[Dave Lev (OP)]

All it does is convert the gravitational potential energy already in the disc into kinetic energy as it falls through the black hole's gravitational field. The total energy is unchanged

O.K.
You claim that the SMBH "eats" some of the matter from the accretion disc
I actually fully agree with that.
So, it converts some of the gravitational potential energy in the disc into kinetic energy.
Hence, there is extra energy that is needed to set the creation process.

If the black hole gains mass, then the accretion disk must lose mass to compensate.

We have just found that the SMBH converts some of the gravitational potential energy in the disc into kinetic energy.
Why this extra kinetic energy can't be used for the new matter creation at the disc?
Why do you also ignore the following?

As "Some of that energy (in the accretion disc) is in the form of potential energy and some in the form of kinetic energy", than some of this energy must go down during that process.
If I understand it correctly, the kinetic energy represents the orbital velocity. Therefore, during the creation process, this orbital velocity should go down. So, we can claim that the measured 0.3 c of the plasma orbital velocity at the accretion disc is direct outcome of that first law of thermodynamic. Without it, the plasma orbital velocity could be higher than that.

Actually, the black hole-accretion disk system as a whole must lose mass and energy over time since it is constantly radiating energy out into space. That is, if no more mass or energy is being brought in from outside.

That statement proves that there is a fatal error in your theory.
Our scientists couldn't find any indication that matter from outside can cross the magnetic shield around the accretion disc and move inwards. I claim that this functionality is none realistic!
So, if there is no matter from outside? How all the accretion discs around all the SMBH (In any spiral galaxy) are full with matter?

Actually, if we already discuss about the first law of thermodynamic:
I wonder how that law meets the Big bang Theory.
How could it be that there was energy before the Big Bang?
What was the scours of that energy?
Why & how that energy could be transformed into real mass (not just new matter)
How can we believe that the whole mass of the Universe could be created at just one "big bang" while I can't see any feasibility to set even a single Atom by any sort of bang?

There must be several key elements that are vital in the process of new matter creation.
All of those elements are located at the accretion disc that functions as a massive accelerator.
Our scientists at CERN have proved that by using accelerator it is feasible to create new matter.
Therefore, I can't understand how any scientist which in one hand considers about the feasibility of the first law in that ultra strong accelerator (accretion disc), can on the other hand accept the idea of mass creation by big bang???
If he worries about the feasibility of the first law at the accretion disc, why he doesn't worry about its feasibility at the Big bang?   

[Lance Canham]

There is 2 universe in the same place. Matter is made simply of mass outside of space time.  After asking myself if Mass out side spacetime could be spacetime outside of mass on the other side  it works for me because a black hole is the fundamental particle of everything. A Black hole is 1 space is 0. earth the sun every atom and every part of every atom is made of mass outside of spacetime and spacetime there for if mass outside spacetime is spacetime outside mass both universes are connected at every point we find matter as the fundamental piece is this connection between the 2 is the god particle (black hole).

Space is not stretching its pouring out of the black hole and That is why space compress around matter.  we are cramming it in there its coming out they see it being crammed in we see the compression close and Apparent stretching at a distance.  So how much space does the AGN have to push out to match the effect of in fall to make it look the way it does.
 

[Lance Canham]

You have to apply space pouring out of everything, Under my view dark matter is everything outside a singularity - in this case outside your view of regular matter as I have the view of multiple Big bangs at ever larger scales over infinite space and time. So space is coming out of literally everything every where not just the AGN. Likely more the dark matter in the earth and moon. the heart of the sun - Have to think that out one day Im thinking when a particle is more than a point in its description its broke down to the realm of gravity within it - Bing works like our universe inside super small - Basically dark matter stars -galaxies gas on a super small scale. So much room for pooling and space poring.

So it comes from everything dependent on amount of matter able to fall into a god particle - hence spew out space.

Im not sold on a 2 universe Idea totally just yet.

[Kryptid]

Why this extra kinetic energy can't be used for the new matter creation at the disc?

"Mass" and "matter" are non synonyms. Turning kinetic energy into matter won't make the mass of the system go up. It would either stay the same or decrease (due to radiation).

Before I continue, I need to know something: do you claim that the total mass of the black hole-accretion disk system increases over time or not?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Before I continue, I need to know something: do you claim that the total mass of the black hole-accretion disk system increases over time or not?

