don't know what caused it. According to your own earlier quotes, "we don't know" isn't science, so we have to throw Theory D in the garbage.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/09/2021 19:30:44
Dear KryptidQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:59:26The experiment used superconducting quantum-interference devices. Those don't exist in an empty universe.
"Virtual particles" can become real photons--under the right conditions
I have high appreciation to your approach.
While BC ignores any real message that could negatively impact the BBT, you focus on real science.
Therefore, do you accept the meaning of "Vacuum fluctuations"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_fluctuation
"Vacuum fluctuations appear as virtual particles, which are always created in particle-antiparticle pairs".
"The uncertainty principle states the uncertainty in energy and time can be related by ħ ≈ 5,27286×10−35 Js. This means that pairs of virtual particles with energy {\displaystyle \Delta E}\Delta E and lifetime shorter than {\displaystyle \Delta t}\Delta t are continually created and annihilated in empty space."
If that is not good enough it is stated that:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested."
So in other words, you don't know what caused it. According to your own earlier quotes, "we don't know" isn't science, so we have to throw Theory D in the garbage.Our scientists clearly know how that process works.
"These predictions are very well understood and tested"
It is also stated:
"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. "
Therefore, do you finelly agree that: "Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles),?
Therefore, there is a solid prove that Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles.
So, theory D is based on real energy that is proved and confirmed, while the BBT is based on imagination energy.
Still this moment no one could offer the energy source for that imagination theory.
Do you finally accept that "Virtual particles are indeed real particles" or do you wish to continue with BC approach to reject all the evidences that supports theory D even as they had been proved and tested?
Post by: Kryptid on 17/09/2021 20:32:24
Do you finally accept that "Virtual particles are indeed real particles" or do you wish to continue with BC approach to reject all the evidences that supports theory D even as they had been proved and tested?
I'm not contesting the existence of virtual particles here. What I'm saying is that you don't have a mechanism based on actual measurements and observation that can prevent them from disappearing back into the vacuum where they came from.
Post by: Dave Lev on 17/09/2021 20:58:22
WowDo you finally accept that "Virtual particles are indeed real particles" or do you wish to continue with BC approach to reject all the evidences that supports theory D even as they had been proved and tested?
I'm not contesting the existence of virtual particles here. What I'm saying is that you don't have a mechanism based on actual measurements and observation that can prevent them from disappearing back into the vacuum where they came from.
So I hope that by now we all agree that the VE is real and also Virtual particles are indeed real particles.
I also hope that we all agree that no one really knows the energy source for the BBT.
Therefore, while theory D starts based on real energy the BBT is based on imagination energy.
That by itself is a big advantage for theory D.
Now it is my mission to move to the next step.
Post by: Kryptid on 17/09/2021 22:01:38
Now it is my mission to move to the next step.
Which should be to explain how your model keeps virtual particles from disappearing back into the vacuum.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/09/2021 06:18:15
Which should be to explain how your model keeps virtual particles from disappearing back into the vacuum.Dear Kryptid
Just to remind you:
Virtual particale is "a pair of heavier particles". They are real and have real mass.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/Therefore, virtual particle which pop up as a pair of heavier particles would pop out as real photon due to annihilation process.
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested."
"Quantum mechanics allows, and indeed requires, temporary violations of conservation of energy, so one particle can become a pair of heavier particles (the so-called virtual particles), which quickly rejoin into the original particle as if they had never been there. "
Hence, there is no difference between real particles that pop up due to VE to those particles that pop up due to BBT energy.
In both cases we get real particles pair that are transformed to photon due to annihilation process.
However our scientists claim that one/ten of a billion should be asymmetry:
https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problemTherefore, if you accept the idea that one/ten of a billion particle pairs would survive the annihilation process in order to keep the BBT, then you also must agree that the same process should also work for theory D.
"The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe"
Therefore, at the big bang moment itself you can twist the law of physics, get your imagination energy from imagination source but once the energy is there in that new born space then the conservation law must work.
Hence, at the time that the energy is transformed to particle pairs - they all must obey to the physics law.
It is stated:
"Antimatter particles share the same mass as their matter counterparts, but qualities such as electric charge are opposite. The positively charged positron, for example, is the antiparticle to the negatively charged electron. Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. "
So, it is expected that any particle pair that is created by the BBT energy would be symmetrical.
However it is also stated:
One of the greatest challenges in physics is to figure out what happened to the antimatter, or why we see an asymmetry between matter and antimatter."
"Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. During the first fractions of a second of the Big Bang, the hot and dense universe was buzzing with particle-antiparticle pairs popping in and out of existence. If matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy."
So, they don't have a clear answer for that Asymmetry phenomenon at the Big Bang event.
As It is stated: "if matter and antimatter are created and destroyed together, it seems the universe should contain nothing but leftover energy" then it is also clear that they don't have an answer why there is asymmetry as they do understand that after the bang the universe must work symmetry.
However, they came with the following solution:
"Nevertheless, a tiny portion of matter – about one particle per billion – managed to survive. This is what we see today. In the past few decades, particle-physics experiments have shown that the laws of nature do not apply equally to matter and antimatter. Physicists are keen to discover the reasons why. Researchers have observed spontaneous transformations between particles and their antiparticles, occurring millions of times per second before they decay. Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter."
It is clearly stated: ". Some unknown entity intervening in this process in the early universe could have caused these "oscillating" particles to decay as matter more often than they decayed as antimatter"
So, they don't know why there was asymmetry after the bang and it is clearly not due to the Bang itself as they call it: "Some unknown entity intervening in this process"
Therefore, they claim that only one in a billion pair might be asymmetry as it was some statistical error.
If the asymmetry was real in the BBT then it is expected that all the new pair would be converted to real particles.
Hence, with the Big Bang or without it, it is expected that one of a billion new created pair would be asymmetry.
If that asymmetry idea (as statistical error) due to that "Some unknown entity intervening in this process" can work for the BBT, then it should also work to theory D.
You can't just use some hypothetical idea as "Some unknown entity intervening in this process" to justify your theory and then claim that no one else can use this idea.
With regards to the following reply from BC:
The particles generated shortly after the BB were real, though half of them were antimatter.He claims that "The parity violation (of the order of 1 particle in ten billion) which you discussed at length refers to real particles."
The particles generated by the VE are virtual; half of them are antimatter.
The parity violation (of the order of 1 particle in ten billion) which you discussed at length refers to real particles. It explains why there is matter in the universe.
But it can not apply to virtual particles so it does not rescue your wrong idea about virtual particles becoming real.
I have proved that the meaning of the virtual particle generated by the VE is real particle.
Therefore, as the parity violation (of the order of 1 particle in ten billion) refers to real particles (in the BBT), it also must refers to virtual particles (real particles) that had been created by VE.
Once we agree with that we can move on to the next step of theory D.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/09/2021 06:26:26
Therefore, if you accept the idea that one of a billion particle pairs would survive the annihilation process in order to keep the BBT
According to your rules, I can't. We don't have any observation of virtual particles surviving annihilation from the vacuum. I also don't care about the Big Bang theory here. It's in the trash.
Therefore, as the parity violation (of the order of 1 particle in ten billion) which refers to real particles, also refers to the virtual particles that had been created by VE.
Parity violation doesn't have anything to do with particles surviving annihilations.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/09/2021 07:03:34
No, this isn't my rule.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:18:15According to your rules, I can't. We don't have any observation of virtual particles surviving annihilation from the vacuum. I also don't care about the Big Bang theory here. It's in the trash
Therefore, if you accept the idea that one of a billion particle pairs would survive the annihilation process in order to keep the BBT
Based on my rule, if it is feasible to observe, then we should observe.