Yes!
However, before you continue, please let me know if you agree with the following:

1. Around the SMBH there is a Plasma orbiting at ultra high velocity - 0.3 speed of light and at temp of 10^9 c.
2.  This plasma set the accretion disc which generate Ultra high Magnetic field.
3. Our scientists claim that they have evidences that at least 99% from the plasma/hot matter in the accretion disc is ejected outwards.
4. The ultra power magnetic field acts as a magnetic shield. any nearby atom/object will be lifted to its poles. Therefore, any molecular that comes from inside the magnetic shield (from the accretion disc) will be lifted to the poles. In the same token, any Atom /molecular/object that dare to come from outside of the magnetic shield will also be lifted to the poles. Therefore, nothing from outside can cross the magnetic shield and get into the accretion disc.
5. There is a clear evidence that any molecular that get's to the poles of the magnetic shield is boosted upwards/downwards in a molecular jet at 0.8 speed of light.
6. So far our scientists could not find even one real evidence for any matter outside the magnetic shield that can cross it and get directly into the plasma in the accretion disc. If our scientists will verify the Ultra power of that magnetic shield they will find that this Hypothetical idea of accretion matter from the Bulge is just unrealistic.
6. Actuall the Bulge is full with matter. We clearly see there several gas cloud that are orbiting around the SMBH (outside the magnetic shield) while they are forming new stars.
7. There are 10 million stars within one parsec (about 3.26 Light years) of the Galactic Center. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center
This is very high density of stars. Just to remind you that in 50 LY around the Sun there is just 64 stars). If the SMBH was "eating" matter from that aria it was expecting to see there significantly less star density. That proves that the SMBH has no intention to eat even one single atom from the nearby Galactic Center. All of those stars had been created by the new matter which had been ejected from the accretion disc!!!

[Kryptid]

Yes!

So I don't need to say anything else. Your idea violates conservation of mass. Therefore it cannot be correct.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So I don't need to say anything else. Your idea violates conservation of mass. Therefore it cannot be correct.

Ok
So, this is what you think.
I respect it, but this is a severe mistake.

Just the evidence that 10 million stars within one parsec (about 3.26 Light years) of the Galactic Center proves that the SMBH doesn't eat even one single Atom from outside.
However, our scientists don't let the evidences to confuse them!
Therefore, you also hold on the unrealistic idea of "eating mass from outside".
You claim that this accretion disc don't meet the first law of thermodynamics while you ignore the idea of energy transformation in that massive accelerator.
In the same token, you fully to accept the unrealistic idea that the Big Bang meets that first law of thermodynamics although it is clear to you that there is no way to set new matter by any sort of bang.

[Kryptid]

you ignore the idea of energy transformation in that massive accelerator.

No I don't. Energy and mass are equivalent. The total amount of energy and mass before and after a collision in a particle accelerator are the same. If two protons are accelerated up to 1 GeV and slammed into each other, the resulting spray of particles produced will also have a total of 1 GeV of mass/energy. Matter in a high state of potential energy (such as being at high altitude in a strong gravitational field) weighs more than it would in a low state. If that mass is allowed to fall, that potential energy is converted in kinetic energy. However, the mass remains the same because fast-moving matter weighs more than slow-moving matter.

Just the evidence that 10 million stars within one parsec (about 3.26 Light years) of the Galactic Center proves that the SMBH doesn't eat even one single Atom from outside.

That's a non-sequitur.

In the same token, you fully to accept the unrealistic idea that the Big Bang meets that first law of thermodynamics

The Big Bang did not create mass or energy. It represented an extreme expansion of space that mass and energy already existed in.

although it is clear to you that there is no way to set new matter by any sort of bang.

I already explained to you that "matter" and "mass" are not synonyms. Matter can be created. Mass cannot. Light is not matter but it does have relativistic mass.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The Big Bang did not create mass or energy. It represented an extreme expansion of space that mass and energy already existed in.

If "mass and energy already existed in" before the Big bang, than why do we need the Big bang theory?
How long before the Big Bang that mass and energy existed?
If the whole mass of the Universe was already existed before the Big bang why do we need the energy?
Why do we claim that the age of the Universe is only 13.8 Billion years if the mass of the whole universe was there before that time?
When did we get the first Atom in the Universe?
What is the real age of the Universe?

[Kryptid]

If "mass and energy already existed in" before the Big bang, than why do we need the Big bang theory?

It explains the relative abundance of the chemical elements in the Universe, the temperature of the microwave background and the expansion of the Universe among other things.

How long before the Big Bang that mass and energy existed?

Nobody knows. Some models posit that we live in a cyclic universe where an infinite number of Big Bangs and Big Crunches happen in sequence.

If the whole mass of the Universe was already existed before the Big bang why do we need the energy?

I'm not sure what this question means. The mass is already there with the energy.

Why do we claim that the age of the Universe is only 13.8 Billion years if the mass of the whole universe was there before that time?

The Big Bang happened 13.8 billion years ago and could be viewed as the starting point of our own Universe. That doesn't rule out the existence of previously-existing universes. We also don't even know if the concept of time is meaningful before the Big Bang.

When did we get the first Atom in the Universe?

About 379,000 years after the Big Bang. That was when the Universe was cool enough to allow electrons to bind to protons to form hydrogen.

What is the real age of the Universe?

I suppose that depends on how you choose to define the Universe.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

How long before the Big Bang that mass and energy existed?

Nobody knows. Some models posit that we live in a cyclic universe where an infinite number of Big Bangs and Big Crunches happen in sequence.

We also don't even know if the concept of time is meaningful before the Big Bang.

How do you know that "Nobody knows".
Do you mean that "Nobody" from our scientists?
Let me tell you the following:
I'm leading several engineering design teams.
I can accept an answer that the result doesn't meet our expectation.
But I will never ever accept an answer as: "I don't know and "Nobody knows""
If an engineer will dare to give me that kind of answer, he will have to look for new job!
In any case, if there is a severe problem in the design, I normally tell them to start from point Zero or deliver the design to other team.
In engineering there is no room for: "Nobody knows"!!!
However, in science it seems that you live very happily with "Nobody knows"
Somebody must know the answer.
If Nobody from our scientists knows, than why don't they open their mind and listen to other ideas?
I personally don't think that our scientists are so foolish to believe that "Nobody knows".
They must know the answer, at least some of them should know if the BBT is real or unrealistic.
Just to remind you the source for that theory name:
https://www.universetoday.com/54756/what-is-the-big-bang-theory/
"Ironically, it was Hoyle who coined the phrase “Big Bang” during a BBC Radio broadcast in March 1949, which was believed by some to be a pejorative dismissal (which Hoyle denied).
So, that BBT theory which started about 70 years ago must meet all the current discoveries and evidences.
If it meets them all - than it is a valid theory.
If it doesn't, than you shouldn't hide behind the statement: "Nobody Knows"
Yes, some of you should know the answer!
If you claim that "Nobody Knows", than you know that there is a fatal error in your theory.
In order to avoid dealing with this fatal error you prefer to say "Nobody Knows".
So, if our scientists' mission is discovering the real theory of our universe - it is expected that they will immediately start looking for new idea.
I was expecting that you would love to hear my message as it might bring you some good ideas.
However, as I see that you reject any idea, now I understand that you have no willing to discover the real theory about our Universe.
It seems to me that your mission is protecting the BBT under any circumstances, even by presenting yourself so foolish by claiming: "Nobody Knows".
But Why? Why do you reject any new idea while you know that there are severe problems with the BBT and you really don't know all the answers?
What do you gain by protecting that unproved BBT theory? How force you to do so?
Don't you want to understand how our Universe really works?

[Kryptid]

How do you know that "Nobody knows".

I mean it literally. Nobody knows. People have different ideas, but nobody has proof one way or the other. Science isn't even about proof.

Do you mean that "Nobody" from our scientists?

I mean literally nobody.

Let me tell you the following:
I'm leading several engineering design teams.
I can accept an answer that the result doesn't meet our expectation.
But I will never ever accept an answer as: "I don't know and "Nobody knows""
If an engineer will dare to give me that kind of answer, he will have to look for new job!

Too bad, because "I don't know" is the current answer to an awful lot of questions humanity has right now. We don't know what the ultimate unified field theory is. We don't know whether space and time are discrete or continuous. We don't know if humanity will ever achieve interstellar flight. We don't know whether or not there are life forms in Europa's oceans. The list goes on and on.

In engineering there is no room for: "Nobody knows"!!!
However, in science it seems that you live very happily with "Nobody knows"

It isn't a matter of "living happily" with "nobody knows". It's a matter of accepting reality. We can and do try to learn more about nature, but don't know everything. Humanity is not omniscient.

Somebody must know the answer.

Not necessarily.

If Nobody from our scientists knows, than why don't they open their mind and listen to other ideas?

(1) The ideas have to actually be falsifiable.
(2) There has to be a good reason to believe those ideas are correct or at least on the right track to being correct.

I personally don't think that our scientists are so foolish to believe that "Nobody knows".

If there is anyone who knows, they have yet to demonstrate it with good, solid evidence.

If it doesn't, than you shouldn't hide behind the statement: "Nobody Knows"

The Big Bang theory does fit the existing evidence. Nobody is hiding behind anything. The Big Bang theory isn't supposed to explain where mass and energy came from. It only describes the current properties of the Universe based on properties predicted about its distant past.

If you claim that "Nobody Knows", than you know that there is a fatal error in your theory.
In order to avoid dealing with this fatal error you prefer to say "Nobody Knows".

Except for the fact that the Big Bang theory was never meant to explain where mass and energy came from or whether time itself had a beginning or not. So "I don't know" is not a fatal flaw here.

I was expecting that you would love to hear my message as it might bring you some good ideas.

What message? We were talking about black holes, accretion disks and conservation of mass/energy then you went off on a tangent about the Big Bang.

However, as I see that you reject any idea, now I understand that you have no willing to discover the real theory about our Universe.

I don't "reject any idea", I reject ideas that clash with known science. Violation of conservation of mass/energy clashes with science.