However, it isn't accepted to observe a single photon that pop up somewhere in the infinite empty space as it not excepted to observe all the tiny particles inside the atom itself although it is in front of our Eyes.
Therefore, for those tiny particles we must use real theory as Quantum theory:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/Therefore, as quantum theory proves that Virtual particles are real - then they are real without any need to see them.
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested."
It is similar to any tiny boson that exists in our universe.
All are real without the need to observe them.
Unless you claim that quantum theory is wrong.
Parity violation doesn't have anything to do with particles surviving annihilations.Can you please explain that statement (and offer article about it)?
Post by: Kryptid on 18/09/2021 07:09:00
Unless you claim that quantum theory is wrong.
According to your rules, we would have to discard any aspect of quantum theory that isn't based on real observations and measurements. So those aspects that are purely mathematical must be put in the trash.
Can you please explain that statement (and offer article about it)?
What is there to explain? It's like saying that the Saturn V rocket doesn't have anything to do with tacos. Parity violation during particle decay means that either a right-handed decay or a left-handed decay happens more often than expected. That doesn't do anything at all to help virtual particles avoid annihilating each other.
Post by: Dave Lev on 18/09/2021 08:16:37
According to my rules quantum theory is 100% correct and I fully accept it as is.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:03:34
Unless you claim that quantum theory is wrong.
According to your rules, we would have to discard any aspect of quantum theory that isn't based on real observations and measurements. So those aspects that are purely mathematical must be put in the trash.
So those quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.
Parity violation during particle decay means that either a right-handed decay or a left-handed decay happens more often than expected. That doesn't do anything at all to help virtual particles avoid annihilating each other.Do you claim that when the BBT energy had been transformed into real particles, the annihilating process didn't work?
If so, why our scientists claim that based on the BBT "Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy"?
https://home.cern/science/physics/matter-antimatter-asymmetry-problemAs I have proved by quantum virtual particles are real particles.
"The Big Bang should have created equal amounts of matter and antimatter in the early universe"
"Matter and antimatter particles are always produced as a pair and, if they come in contact, annihilate one another, leaving behind pure energy. "
So, please explain why one of a billion particle pairs (that had been created by the imagination BBT energy) can be asymmetry, while that process can't work with a similar real particle (that had been created by real VE energy).
Do you mean that only those particles that had been created by that imagination BBT energy are real and can cross the symmetry problem while the particles that had been created by real energy (as VE) are not real and can't do so?
Would you kindly prove that understanding by relevant article?
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/09/2021 11:09:50
So I hope that by now we all agree that the VE is real and also Virtual particles are indeed real particles.No.
Obviously not.
That's why we call them virtual.
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.
Post by: 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?So I hope that by now we all agree that the VE is real and also Virtual particles are indeed real particles.No.
Obviously not.
That's why we call them virtual.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.
Please read the following:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-virtual-particles-rea/If you still don't understand the meaning of the above then I'm clearly wasting my time.
"Virtual particles are indeed real particles. Quantum theory predicts that every particle spends some time as a combination of other particles in all possible ways. These predictions are very well understood and tested."
Therefore, as quantum theory proves that Virtual particles are real - then they are real without any need to see them.
Post by: Kryptid on 18/09/2021 17:44:55
So those quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.
Then you are contradicting yourself:
Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.
Do you claim that when the BBT energy had been transformed into real particles, the annihilating process didn't work?
I don't make any claims about the BBT. It's in the garbage.
As I have proved by quantum virtual particles are real particles.
So, please explain why one of a billion particle pairs (that had been created by the imagination BBT energy) can be asymmetry, while that process can't work with a similar real particle (that had been created by real VE energy).
Do you mean that only those particles that had been created by that imagination BBT energy are real and can cross the symmetry problem while the particles that had been created by real energy (as VE) are not real and can't do so?
Would you kindly prove that understanding by relevant article?
I don't care about whatever the Big Bang theory says because it's in the garbage. It's assumed to be wrong. So stop asking me about it.
If you think parity violation can make virtual particles become real, then explain to me how that works. Describe the mechanism in detail.
Post by: Bored chemist on 18/09/2021 18:46:29
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Virtual particles are indeed real particles?I understand it.
Please read the following:
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 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.
Post by: Dave Lev on 19/09/2021 05:32:01
Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 08:16:37As I have stated, quantum theory is real and any quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.
So those quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.
Then you are contradicting yourself:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 24/07/2020 13:37:28
Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.
Therefore, if you can prove the BBT based on quantum theory, then this theory should be real.
However, if you take some formulas and manipulate the math by assumptions over assumptions and then claim that you have a mathematical prove for the BBT imagination - then you are absolutely wrong.
I don't make any claims about the BBT. It's in the garbage.We must compare theory to theory on the same platform and ideas.
Therefore, you can't just claim that you can use a specific idea for the BBT while in the same token it is forbidden to be used by theory D.
If you think parity violation can make virtual particles become real, then explain to me how that works. Describe the mechanism in detail.Sorry
I don't have to explain it.
I can use the explanation from out scientists.
They clearly explain that Virtual particles that had been created by the VE are real particles.
They also explain how the parity works for the "real" particles that had been created by the BBT energy.
As in both cases we discuss about real particles, then the parity works the same in theory D as it works in the BBT.
If you claim that our scientists have a severe mistake with the parity, then please don't ask me about it.
You have to ask then about this idea.
However, I would add some highlight about my understanding.
I claim that any new pair must be a pair.
Therefore, at any infinite no. of pairs, the total no. of the particles/matter must be identical to the antiparticles/antimatter.
Not one in a billion and not even one in infinite. Just the same number.
The only change is that due to asymmetry or parity, one in a billion would not be annihilated immediately after pop up.
So, we would get at the end in the open space exactly the same infinite free particles as infinite free antiparticles.
Not even one more from anyone.
if free particle will meet a free antiparticle - they would be annihilated.
If free particle will spiral around other free particle - they would merge. As they merge they would keep their spin momentum and be considered as the tiniest BH in the Universe.
If free antiparticle will spiral around other free antiparticle - they would also merge and set tiniest anti-BH.
There is a possibility for tiniest BH to spiral around tiniest BH and merge as there is a possibility for tiniest Anti-BH to spiral around tiniest anti-BH and also merge.
However, it is very clear that if tiniest BH would spiral around tiniest anti-BH they would be annihilated.
Never the less, In the infinite Universe and after infinite time there is a possibility that at least one tiny BH or one Tiny anti-BH would survive.
If that spinning tinny BH (or Anti-BH) would have enough EM energy, it would open the door for theory D to work.
As we don't see the any antimatter in our Universe it means that the tinny BH won the game and had been created first.
This tinny BH would be the mother and father to all the matter that exists in the entire Universe.
Post by: Kryptid on 19/09/2021 05:47:02
As I have stated, quantum theory is real and any quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.
Then you are still contradicting yourself. You can't deny what you have said in the past that I am readily capable of quoting. You said that math alone can't be used as evidence. Anyone can go read it. It looks like you are trying to manipulate your own rules in order to get what you want.
Therefore, if you can prove the BBT based on quantum theory, then this theory should be real.
However, if you take some formulas and manipulate the math by assumptions over assumptions and then claim that you have a mathematical prove for the BBT imagination - then you are absolutely wrong.
I can't and never claimed that I could.
Therefore, you can't just claim that you can use a specific idea for the BBT while in the same token it is forbidden to be used by theory D.
I never made that claim.
I can use the explanation from out scientists.