It seems to me that your mission is protecting the BBT under any circumstances

I don't know how you got that impression, especially not from a couple of posts on an Internet forum. If scientists discover something that falsifies the Big Bang theory, then I would have to discard it.

even by presenting yourself so foolish by claiming: "Nobody Knows".

It isn't a claim. It's a fact. No one knows whether this is the only Universe in existence or whether it is cyclical. Anyone who claims otherwise has not yet provided compelling, verifiable evidence to support their stance.

But Why? Why do you reject any new idea

I don't. You are putting words in my mouth.

while you know that there are severe problems with the BBT

Name some.

and you really don't know all the answers?

It's called "being human". Nobody knows "all the answers". If we did, then there would be no point in doing science.

What do you gain by protecting that unproved BBT theory?

Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. What I gain is some satisfaction in educating others (or at least attempting to).

How force you to do so?

What makes you think that anyone has forced me to do anything? You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist (and we have more than enough of those on this board).

Don't you want to understand how our Universe really works?

Yes, and a good place to start is by understanding what we have already learned about nature instead of denying it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence. What I gain is some satisfaction in educating others (or at least attempting to).

I do appreciate all your efforts (and Halc efforts) in answering my questions.
With regards to BBT:
You claim that "Science isn't about proof, it's about evidence". The BBT had been set about 70 years ago. During that time how many contradictions did you find between this theory and new evidences?  How many times our scientists had added patch over patch in order to adjust the BBT to new evidences?

It isn't a matter of "living happily" with "nobody knows". It's a matter of accepting reality. We can and do try to learn more about nature, but don't know everything.

About 379,000 years after the Big Bang. That was when the Universe was cool enough to allow electrons to bind to protons to form hydrogen.

There are so many open questions about the BBT that I really can't understand why our scientists still hold that theory. How the BBT goes with reality if we don't know what the reality of our universe is?
1.  Is the universe infinite or finite in its size?
2.  If there was something before the BBT, than why don't we count the time from that something?
3.  Why do we insist to start the BBT theory while all the electrons and protons of the whole universe were already existed in the Universe?
4. Why don't we ask our self how all of those electrons & Protons had been created before the BBT and how long before they had been created?
5. It surly took some time to set all of those electrons & protons which we currently have in whole of our Universe, so why they didn't merge and set the atoms before the BBT?
6. If we start from the Protons and electrons, why don't we start the BBT while all the Atoms and molecular are here and make our life easier? Actually why we don't start it from the moment that we have all the galaxies?
7. Did we try to verify if the first law of thermodynamics meets the electrons & Protons creation process and the creation of the Hydrogen Atoms after the BBT? (or did we gave a waiver for this verification?)
8. Why it took so long time after the Big Bang to set the Hydrogen atoms? Actually, how do we know so well the exact time? From "Nobody knows" you prove that we "perfectly know". How could it be?
9. How electron and proton could merge and set hydrogen Atoms without accelerator? did we try to verify if this merging process is feasible due to big bang?
10. Why they took them so long time (379,000 years) after the bang to set the atoms?
11. What kind of force set that big bang?

The Big Bang theory isn't supposed to explain where mass and energy came from. It only describes the current properties of the Universe based on properties predicted about its distant past.

12. Why not? Why this theory isn't supposed to explain where mass and energy came from?
13. Why do you give that kind of waiver to this theory?

Those are just few questions that I have about the BBT.
There are also big questions about the dark matter and dark energy.
I think that those ideas are absolutely none realistic.
What is the difference between dark matter and magic powder?
Both of them are magic.
We don't see them, we don't feel them, but they are there without any way to confirm their existence.
We use the dark matter in order to prove something that we see and we can't explain.
I consider it as a fatal error.
There must be a better explanation for what we see.
The "dark" matter or energy ideas are clear indication that our scientists have failed in understanding how the Universe really works.

I mean it literally. Nobody knows. People have different ideas, but nobody has proof one way or the other.

Why do you claim that "literally nobody knows"? Don't you think that someone might know the correct theory?
I do believe that I have full explanation on every aspect of our Universe.
I can explain our Universe without any need for dark matter or dark energy
Actually there is high similarity between my theory and Darwin theory.
Darwin couldn't explain how the first cell of life had been created. However, once it had been created – he could explain how the variety of life on Earth had been evolved.
In the same token, I can't explain how the first BH had been created in the whole Universe.
It could had been created due to a Big Bang
 However, once we have only one BH, I can explain how the whole universe had been evolved from it.
Based on my theory, we should know the size of the Universe and its age and some of the answers about the past and the future of our universe.
We can estimate where the Sun might be in the next few millions or billions years from now.
However, if you gave the BBT an option to set key elements in the theory (as dark matter and dark energy) and some waivers, I also ask to get the option to set my key elements in the theory.

[Kryptid]

The BBT had been set about 70 years ago. During that time how many contradictions did you find between this theory and new evidences?

Given that the Big Bang theory is still going strong, none.

How many times our scientists had added patch over patch in order to adjust the BBT to new evidences?

I don't know, but it's normal for a theory to acquire modifications over time as new evidence comes in.

How the BBT goes with reality if we don't know what the reality of our universe is?

Because it works as best as we can tell.

1.  Is the universe infinite or finite in its size?

Nobody knows.

2.  If there was something before the BBT, than why don't we count the time from that something?

Because we don't know if there was anything before the Big Bang or not.

3.  Why do we insist to start the BBT theory while all the electrons and protons of the whole universe were already existed in the Universe?

They didn't already exist. Their mass and energy were there, but they were not.

4. Why don't we ask our self how all of those electrons & Protons had been created before the BBT and how long before they had been created?

They weren't created before the Big Bang.

5. It surly took some time to set all of those electrons & protons which we currently have in whole of our Universe, so why they didn't merge and set the atoms before the BBT?

First of all, because there weren't any electrons or protons before the Big Bang and secondly atoms can't form unless the conditions are right. If the temperature is too high, electrons can't bind to protons. This is what happens in a plasma.

If we start from the Protons and electrons, why don't we start the BBT while all the Atoms and molecular are here and make our life easier? Actually why we don't start it from the moment that we have all the galaxies?

Because the temperature would have been too hot to allow those things to exist.

7. Did we try to verify if the first law of thermodynamics meets the electrons & Protons creation process and the creation of the Hydrogen Atoms after the BBT? (or did we gave a waiver for this verification?)

There's no reason to assume that it wouldn't.

Why it took so long time after the Big Bang to set the Hydrogen atoms? Actually, how do we know so well the exact time?

Because it was too hot for hydrogen atoms to form. The Universe would have been filled with plasma before then. We know by comparing predictive models with the cosmic microwave background. Before those neutral hydrogen atoms formed, the plasma would have been strongly absorbing to light radiation. Afterwards, light could travel much more freely and therefore would be observable. When that happened has an effect on the overall, observable properties of the Universe. The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe showed that these observations agreed with predictions of the Big Bang theory: https://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0302209.pdf

From "Nobody knows" you prove that we "perfectly know". How could it be?

You're putting words in my mouth again. I never said that we don't know when the first atoms formed.

9. How electron and proton could merge and set hydrogen Atoms without accelerator? did we try to verify if this merging process is feasible due to big bang?

It's because electrons are negatively-charged and protons are positively-charged. They attract each other naturally to form hydrogen atoms. A hot plasma of hydrogen will automatically reform into neutral atoms if you allow it to cool down. There's nothing unknown about that.

10. Why they took them so long time (379,000 years) after the bang to set the atoms?

Because it was too hot before then.

11. What kind of force set that big bang?

Nobody knows.

12. Why not? Why this theory isn't supposed to explain where mass and energy came from?

Because that isn't its purpose. That's like asking me why the theory of gravity doesn't explain why apples are red.

13. Why do you give that kind of waiver to this theory?

It's not a waiver. I don't ask a theory to explain anything that it isn't supposed to explain.

What is the difference between dark matter and magic powder?
Both of them are magic.
We don't see them, we don't feel them, but they are there without any way to confirm their existence.
We use the dark matter in order to prove something that we see and we can't explain.
I consider it as a fatal error.
There must be a better explanation for what we see.
The "dark" matter or energy ideas are clear indication that our scientists have failed in understanding how the Universe really works.

Nobody said that we understand everything about how the Universe works. Do you really think that means we understand nothing at all? That is a false dichotomy.

Why do you claim that "literally nobody knows"? Don't you think that someone might know the correct theory?

In order for someone to know, they would have to have performed the necessary experiment in order to confirm that it is correct. If anyone has done this, they either haven't yet let anyone else know about it or they haven't given out the evidence for it.

I do believe that I have full explanation on every aspect of our Universe.

Beliefs are not knowledge. Have you performed the necessary experiments to support your explanation?

In the same token, I can't explain how the first BH had been created in the whole Universe.

So you're allowed to say "I don't know" but Big Bang theorists aren't? That sounds like a double standard to me.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Thanks for all your explanations

In the same token, I can't explain how the first BH had been created in the whole Universe.

So you're allowed to say "I don't know" but Big Bang theorists aren't? That sounds like a double standard to me.

It is not the same.
I agree, any theory should start from a starting point that is ZERO.
I assume that the BBT also starts from Zero.
So, there was a time when the Universe was totally without anything.
Just think about infinite space without even one single particle or energy.
From this point we should start.

However, I would like to ask you to forget all the sympathy that you might have in favor with the BBT and try to evaluate my theory (Let's call it theory-D) Vs the BBT on the same platform.
For one moment try to position yourself as a fair judgment without any special favorite to any side.
Let's assume that you have just arrived to our planet.
You have full knowledge about all the physics law (Newton, thermodynamics...) but you don't know anything about the theories of our Universe.
You have never heard about the BBT or about theory-D.