Then tell me what that explanation is, exactly.
As in both cases we discuss about real particles, then the parity works the same in theory D as it works in the BBT.
Which does nothing to prevent virtual particles from annihilating each other and disappearing back into the vacuum.
If you claim that our scientists have a severe mistake with the parity, then please don't ask me about it.
They aren't the ones that made the mistake, you are.
You have to ask then about this idea.
This suggests that you don't actually understand how parity violation is supposed to keep particles from annihilating. Do you know or do you not know?
The only change is that due to asymmetry or parity, one in a billion would not be annihilated immediately after pop up.
This is the part you need to elaborate on. I haven't seen any kind of explanation posted about how parity violation is supposed to actually keep virtual particles from annihilating each other. Do you actually know how that is supposed to work?
Never the less, In the infinite Universe and after infinite time there is a possibility that at least one tiny BH or one Tiny anti-BH would survive.
Unless the probability is 0.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/09/2021 10:12:08
Therefore, you can't just claim that you can use a specific idea for the BBTHe doesn't.
He has dumped the BBT.
So he can say that you aren't allowed to rely on aspects of it.
For example, the BBT explains the VE.
So you can't rely on it.
More importantly.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Virtual particles are indeed real particles?I understand it.
Please read the following:
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 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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/09/2021 10:52:38
Now he thinks he can lecture me on it, while he still does not understand it.
Sorry, there is no way to borrow energy (or negative energy/mass) in order to pay later on.
In our real universe if you have no money you have no food.
So, the Universe won't let you to borrow energy if there was no energy over there.
And it is far from normal in the vacuum ; but it happens.
As I have pointed ot several times before, it's an aspect of quantum mechanics.
You can" borrow" small quantities of energy from the vacuum- as long as you pay them back within the time frame stipulated by the uncertainty principle. It's well documented science.
Did you know that?
You claim the early universe was a vacuum- with nothing in it.
The Casimir effect shows that a vacuum- with nothing in it - spontaneously produces particle pairs.
So, I have shown that pair production happens in what you say are the early conditions of the universe.
It's just that you won't listen.
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/09/2021 10:55:45
Never the less, In the infinite Universe and after infinite time there is a possibility that at least one tiny BH or one Tiny anti-BH would survive.Maybe.
But f it is, then after another infinite length of time there would be another black hole.
And so on.
So, eventually, you end up with the Universe entirely full of BH.
But it isn't.
So you are wrong.
The chances of making a black hole must be zero.
Any number bigger than zero, in an infinite time, gives an infinite number of BH.
It's fairly simple arithmetic.
Any number times infinity gives you infinity.
Post by: alancalverd on 19/09/2021 19:50:51
Post by: Bored chemist on 19/09/2021 20:13:25
Except that there is an equally infinitesimal probability that any black hole will spontaneously evaporate, thus preserving equilibrium.I thought about that; the problem is that many of them will merge and more massive ones take longer to evaporate (and, in the laughable fiction were Dave is right, there will be lots of new ones to merge with the old big ones.)
Post by: Kryptid on 20/09/2021 01:21:11
Except that there is an equally infinitesimal probability that any black hole will spontaneously evaporate, thus preserving equilibrium.
Dave doesn't think black holes can evaporate. He denies Hawking radiation, which is ironic, given that he recently made this statement:
As I have stated, quantum theory is real and any quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.
Given that Hawking radiation is a purely mathematical (at this point, anyway) aspect of quantum theory, he should think that it is real. It's just another contradiction.
Post by: Dave Lev on 20/09/2021 03:11:50
There is no contradiction.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:32:01Then you are still contradicting yourself. You can't deny what you have said in the past that I am readily capable of quoting. You said that math alone can't be used as evidence. Anyone can go read it. It looks like you are trying to manipulate your own rules in order to get what you want.
As I have stated, quantum theory is real and any quantum' aspects that are purely mathematical are all real.
Math of real science as quantum is real.
Math of some imagination (as negative mass) in Hawking radiation is still imagination.
If that process can work for the BBT, why it can't work for theory D?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:32:01Which does nothing to prevent virtual particles from annihilating each other and disappearing back into the vacuum.
As in both cases we discuss about real particles, then the parity works the same in theory D as it works in the BBT.
This is the part you need to elaborate on. I haven't seen any kind of explanation posted about how parity violation is supposed to actually keep virtual particles from annihilating each other. Do you actually know how that is supposed to work?Actually, I have an Idea
It is all about Quantum vacuum state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_vacuum_state
According to quantum mechanics, the vacuum state is not truly empty but instead contains fleeting electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
So, the space is full with electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
If the virtual particle pair pops up exactly at some electromagnetic wave, it can split the pair due to their electric charge (based on Lorenz force)
It can't be just zeroQuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:32:01Unless the probability is 0
Never the less, In the infinite Universe and after infinite time there is a possibility that at least one tiny BH or one Tiny anti-BH would survive.
Do you agree that:
1. VE is real.
2. Particle and antiparticle could exist in the infinite Universe.
3. The universe isn't fully symmetrical, so there could be locations with more particles than antiparticles and Vice versa.
Hence, if you take it to the infinite space and infinite time - You must get at least one Tinny BH.
Theoretically, you are correct.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 05:32:01Maybe.
Never the less, In the infinite Universe and after infinite time there is a possibility that at least one tiny BH or one Tiny anti-BH would survive.
But f it is, then after another infinite length of time there would be another black hole.
And so on.
So, eventually, you end up with the Universe entirely full of BH.
However, after the creation of the first tinny BH theory D starts to work and can set our wonderful Universe.
That is correct.QuoteQuote from: alancalverd on Yesterday at 19:50:51Dave doesn't think black holes can evaporate.He denies Hawking radiation,
Except that there is an equally infinitesimal probability that any black hole will spontaneously evaporate, thus preserving equilibrium.
There is no negative mass therefore hawking radiation is just nonsense.
Given that Hawking radiation is a purely mathematical (at this point, anyway) aspect of quantum theory, he should think that it is real. It's just another contradiction.If you set nonsense (negative mass) in your real math you still get nonsense.
Post by: Kryptid on 20/09/2021 05:05:58
There is no contradiction.
It contradicts this earlier statement of yours:
Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.
Math of some imagination (as negative mass) in Hawking radiation is still imagination.
Hawking radiation is an aspect of quantum physics, which means this quote applies to it:
Math of real science as quantum is real.
So if the math of quantum mechanics is acceptable by itself as evidence, then Hawking radiation has to be acceptable too because Hawking radiation is an aspect of quantum mechanics.
If that process can work for the BBT, why it can't work for theory D?
First of all, I never said that it could. Second of all, the quantum vacuum doesn't behave the same way as matter in the early Universe in the Big Bang model does. There doesn't even appear to be consensus among physicists over whether virtual particles are real or not. Some physicists say that they are just a mathematical tool: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2021/05/07/ask-ethan-do-virtual-particles-really-exist/?sh=431df3201059
So, the space is full with electromagnetic waves and particles that pop into and out of the quantum field.
If the virtual particle pair pops up exactly at some electromagnetic wave, it can split the pair due to their electric charge (based on Lorenz force)
Please explain how a photon (which is the quantum of an electromagnetic wave) is going to produce any kind of Lorentz force on a virtual particle pair. Has such a thing ever been observed?
Hence, if you take it to the infinite space and infinite time - You must get at least one Tinny BH.
That doesn't follow.
If you set nonsense (negative mass) in your real math you still get nonsense.
How do you know that negative mass is nonsense? It could just be that negative mass exists in some way that we haven't detected it (such as existing inside of black holes, which would make it completely unobservable).