We will go step by step from that Zero time (while there was nothing in the whole universe) and we will set the BBT Vs theory-D
If you agree, than let's set our first step:

Once upon a time, our universe was totally free from any sort of mass.
It was infinite space without even a single particle or quark.
However, let's assume that something came out of this nothing.
We can't explain you how exactly that happened. (Not based on the BBT and not based on theory-D)
In any case:

Based on BBT everything should come directly from nothing.  So in order to justify the BBT, all the matter in the whole vast Universe had to be created at a single moment. We also need to add a theory of space expansion and inflation. We set full theory just for the first second after the Big bang moment. We also need to add the ideas about dark matter and dark energy.

Based theory-D, only small amount of something is needed out of nothing. So all is needed is a compact BH with small excretion disc. (Just one BH in the whole empty Universe). No need to come with any sort of requirements/theories as inflation, space expansion or the first second, dark matter &dark energy.

My first question is simple:
As a fair judgment - what kind of starting point is more logical:

1. The BBT Theory: With everything out of nothing and all the requested theories?
2. Theory-D: Just Something out of nothing without any other special request. No Inflation, No space expansion, no first second, no dark matter, dark energy or magic powder. What we see in our universe is what we have.?

[Kryptid]

So, there was a time when the Universe was totally without anything.

According to who?

Based on BBT everything should come directly from nothing.

That's not what the Big Bang theory claims.

So all is needed is a compact BH with small excretion disc.

If the total mass/energy of this black hole and excretion disk is smaller than the total mass/energy of the galaxy that comes from it, then you have broken the first law of thermodynamics and therefore falsified your own model.

No need to come with any sort of requirements/theories as inflation, space expansion or the first second, dark matter &dark energy.

How does it get rid of the need for those things?

My first question is simple:
As a fair judgment - what kind of starting point is more logical:

1. The BBT Theory: With everything out of nothing and all the requested theories?
2. Theory-D: Just Something out of nothing without any other special request. No Inflation, No space expansion, no first second, no dark matter, dark energy or magic powder. What we see in our universe is what we have.?

Neither. The first model is a straw-man of the Big Bang theory, not the actual Big Bang theory. The second one violates the first law of thermodynamics.

[Halc]

Covering a few points not mentioned by Kryptid.

I agree, any theory should start from a starting point that is ZERO.
I assume that the BBT also starts from Zero.

It is a convenient place to assign the zero.  It is very difficult to talk about the first second of the big bang if you put the zero say 2019 years ago.  For the same reason, cosmological temperatures are measured in Kelvin scale, not Celcius.  Same scale, but the zero where it really belongs.

Just think about infinite space without even one single particle or energy.

The big bang theory does not posit a bang happening somewhere in infinite space.  It concerns all of space (everywhere) being not very much and expanding from there, as it is still doing.

Let's assume that you have just arrived to our planet.
You have full knowledge about all the physics law (Newton, thermodynamics...) but you don't know anything about the theories of our Universe.
You have never heard about the BBT or about theory-D.

We will go step by step from that Zero time (while there was nothing in the whole universe)

You are already assuming a theory, that there is a zero time (which sounds like BBT) and there being nothing (which the BBT does not posit).  You can't assume any of that stuff if you've just arrived at the planet and have never made any observations.  You cannot posit any theories concerning past state at all unless you make some observations and conclude things from them.  So your first step seems to be to just make stuff up, which is a horrible first step.
First step is to make observations.  That's how it's always been done.

Once upon a time, our universe was totally free from any sort of mass.

You don't know that.  Maybe it still is.  If you add all the positive and negative mass/energy, it seems to add up to zero still.  That would be very much in keeping with thermodynamic law.

It was infinite space without even a single particle or quark.

No theory claims this.

However, let's assume that something came out of this nothing.

This is a philosophical assertion which has little to do with science.

We can't explain you how exactly that happened.

It seems a poor tactical move to posit something that defies explanation.  If it isn't logically possible for something to come from nothing, then it seems illogical to assume that happened.  Your idea is starting off on an unsound foundation.

My first question is simple:
As a fair judgment - what kind of starting point is more logical:

1. The BBT Theory: With everything out of nothing and all the requested theories?

The BBT does not posit that, as Kryptid has pointed out in prior posts.
This is a terrible starting point.  All we know is some basic laws of motion and thermodynamics, things we might know via local experiments.  We've lived in a cloud and could never see any distance. We've only now just arrived and you want to posit a BBT?  Bad idea.  There is as yet no evidence to support the BBT or any other theory about the distant past.  We need to make observations first.  Get a telescope and tell me what you see.
I look up and see dots of light in the sky.  OK, Newton's laws didn't predict that.  I need a theory about what they are.  Maybe they're bugs.  Do we know about Earth being round and orbiting the sun, or do we need to discover those things still?  How might you go about that?  We're assuming we know nothing except Newton's laws, and maybe some of Einstein's and Bohr's if we get into situations that require it.