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/09/2021 08:33:53
However, after the creation of the first tinny BH theory D starts to work and can set our wonderful Universe.For a start, that's not true your "theory" can't work because it breaks the conservation of mass.
You may recall that I proved this earlier.
But that's beside the point.
The presence of our universe doesn't prevent the VE.
So, if you were right, there would still be an infinite number of BH as well as our universe and that's plainly wrong.
Did you know that you are allowed to think through your own foolish ideas?
You don't have to embarrass yourself by posting them here and wasting everyone's time.
Post by: Bored chemist on 20/09/2021 08:35:39
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.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2021 06:47:40
No, it is not due to quantum.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:11:50Hawking radiation is an aspect of quantum physics, which means this quote applies to it:
Math of some imagination (as negative mass) in Hawking radiation is still imagination.
Hawking radiation is due wrong understanding about energy conservation law:
https://ysjournal.com/what-is-hawking-radiation-and-what-problems-has-it-brought-to-physics/
"To understand Hawking radiation we must first understand that there is no such thing as empty space. Even a vacuum is a bath of bubbling particles, spontaneously appearing and then disappearing. "
"In order for energy to be conserved the particle falling into the black hole must have a perceived negative energy. Since negative energy means negative mass (because of Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence principle, shown in the formula E=mc2) it therefore follows that the mass of the black hole decreases. This means that if a black hole does not take in any other type of energy it will shrink until it disappears: that is why Hawking radiation is also known as black hole evaporation."
So, our dear Hawking assumed (as all the other 100,000 BBT scientists) that new energy can't be created in our universe due to the conservation law.
Therefore, based on that wrong understanding he got the simple outcome that there must be negative mass.
However, he made a sever mistake.
Somehow, the energy in our universe must be created somewhere.
If it was created outside our current universe (as some Brane imagination) then it is your first obligation to prove that there is outside location as brane.
Then, as real scientists your next mission is to explain how the energy had been created at that outside location without breaking the conservation law))
Without those two vital steps, your BBT is useless.
Sorry, you all believe that the BBT is the ultimate theory as you all share the same wrong understanding that our universe can't bypass the energy conservation law.
It seems that you all are locked in that energy conservation black room without finding your way out.
Actually you all would love to stay there at the darkness happily forever and ever.
You have no ability to understand that there is no outside of our Universe as it goes up to the infinity.
Therefore, you must accept the idea that all the energy/mass in our infinite universe must be created in our universe over time.
Theory D fully explains how that mechanism works.
Therefore, Hawking radiation is nonsense not due to quantum math but due to the wrong assumption that our universe can't create new energy/mass.
Please - let me open the light for you, as it is very dark and dense in that dark room where all of you are locked (You also need some fresh air especially with that covid-19)!
Theory D is actually the Darwinism theory for the Universe evolvement.
As Darwin explained how all the variety of life had been evolved from the first Ameba, my task is to explain how the variety of matter, atoms... stars and even galaxies web - had been evolved from that tinny BH in the empty universe up to the infinity.
We are just wasting our time at that phase.
So, please let's move on to theory D while we have got the first tinny BH in the empty infinite Universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2021 08:35:16
Somehow, the energy in our universe must be created somewhere.We have known for a hundred years that mass/ energy is conserved.
It is proven (by Emmy Noether) to be true.
Anyone who says it is not true is either stupid or dishonest.
Which are you?
Also, you have failed to explain why the universe is not full of BH
And...
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.
You can't defend your idea because, as you know, it is wrong.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2021 09:49:56
We have known for a hundred years that mass/ energy is conserved.Emmy Noether theory is correct by 100%. Conservation law is also correct by 100%.
It is proven (by Emmy Noether) to be true.
Anyone who says it is not true is either stupid or dishonest.
However, our universe can create new mass/energy without breaking those laws.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand it?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2021 10:14:12
You can't defend your idea because, as you know, it is wrong.I can easily defend my idea as it is correct by 100%.
The imagination about energy that had been especially delivered for our lovely BBT imagination is wrong and you should know that it is wrong as you can't explain how that energy had been created.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2021 11:09:23
I can easily defend my idea as it is correct by 100%.Then why don't you?
Why do you post stuff that breaks the proven laws of physics?
However, our universe can create new mass/energy without breaking those laws.No, it can not.
By definition, it can't do that and follow the conservation laws.
Why post such obvious nonsense?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2021 12:35:43
As a master of BBT knowledge (which have a life mission to reject any other theory), would you kindly explain how the energy for that theory had been created without breaking the conservation laws and exactly where was it before that imagination bang?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:49:56No, it can not.
However, our universe can create new mass/energy without breaking those laws.
By definition, it can't do that and follow the conservation laws.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2021 14:07:33
would you kindly explainWhat would be the point?
I explained it plenty of times.
I don't know if the problem that you do not listen, or that you do not understand.
I can't fix either of those faults.
Can you?
Can you actually read and understand the reasons why the law of conservation of mass does not apply at the start of the universe?
Can you understand that "before the start of the universe" is plainly different from "after the start of the universe"?
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2021 14:09:50
However, our universe can create new mass/energy without breaking those laws.
Here's the post where I proved that you are wrong.
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.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/09/2021 15:12:11
No, it is not due to quantum.
Hawking radiation is an aspect of quantum physics, whether you like it or not.
So, our dear Hawking assumed (as all the other 100,000 BBT scientists) that new energy can't be created in our universe due to the conservation law.
Therefore, based on that wrong understanding he got the simple outcome that there must be negative mass.
His understanding wasn't wrong. I'm still waiting for you to explain why negative energy is nonsense.
Therefore, Hawking radiation is nonsense not due to quantum math but due to the wrong assumption that our universe can't create new energy/mass.
Non-sequitur.
Theory D is actually the Darwinism theory for the Universe evolvement.
As Darwin explained how all the variety of life had been evolved from the first Ameba, my task is to explain how the variety of matter, atoms... stars and even galaxies web - had been evolved from that tinny BH in the empty universe up to the infinity.
Darwinism has to be put in the trash because it can't explain how the first amoeba was created.
So, please let's move on to theory D while we have got the first tinny BH in the empty infinite Universe.
Not until you explain how that first black hole was formed. It is a requirement as per your rules.
Emmy Noether theory is correct by 100%. Conservation law is also correct by 100%.
However, our universe can create new mass/energy without breaking those laws.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand it?
Noether's theorem states that mass and energy can't be created.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2021 15:18:18
What would be the point?The point is that you and all the other 100,000 really don't know.
I explained it plenty of times.
I don't know if the problem that you do not listen, or that you do not understand.
The point is that you all actually know that you don't have a basic clue how the BBT energy had been created and where.
The point is that you carry the name of conservation law for nothing.
The point is that without clear explanation about the source of the BBT energy - your BBT should be set deep in the garbage.
Therefore, for the last time - if you know where and how that imagination energy had been created without breaking the conservation law - then please introduce your imagination.
If not - you have to accept the simple understanding that the BBT is just useless theory.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2021 15:22:09
Hawking radiation is an aspect of quantum physics, whether you like it or not.Do you claim that Hawking radiation isn't based on the understanding of energy/mass conservation?
If so, do you claim that the following article is wrong?
Hawking radiation is due wrong understanding about energy conservation law:
https://ysjournal.com/what-is-hawking-radiation-and-what-problems-has-it-brought-to-physics/
"To understand Hawking radiation we must first understand that there is no such thing as empty space. Even a vacuum is a bath of bubbling particles, spontaneously appearing and then disappearing. "
"In order for energy to be conserved the particle falling into the black hole must have a perceived negative energy. Since negative energy means negative mass (because of Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence principle, shown in the formula E=mc2) it therefore follows that the mass of the black hole decreases. This means that if a black hole does not take in any other type of energy it will shrink until it disappears: that is why Hawking radiation is also known as black hole evaporation."
So, our dear Hawking assumed (as all the other 100,000 BBT scientists) that new energy can't be created in our universe due to the conservation law.
Therefore, based on that wrong understanding he got the simple outcome that there must be negative mass.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/09/2021 15:23:36
Do you claim that Hawking radiation isn't based on the understanding of energy/mass conservation?
I never said that, but it's still an aspect of quantum physics.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2021 15:35:40
Sorry, in the article it is stated clearly that it is aspect of conservation law!Do you claim that Hawking radiation isn't based on the understanding of energy/mass conservation?I never said that, but it's still an aspect of quantum physics.
Quantum physics gives the math frame.
As Hawking used wrong setups (conservation law) then he got that wrong negative mass results.
So please - its not due to quantum, its due to the wrong understanding about conservation law.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2021 15:36:06
His understanding wasn't wrong. I'm still waiting for you to explain why negative energy is nonsense.Well, based on Hawking imagination, the chance for a negative particle to fall into the BH is equal to the chance of a positive particle to fall in.
Therefore, the chance for a negative particle to be ejected outwards is equal to the chance of a positive particle to be ejected outwards.
Therefore, it is expected that around 50% of the BH in the Universe we should observe negative mass with negative gravity force.
Do we see any mass with negative gravity?
As the answer is clearly no, then it proves that there is no negative mass in the entire Universe.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/09/2021 15:40:11
Sorry, in the article it is stated clearly that it is aspect of conservation law!
I don't know why you are saying "sorry", given that I never disagreed with that.
As Hawking used wrong setups (conservation law) then he got that wrong negative mass results.
You have yet to demonstrate that it is wrong.
So please - its not due to quantum, its due to the wrong understanding about conservation law.
It's still an aspect of quantum physics: do you really not think that subatomic particles are quantum?
Well, based on Hawking imagination, the chance for a negative particle to fall into the BH is equal to the chance of a positive particle to fall in.
No, it isn't. In Hawking's model, the negative mass particles only fall into the black hole. That makes them unobservable.
Are you going to explain how the first black hole formed?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2021 15:47:28
No, it isn't. In Hawking's model, the negative mass particles only fall into the black hole. That makes them unobservable.Why only the negative mass falls in?
Do you claim that Hawking spirit is pushing the negative mass in and the positive mass out?
Can you please explain (based on real science), why only the negative mass falls in?
Post by: Kryptid on 21/09/2021 15:55:51
Why only the negative mass falls in?
I would need to do some more research to update myself on the topic, but I think the very fact that one of the virtual particles ends up inside of the event horizon is what causes it to have negative mass in the first place. However, that's really not accurate as the pop culture explanation for Hawking radiation is inaccurate itself. Hawking just created that as an analogy that was easier for people to understand because the real explanation is harder for non-physicists to get their mind around. I'm not sure that the "real" explanation involves negative energy or mass at all. This is a potentially useful video about it:
Then there's this explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/09/yes-stephen-hawking-lied-to-us-all-about-how-black-holes-decay/?sh=3e970b574e63
That article offers an explanation that doesn't require negative mass:
Quote
Black holes are not decaying because there's an infalling virtual particle carrying negative energy; that's another fantasy devised by Hawking to "save" his insufficient analogy. Instead, black holes are decaying, and losing mass over time, because the energy emitted by this Hawking radiation is slowly reducing the curvature of space in that region.
Do you claim that Hawking spirit is pushing the negative mass in and the positive mass out?
Now you're being intentionally ridiculous.
Post by: Bored chemist on 21/09/2021 20:15:27
Even if that was true, it would still be better than your idea which we know is wrong.What would be the point?The point is that you and all the other 100,000 really don't know.
I explained it plenty of times.
I don't know if the problem that you do not listen, or that you do not understand.
The point is that you all actually know that you don't have a basic clue how the BBT energy had been created and where.
The point is that you carry the name of conservation law for nothing.
The point is that without clear explanation about the source of the BBT energy - your BBT should be set deep in the garbage.
Therefore, for the last time - if you know where and how that imagination energy had been created without breaking the conservation law - then please introduce your imagination.
If not - you have to accept the simple understanding that the BBT is just useless theory.
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2021 20:18:58
Then there's this explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/09/yes-stephen-hawking-lied-to-us-all-about-how-black-holes-decay/?sh=3e970b574e63It is actually stated:
That article offers an explanation that doesn't require negative mass:
"But the flawed analogy he put forth in his most famous book, A Brief History of Time, is not correct. Hawking radiation is not the emission of particles and antiparticles from the event horizon. It does not involve an inward-falling pair member carrying negative energy. And it shouldn't even be exclusive to black holes. Stephen Hawking knew how black holes truly decay, but he told the world a very different, even incorrect, story. It's time we all knew the truth instead."
So, do you finelly agree that this article upports my understanding that there is no negative mass/energy?
Post by: Dave Lev on 21/09/2021 20:28:25
Let's agree - you (and all the other 100,000 scientists) don't have a basic clue how the energy for our entire universe (even if it is infinite) had been created and where.QuoteThe point is that you all actually know that you don't have a basic clue how the BBT energy had been created and where.Even if that was true, it would still be better than your idea which we know is wrong.
The point is that you carry the name of conservation law for nothing.
The point is that without clear explanation about the source of the BBT energy - your BBT should be set deep in the garbage.
Therefore, for the last time - if you know where and how that imagination energy had been created without breaking the conservation law - then please introduce your imagination.
If not - you have to accept the simple understanding that the BBT is just useless theory.
Therefore, you can't know for sure that the BBT energy doesn't break the conservation law.
Hence, next time that you raise the flag of the conservation law, please remember to hide under the table.
Post by: Origin on 21/09/2021 20:45:25
Let's agreeLet's agree that you don't know what you are talking about. Lets agree that you don't have an education in physics and do not even know the basics that a freshman in college knows. Let's agree that your ideas are based on ignorance and are clearly wrong.
Post by: Kryptid on 21/09/2021 21:39:47
So, do you finelly agree that this article upports my understanding that there is no negative mass/energy?
No, as it doesn't rule out other forms of negative mass or energy.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/09/2021 08:56:08
Let's agree - you (and all the other 100,000 scientists) don't have a basic clue how the energy for our entire universe (even if it is infinite) had been created and where.Even if we did agree that, it wouldn't stop your idea being certainly wrong, so the BBT would still be a better option.
Therefore,You should use the word "therefore" when something follows from something else.But in this case, it would be following from something that isn't true.
So you can't say "therefore".
ou can't know for sure that the BBT energy doesn't break the conservation law.Yes we can, because it doesn't depend on where the energy is from; it depends on when it arrived .
So, yes we do know that it does not break the energy/ mass conservation laws.
This will still be true, no matter what nonsense you say.
Hence, next time that you raise the flag of the conservation law, please remember to hide under the table.Again the word "hence" is a bit like "therefore".
You can't use it when the thing it depends on is wrong.
It's like saying "People have green skin; hence they are difficult to see against a grass field".
It's not true that people are hard to see- because they aren't really green.
And we are still waiting for you 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.
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/09/2021 19:33:57
Dear KryptidSo, do you finelly agree that this article upports my understanding that there is no negative mass/energy?
No, as it doesn't rule out other forms of negative mass or energy.