2. Theory-D: Just Something out of nothing without any other special request. No Inflation, No space expansion, no first second, no dark matter, dark energy or magic powder. What we see in our universe is what we have.?

What I see is a lot more than a small mass with an accretion disk, so Theory D is already falsified.  It seems to violate thermodynamic law at every step.  It also violates Newton's laws of motion, so it contradicts the premise you gave that these laws are valid.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You don't know that.  Maybe it still is.  If you add all the positive and negative mass/energy, it seems to add up to zero still.  That would be very much in keeping with thermodynamic law.

Thanks Halc
Few questions:

1. Do you claim that based on the BBT all the mass of the Universe was already there before the Big bang, in order to keep with thermodynamic law?
2. What kind of matter/particles was there in the early Universe? Can we assume: Protons, electrons. Neutrons, quarks...?
3. Can we also assume that the entire early Universe was covered with those particles at the same density?
4. What was the size of that early Universe? Can we assume that it was infinite? So, can we assume that the particles were also infinite?
5. What was the temp of the Universe before the BBT?
6. You have mentioned the idea of: "positive and negative mass/energy". So do you mean that if we add all the positive and negative mass/energy of the early universe we should get zero?
7. If that is the case, why all the negative and positive mass/energy in the early universe didn't transformed into nothing before the big bang?
8. What about our current universe? If we add all the negative and positive would we get zero universe (without any mass) even today?
9. Why do we need the Big bang if all the mass of the Universe was there before the Big bang?
10. why all the particles of the early Universe had not been formed into real Atoms before the Big bang?
11. How could it be that a big bang will be everywhere at the same moment?
12. Is it realistic? Can we set a bang in the infinite early Universe? How can we agree with that none realistic idea?
13. Why did we get that big bang?
14. What was the energy source for the Big bang? How do we know that there is no violation for thermodynamics law just based on that big bang?
15. Why the Big bang had increased the temp of the early Universe? If the Big bang was everywhere at the same moment, than do you agree that after the BBT the temp should go up everywhere? Hence, do you agree that an infinite energy is needed to increase the temp of that unlimited early universe? So what is the source for that energy?
16. If the temp of the Universe went up so high after the big bang, (while there is no limit to the early universe) then theoretically, it shouldn't go down (as there is no limit - infinite?)
17. Did you try to prove the BBT by thermodynamics law/calculations/temp? (Especially, how the BBT have got it's unlimited energy without violating the thermodynamics law.)

[Halc]

You should answer Kryptid's questions in his latest post.  He asked some relevant stuff, and since they lead to inconsistencies in your view, I notice that you're ignoring them.

1. Do you claim that based on the BBT all the mass of the Universe was already there before the Big bang, in order to keep with thermodynamic law?

The BBT makes no claims about 'before the big bang'.  Kryptid has already stated this, and answers to most of these questions.

2. What kind of matter/particles was there in the early Universe? Can we assume: Protons, electrons. Neutrons, quarks...?

Again, no.  It was too hot for these things to exist.

3. Can we also assume that the entire early Universe was covered with those particles at the same density?

Energy density was reasonably uniform, but not perfectly.  Cosmic inflation theory says that quantum fluctuations during the inflation phase, due to the uncertainty principle, were amplified into the large scale density differences that would eventually form the large scale structures like superclusters and such.

4. What was the size of that early Universe?

Arbitrarily smaller than it is now.

Can we assume that it was infinite?

Nobody knows this.

6. You have mentioned the idea of: "positive and negative mass/energy". So do you mean that if we add all the positive and negative mass/energy of the early universe we should get zero?

Possibly yes.  Computing them all is not trivial, but it is suggested, yes.

7. If that is the case, why all the negative and positive mass/energy in the early universe didn't transformed into nothing before the big bang?

BBT is not about before big bang.  Look to theories whose purpose is to answer such questions.  There are several, and there is no particular consensus.  A unified field theory seems to be required to make meaningful headway.

8. What about our current universe? If we add all the negative and positive would we get zero universe (without any mass) even today?

If it was ever zero, it is still zero, per thermodynamic law.

9. Why do we need the Big bang if all the mass of the Universe was there before the Big bang?

Big bang doesn't explain the appearance of nonzero mass, if there is any.  If the total is zero, then it doesn't need to explain why zero is still there.

10. why all the particles of the early Universe had not been formed into real Atoms before the Big bang?

I'm going to stop answering all the before-the-big-bang questions which are not relevant to the theory.

11. How could it be that a big bang will be everywhere at the same moment?

If the space of the universe is compressed to an arbitrarily small amount (singularity?), then there is nowhere in that small super-hot space that isn't 'banging'.  The theory does not posit that a bang happened at one point and stuff subesequently expanded into existing space.  The event is indefinite compression of all of space itself.