You have offered the following article:
Then there's this explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/09/yes-stephen-hawking-lied-to-us-all-about-how-black-holes-decay/?sh=3e970b574e63It is stated that Hawking knew that his story was incorrect. So, it almost seems that he is just a liar:
"Stephen Hawking knew how black holes truly decay, but he told the world a very different, even incorrect, story. It's time we all knew the truth instead."
With regards to the Negative mass it is stated:
"It does not involve an inward-falling pair member carrying negative energy"
Therefore, those scientists claim that it is not about falling negative mass.
So why do you insist on negative mass while they claim that Hawking theory is incorrect and he knew that?
In theory D we starts with only one single tinny BH. That's all we need. I have offered the VE energy. our scientists claim that due to VE the space is full with particles. Those particles pop in and out and they are real even if due to the annihilation process most of them are converted to photons.QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:28:25Even if we did agree that, it wouldn't stop your idea being certainly wrong, so the BBT would still be a better option.
Let's agree - you (and all the other 100,000 scientists) don't have a basic clue how the energy for our entire universe (even if it is infinite) had been created and where.
Therefore we discuss on real VE energy and real particles that are needed for just one single tinny BH.
On the other hand the BBT is not based on real energy as you have no clue where that energy came from and how it had been created. That energy should cover all the mass/energy in the entire universe even if the universe is infinite.
Please don't forget that due to Einstein formula:
E = m c^2
Then for any gram of mass we must invest energy that is higher by C^2.
Therefore, the energy that is needed for just one galaxy as the milky way with its 200 B Stars is higher by C^2.
If we discuss about infinite universe with infinite galaxy - then it is clear that you need energy that is higher by C^2 than the total mass in that infinite universe.
Hence, the requested energy is just high above infinite. So, any inflation velocity which is finite would end the BBT as a SSS.. SMBH.
So, how can you claim that the BBT is preferable, while you need infinite energy without any real energy source and it is almost clear that any finite inflation would end the bang as a BH, while in theory D you only need just one BH and the VE energy is there in front of our eyes?
Actually, if it helps, I can start theory D just after the Big bang that ends as a single BH.
You claim that the Bang in the BBT is real. So I would like to buy that bang.
Do you agree to sell me that bang in order to start my theory D?
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/09/2021 19:49:36
In theory D we starts with only one single tinny BH.Any process which gives rise to one BH from "space" will, in an infinite time give rise to an infinite number of BH
We do not see an infinite number of BH.
So we know that there is no process which creates them.
And you still need to answer this
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 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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/09/2021 19:50:56
You claim that the Bang in the BBT is real.The famous observation about the big bang is that it wasn't actually big and it wasn't actually a bang
Post by: Dave Lev on 22/09/2021 20:05:02
If it wasn't big and wasn't bang, then what was it?You claim that the Bang in the BBT is real.The famous observation about the big bang is that it wasn't actually big and it wasn't actually a bang
Can we call if "flop"
So please, would you kindly sell me that "flop" which would deliver the requested BH to my theory D?
Post by: Kryptid on 22/09/2021 21:23:05
The kind of negative energy I'm speaking of doesn't have anything to do with Hawking radiation. I'm simply speaking in general that there could be negative mass particles out there somewhere that are either so rare or so far away that we haven't detected them yet.
Post by: Bored chemist on 22/09/2021 22:12:27
So please, would you kindly sell me that "flop" which would deliver the requested BH to my theory D?Well... if you insist.
Here's a flop.
What it does is generate 1 BH per cubic parsec per million years (there's a setting for how often, but that's the "factory default".)
And, acceding to your theory, I had to sell the flop to you an infinitely long time ago- because you think space has been here forever.
So, since the flop has been spitting out BH for an infinite time, there are now an infinite number of BH.
Which makes the universe impossibly crowded.
So, sure, I can sell you this flop, but it still leaves your "theory" as an abject failure.
Just like I have been saying for ages.
Are you beginning to understand the problem of an infinitely old universe?
Either you get no BH or an infinite number of them.
Neither works.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/09/2021 05:00:17
Well, I have no interest in your personal flop.So please, would you kindly sell me that "flop" which would deliver the requested BH to my theory D?Well... if you insist.
Here's a flop.
What it does is generate 1 BH per cubic parsec per million years (there's a setting for how often, but that's the "factory default".)
And, acceding to your theory, I had to sell the flop to you an infinitely long time ago- because you think space has been here forever.
So, since the flop has been spitting out BH for an infinite time, there are now an infinite number of BH.
Which makes the universe impossibly crowded.
So, sure, I can sell you this flop, but it still leaves your "theory" as an abject failure.
Just like I have been saying for ages.
Are you beginning to understand the problem of an infinitely old universe?
Either you get no BH or an infinite number of them.
Neither works.
I'm going to buy the real flop that is called: "Planck epoch"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, since astronomical data about them are not available. 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. The period from 0 to 10−43 seconds into the expansion, the Planck epoch, was a phase in which the four fundamental forces — the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the gravitational force, were unified as one.[25] In this stage, the characteristic scale length of the universe was the Planck length, 1.6×10−35 m, and consequently had a temperature of approximately 1032 degrees Celsius. Even the very concept of a particle breaks down in these conditions. A proper understanding of this period awaits the development of a theory of quantum gravity.[26][27] The Planck epoch was succeeded by the grand unification epoch beginning at 10−43 seconds, where gravitation separated from the other forces as the universe's temperature fell.[25]"
So, theory D starts at the Planck epoch.
It is also stated that the density of the early universe was very high, much higher that the density that is needed for a BH:
"Despite being extremely dense at this time—far denser than is usually required to form a black hole—the universe did not re-collapse into a singularity."
So, they think that the density of the early universe could end as a BH but somehow it did not re-collapse into a singularity.
If I understand it correctly, it is all due to the inflation.
In theory D there is no inflation, only the current expansion that we observe today.
Therefore, without that imagination that is called inflation, the Big Bang would end as a single BH and from that moment the space would expand at the Hubble constant.
"Hubble's constant, measured to be 70.4+1.3−1.4 km/s/Mpc by the WMAP"
Hence:
Theory D starts from that bang took place at the infinite time ago with a single BH while the space is increasing at 70.4+1.3−1.4 km/s/Mpc.
That single BH would be the mother and father to all the matter in the Universe.
After infinite time, we would get an infinite universe full with galaxies that have been created by that single BH.
Conclusion -
You can't sell me your personal flop with infinite BH's.
I would like to buy only the original flop that is called "Planck epoch". Without inflation, that flop must end as a single BH.
Can we please start now the story of theory D?
Post by: Kryptid on 23/09/2021 05:16:39
Even if you did have an explanation for it, the universe that would come from that wouldn't look anything like the one we actually see. During the Planck epoch, all of space was filled with highly-dense energy.
Since the Universe in Theory D is infinitely-large, that means infinite mass and infinite energy. A black hole that formed from the collapse of all of that mass would therefore be infinitely-massive and infinitely-large. Every location in the Universe would be inside that black hole. So you don't get stars or planets.
What in the world is with you suddenly talking about space expanding? You have continually denied the existence of spatial expansion because it breaks your rule of not being directly observed.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2021 08:54:07
I'm going to buy the real flop that is called: "Planck epoch"It does not make BH out of VE.
So it won't work.
Your idea is still unworkable
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.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/09/2021 11:07:50
You can't use that unless you have explanation for where that "imagination energy" (as you call it) came fromSorry, 100,000 BBT scientists claim that the "Planck epoch" is real.