12. Is it realistic? Can we set a bang in the infinite early Universe? How can we agree with that none realistic idea?

It is not only realistic, but unrealistic to posit anything else given the observations.  You look around and a steady-state universe is not the thing you see.  Yes, there are those that posit exactly that, but it is a difficult position to defend.

14. What was the energy source for the Big bang? How do we know that there is no violation for thermodynamics law just based on that big bang?

If total energy is zero, it doesn't need a source.

15. Why the Big bang had increased the temp of the early Universe?

It didn't.  It posits that the temperature was cooling the whole time.

If the Big bang was everywhere at the same moment, than do you agree that after the BBT the temp should go up everywhere?

After the BBT?  You mean after the big bang?  It says that the temperature goes down, not up.  You expand a hot thing, you get a cooling effect, just like compression heats things.

17. Did you try to prove the BBT by thermodynamics law/calculations/temp?

I personally am not involved in the calculations of any scientific theory.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Can we assume that it was infinite?

Nobody knows this.

I really can't understand how we can set any sort of theory for any kind of object without knowing its shape/size/age
For example -
Let's assume that we give a request to an engineer to design a bridge.
It is clear that the first question will be: what is the size of that bridge.
Is it a toy bridge of 20 Cm or is it a bridge that needs to cross the Atlantic Ocean.
Both are called bridges. But how can we compare a 20 Cm Bridge to 3000 miles bridge.
In the same token - How can you set a theory for a universe without knowing its size?
That by itself shows that our scientists have a fatal error by definition.
A theory for a Universe with a radius of 13.8 BLY can't be the same as for an infinite Universe.
If I recall it correctly, when the BBT Idea came to our life, our scientists were quite sure that what we see is what we have. So, the Universe was quite compact.
Therefore, the idea was that the big bang took place at a singular location. That kind of bang was very logical for a compact Universe at that time..
However,  as we have improved our instruments, our scientists discovered that the Universe should be much bigger.
At the first step they have found that the size of the observable universe is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe
"The radius of the observable universe is therefore estimated to be about 46.5 billion light-years"
After this discovery they have changed the BBT.  so they didn't use the idea of a singular
However, now some of our scientists start to understand that the Universe might be infinite.
So, how can you adjust a theory for compact Universe to infinite universe?
One option is to claim:

If the space of the universe is compressed to an arbitrarily small amount (singularity?), then there is nowhere in that small super-hot space that isn't 'banging'.  The theory does not posit that a bang happened at one point and stuff subesequently expanded into existing space.  The event is indefinite compression of all of space itself.

However, that answer is based on "If the space of the universe is compressed to an arbitrarily small amount (singularity?)"
But if not? We discuss science not a lottery game.
So, there is a better idea:

The big bang theory does not posit a bang happening somewhere in infinite space.  It concerns all of space (everywhere) being not very much and expanding from there, as it is still doing.

So, now the idea is that the Big Bang took place at the same moment in the whole infinite space.
However, I assume that you understand that this idea could kill down the BBT before we even we start our discussion, as there is no way to cool down the temp of infinite space. When the space was limited (finite) there is some logic in the idea of cooling it down as there is increasing in space. But if the starting space is infinite, how can we cool it down by the expansion? What is the meaning of increasing an infinity space to infinity space? I personally can't see how this kind of universe can cool its temp..
So, I really can't understand how you try to give us an explanation for a universe which you don't know its size.
If you don't know its size - your theory is just irrelevant!!!
 

I'm going to stop answering all the before-the-big-bang questions which are not relevant to the theory

Why it is not relevant?
Why you do not want to discuss about it?
I didn't get an answer for the source of that infinite energy that is requested to that kind of Big Bang.
If our scientists can't give the answer for the time before the BBT than how is responsible for that time?
I also didn't get yet an answer how the thermodynamics law works at the BBT.
You are using this thermodynamics law in order to disqualify the Theory-D, while you give yourself a waiver for the BBT theory.
That's really unfair.
You ask me to look on Evidences
So let's do so:
Magnetic field around the excretion disc: We clearly see that this magnetic field boosts a molecular jet at a speed of 0.8 speed of light. Just based on this data, do you agree that the magnetic power has an ULTRA HIGH energy force?
If you add to that the ultra velocity of the plasma at the excretion disc (0.3 speed of light) and the ultra high temp (10^9c) than don't you think that all that kind of combined energy forces can be transformed into one single quark or one single Atom?
What is the estimated ratio in the energy between one quark to that energy in the excretion disc?
Could it be 1 to 10^100?
Why do you insist that the first thermodynamics law should not work at the excretion disc although it is clear that there is so much extra energy there, while you don't even try to find the ultra high missing energy for the BBT?
Sorry - If our scientists assume that they can give them a waiver for that Ultra high missing energy and bypass the first thermodynamics law for the BBT, how can you claim that an energy ratio of 1 to 10^100 is not good enough to form one single quark.
This is really unrealistic.