Therefore, if you have any difficulties with that theory, then please go and ask those scientists about the source of energy for that Planck epoch.
This isn't my job.
Theory D starts exactly as the BBT.
Hence, 10^-43 sec after the bang in both theories there is a Planck epoch.
During the Planck epoch, all of space was filled with highly-dense energy.Yes, that is absolutely correct.
Since the Universe in Theory D is infinitely-large, that means infinite mass and infinite energy.No, Both start with the same Planck epoch phase.
However, from this point of time there is small difference between the theories:
In the BBT the inflation must start to work.
In theory D the normal expansion (based on Hubble law) of 70.4+1.3−1.4 km/s/Mpc is good enough.
A black hole that formed from the collapse of all of that mass would therefore be infinitely-massive and infinitely-largeWell its all about the total energy that the Big mighty bang is willing to deliver free of charge.
In the BBT you need infinite energy. In theory D we only need energy to fit in one BH.
As you can get in the BBT the energy to any size of universe, then I can also ask the dear BBT to deliver me just small portion of energy, unless you can prove that only infinite energy can be delivered at that mighty bang.
Every location in the Universe would be inside that black hole. So you don't get stars or planets.I don't need any star of planets. Just one single BH.
It can be tinny BH or even infinite SSS SMBH.
As long as it called BH, then it is good enough for me.
What in the world is with you suddenly talking about space expanding?Well, I had been convinced that the VE isn't good enough for you.
So, as you all are BBT believers and I can't beat the BBT, then I have decided to jump on the BBT wagon.
You have continually denied the existence of spatial expansion because it breaks your rule of not being directly observed.If the BBT wagon can take me to the requested destination - that is perfectly OK with me.
So please just a single BH after the Planck Epoch.
It can be a tinny BH of a SSSSS...SMBH.
Any single kind of BH after the bang is good enough for theory D.
It does not make BH out of VE.Yes, the VE is already in the garbage.
So it won't work.
Your idea is still unworkable
Now I'm using the BBT wagon and you can't prevent me from using that VIP wagon.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2021 13:01:57
Sorry, 100,000 BBT scientists claim that the "Planck epoch" is real.Yes and they say that you are wrong because the universe is about 14G Yr old, but you are trying to tell the lie that it has been here forever.
The Planck epoch happened, by definition, shortly after the start of the universe.
You say there was no "beginning", so there can't have been a Planck epoch.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2021 13:02:53
No, Both start with the same Planck epoch phase.No, because a finite one is not the same as the infinite one that you are claiming.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2021 13:03:45
n theory D the normal expansion (based on Hubble law) of 70.4+1.3−1.4 km/s/Mpc is good enough.That's only "normal" today.
It's 1/ the age of the universe.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2021 13:04:12
If the BBT wagon can take me to the requested destination - that is perfectly OK with me.It can't.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2021 13:05:16
Any single kind of BH after the bang is good enough for theory D.As we have pointed out, even if you have a single BH, "Theory" D does not work, because it breaks the conservation laws.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2021 13:05:44
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.
Post by: Kryptid on 23/09/2021 17:58:59
Sorry, 100,000 BBT scientists claim that the "Planck epoch" is real.
Here is what you have said about those very same scientists in the past:
Let's agree - you (and all the other 100,000 scientists) don't have a basic clue how the energy for our entire universe (even if it is infinite) had been created and where.
Therefore, you can't know for sure that the BBT energy doesn't break the conservation law.
Hence, next time that you raise the flag of the conservation law, please remember to hide under the table.
Are you of the opinion now that scientists should be believed just because they claim something to be true?
Quote
Therefore, if you have any difficulties with that theory, then please go and ask those scientists about the source of energy for that Planck epoch.
This isn't my job.
Actually, it is your job because you claim that those scientists don’t know how that energy got there:
The imagination about energy that had been especially delivered for our lovely BBT imagination is wrong and you should know that it is wrong as you can't explain how that energy had been created.
If they can’t explain it, then you have to. It is your rule:
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.
It is not good enough to explain how the Universe had been evolved from that energy that the universe got free of charge.
In any real theory it is our OBLIGATION to offer real solution how the energy had been evolved (in our current universe or at any twisted space time..
As the BBT bypass that key question about the creation of the energy it is just a Useless theory.
Quote
No, Both start with the same Planck epoch phase.
However, from this point of time there is small difference between the theories:
In the BBT the inflation must start to work.
In theory D the normal expansion (based on Hubble law) of 70.4+1.3−1.4 km/s/Mpc is good enough.
That doesn’t do anything to keep your universe from starting with infinite energy. Every cubic centimeter of space was filled with energy during the Planck epoch. Since your universe contains an infinite number of cubic centimeters, that means an infinite amount of energy.
Quote
Well its all about the total energy that the Big mighty bang is willing to deliver free of charge.
In the BBT you need infinite energy. In theory D we only need energy to fit in one BH.
As you can get in the BBT the energy to any size of universe, then I can also ask the dear BBT to deliver me just small portion of energy, unless you can prove that only infinite energy can be delivered at that mighty bang.
You get an infinite amount of energy as I just explained above.
Quote
I don't need any star of planets.
If you want Theory D to be correct, you do. We live on a planet. There are stars in our sky. These things obviously exist. So Theory D has to be capable of producing them at some point during the Universe’s history. If the entire Universe is filled with an infinite black hole, then you don’t get those things. That makes Theory D incompatible with observation.
Quote
Just one single BH.
It can be tinny BH or even infinite SSS SMBH.
As long as it called BH, then it is good enough for me.
It has to be infinite, and for the reasons I’ve stated before, that is at odds with our observations (an infinite black hole would preclude our own existence, so we wouldn’t even be here to make observations in the first place).
Quote
Well, I had been convinced that the VE isn't good enough for you.
So, as you all are BBT believers and I can't beat the BBT, then I have decided to jump on the BBT wagon.
So you are doing this in order to appease us and not because you actually believe the evidence supports this? That’s not a scientific attitude.
Quote
If the BBT wagon can take me to the requested destination - that is perfectly OK with me.It can’t because it breaks your rules. You have stated there is no evidence for spatial expansion and your rules require there to be evidence.
Quote
Yes, the VE is already in the garbage.
Now I'm using the BBT wagon and you can't prevent me from using that VIP wagon.
We can’t, but the various rules you have established over the previous months of our discussions do prevent you from using it.
Also, why do you keep changing your explanation for how the first black hole formed? That strongly implies that you don’t actually know how it happened. You’re playing guessing games. If you really knew, you’d stick to one explanation.
If you don’t know the answer, then Theory D can’t be “100% correct” like you claim it is. If a theory was 100% correct, then there would never be any need to change some aspect of it like you have been doing.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/09/2021 20:20:34
Are you of the opinion now that scientists should be believed just because they claim something to be true?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.
QuoteAs long as our scientists claim that the BBT is correct, then I can use that Planck epoch idea.
Therefore, if you have any difficulties with that theory, then please go and ask those scientists about the source of energy for that Planck epoch.
This isn't my job.
Actually, it is your job because you claim that those scientists don’t know how that energy got there:
That doesn’t do anything to keep your universe from starting with infinite energy. Every cubic centimeter of space was filled with energy during the Planck epoch.That is still Ok for theory D
Since your universe contains an infinite number of cubic centimeters, that means an infinite amount of energy.Based on the BBT the universe started as a Planck point. That is perfectly OK also for theory D.
However, based on the BBT, that bang took place 13.8 By ago while based on theory D it took place infinite time ago.
Since your universe contains an infinite number of cubic centimeters, that means an infinite amount of energy.So, "my" universe can start as a finite universe at the infinite time ago and end today with infinite Universe.
You get an infinite amount of energy as I just explained above.That is perfectly OK.
So theory D starts with a very massive BH.
As long as there is a single BH hat is OK.
If you want Theory D to be correct, you do. We live on a planet. There are stars in our sky. These things obviously exist. So Theory D has to be capable of producing them at some point during the Universe’s history. If the entire Universe is filled with an infinite black hole, then you don’t get those things. That makes Theory D incompatible with observation.We get them all from that single BH.
I would explain how it works,
It has to be infinite, and for the reasons I’ve stated before, that is at odds with our observations (an infinite black hole would preclude our own existence, so we wouldn’t even be here to make observations in the first place).Sorry, you didn't offer any real data to prove that the energy at the Planck epoch is infinite. You couldn't even offer a real energy source for just one boson. So, please how can you claim in so high confidence that the energy is infinite?
Please also remember that infinite energy means a BH also based on the BBT theory as the inflation can't be infinite.
Therefore, if the energy density is infinite (as you claim) nothing can prevent it from setting a SSS SMBH.
Hence, with your following argument: "an infinite black hole would preclude our own existence, so we wouldn’t even be here to make observations in the first place" you have just killed the BBT.
Therefore, if you wish to keep your BBT alive, while we all understand the inflation can't be infinite, then the energy must also be finite.
So you are doing this in order to appease us and not because you actually believe the evidence supports this? That’s not a scientific attitude.Correct.
As you reject real science, I had been forced to use your own imagination science.
It can’t because it breaks your rules. You have stated there is no evidence for spatial expansion and your rules require there to be evidence.Well, I'm now riding the BBT wagon, therefore, I have to use your rule about the space expansion, although it has no negative impact on theory D.
QuoteThe VE king is dead. Long live the new plank epoch king.
Yes, the VE is already in the garbage.
Now I'm using the BBT wagon and you can't prevent me from using that VIP wagon.
We can’t, but the various rules you have established over the previous months of our discussions do prevent you from using it.
Also, why do you keep changing your explanation for how the first black hole formed? That strongly implies that you don’t actually know how it happened. You’re playing guessing games. If you really knew, you’d stick to one explanation.I know that the VE is the ultimate solution.
However, I have no intention to argue with you for 30 Pg. just on that issue.
Therefore, I had been forced to come with new tactic.
If you don’t know the answer, then Theory D can’t be “100% correct” like you claim it is. If a theory was 100% correct, then there would never be any need to change some aspect of it like you have been doing.In a real science world, theory D works perfectly without any change.
However, we are living in a planet where all the 100,000 scientists are fully BBT believers.
So, it isn't about science any more. It is all about bypassing the BBT imagination obstacles.
Therefore, if you can change the BBT 10^1000 times in the last 80 years, than I can also update my theory as needed in order to bypass those imagination obstacles.
Post by: Dave Lev on 23/09/2021 20:29:08
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2021 23:08:35
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.
Because, no matter what you say, your idea breaks the conservation laws.
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.
You could not do that (because it does not happen).
That's because your idea is just plain wrong.
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 23/09/2021 23:09:15
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.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/09/2021 00:03:12
Well, I still think that the BBT is nonsense and that Plank Epoch is just imagination.
So then you're lying to us when you say that Theory D uses the Planck epoch. I don't have to say anything more then. At this point, I could probably just lock the thread because you just admitted that you are being ridiculous on purpose.
However, as you don't let me work with the real energy as VE
I'm not the one who is stopping you from using it. It's that you have no plausible mechanism that allows you to use it.
then I had been forced to use your BBT wagon in order to get that requested first BH.
I don't have a BBT wagon.
As long as our scientists claim that the BBT is correct, then I can use that Planck epoch idea.
Not if you don't explain how it happened. Otherwise, you are breaking your own rules on purpose and thus intentionally contradicting yourself. I would consider that spam. Spam is against our rules here.
Based on the BBT the universe started as a Planck point.
No, it didn't.
So, "my" universe can start as a finite universe at the infinite time ago and end today with infinite Universe.
So you're changing your mind yet again. Did the Universe start off as infinite or finite?
Sorry, you didn't offer any real data to prove that the energy at the Planck epoch is infinite.
It's only infinite if the Universe starts out with an infinite size (which you seem to have changed your mind about).
Therefore, if you wish to keep your BBT alive
I don't. Just how many times have I repeated that the Big Bang theory is in the garbage?
Correct.
So you just admitted that you aren't doing science. This is a science website. I'll add that to the list of reasons why I can lock this thread.
I have to use your rule about the space expansion,
I have no such rule.
So, it isn't about science any more.
Then this thread has run out its usefulness (if it ever had any to begin with). On all of these grounds, I am considering locking this thread. You are admitting to being ridiculous on purpose, which makes you a troll. If you don't cut that out, then I will lock the thread. You have one post to comply.
Post by: Dave Lev on 24/09/2021 04:44:06
Do you claim that the BBT is incorrect?QuoteQuote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:20:34Not if you don't explain how it happened. Otherwise, you are breaking your own rules on purpose and thus intentionally contradicting yourself. I would consider that spam. Spam is against our rules here.
As long as our scientists claim that the BBT is correct, then I can use that Planck epoch idea.
When I'm using Newton gravity formula, do I need to explain how it happened?
You have clearly told me that I can use the BBT as much as I wish.
I don't need to prove that BBT is correct and how it got its energy. This isn't my task.
As long as our scientists claim that this theory is correct and it is the Ultimate theory for the Universe - I can use it.
I repeated that the Big Bang theory is in the garbage?You can set it in the garbage, but I still can use it as much as I wish without breaking any law.
How can you call it spam while I'm using the BBT theory
So then you're lying to us when you say that Theory D uses the Planck epoch.No, I do not lie.
I can use any way to prove the starting point for theory D including the BBT.
If I believe in the BBT or not - is just my personal issue.
No one have control on my personal feeling about this theory.
We are not living in North Korea.
No one can force me to believe in the BBT before I can use any segment in that theory.
Therefore, I can use the BBT as long as the science community does not claim that it is a spam.
Post by: Kryptid on 24/09/2021 06:50:33
No, I do not lie.
Well, since you said this...
Well, I still think that the BBT is nonsense and that Plank Epoch is just imagination.
... then that means you are lying if you are claiming that the Planck epoch can be used for Theory D. You cannot simultaneously think something is "just imagination" and also that it "proves the starting point for Theory D". Either you believe it is correct or you don't. You admitted that you don't believe that it is correct and that the only reason that you are "using" it is an attempt to "appease" us.
f I believe in the BBT or not - is just my personal issue.
No one have control on my personal feeling about this theory.
We are not living in North Korea.
No one can force me to believe in the BBT before I can use any segment in that theory.
Whether or not you believe in the Big Bang theory isn't the problem. The problem is that you are trolling us by claiming Theory D uses the Planck epoch when, in fact, it doesn't (and here is the quote where you prove it doesn't):
In a real science world, theory D works perfectly without any change.
Therefore, I can use the BBT as long as the science community does not claim that it is a spam.
It's the way you are using it that is spam. You very clearly stated that you have intentionally abandoned science in this discussion:
Correct.
As you reject real science, I had been forced to use your own imagination science.
And since you failed to heed my warning about continuing to add spam to this thread with intentional nonsense, I'm locking it now. Feel free to go complain to the other moderators about this if you want to, but I know at least one of them already wanted to lock this thread in the past. If you start another thread about this same subject, I'll lock that one too and give you a suspension for trying to bypass the lock. You have been warned.