[Bored chemist]

Well, if the  universe is infinitely old, and they are young, what caused them?
Or, if you prefer, what caused their (great) grandparents?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Well, if the  universe is infinitely old, and they are young, what caused them?
Or, if you prefer, what caused their (great) grandparents?

We should consider galaxies as we consider people.
However, their life time is quite longer.
So, in our aria there are two main galaxies - Andromeda and Milky way.
They are both quite mature, and quite old. Let's assume that if the age of the milky way is 10 Trillion years then  Andromeda is 50 trillion year while most of the other 195 nearby galaxies might be their children and grandchildren.
However, even with that life time of 50 trillion year, it is just a brief moment in the Universe life.
So, if we could go back in time we might verify the mothers of Andromeda and Milky Way.
Actually, we clearly know the velocity and direction of the milky way.
If we could set a direct line which is in the opposite direction of its movement, we might be able to verify the exact location of the Milky Way' mother galaxy.

[Bored chemist]

You seem to have missed the point.
Given that galaxies dissipate huge amounts of power, how come they haven't burned out yet?
If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?

[Kryptid]

If that distance was also based on the expansion impact, than why don't they say that the Comoving + Proper distance of the radiation is 46 BLY?

Because they are measures of two different things. You don't add them together.

Galaxy A is moving away from us at a speed which is faster 10 times than the speed of light.

And now you've demonstrated that you don't understand special relativity.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Given that galaxies dissipate huge amounts of power, how come they haven't burned out yet?
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?

Did you see my answer to kryptid?

Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 07:19:35
However, the age of any single galaxy should be limited, shouldn't it?
Thanks for your great question. Actually I think about it for quite long time. In one hand it is quite logical to assume that the age of any galaxy should be limited. However, on the other hand, why a galaxy as a milky way can't live almost forever?
In any case, as the SMBH increases its mass over time, it should carry more mass in the galaxy. Andromeda is quite bigger than the Milky Way. Therefore, it should be older.
Therefore, the real age is setting by the SMBH itself.
For any particle that it contribute to our Universe it eats one.
So, the oldest objects in our Universe are the biggest SMBHs
Somehow it seems that those ultra high SMBH do not carry a galaxy.
So, there is good chance that at some point of his life, our SMBH will eject all the mass around it and live as one of those mighty old SMBH as Magnetar or Pulsar.

I don't fully understand your following question

If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?

[Bored chemist]

I don't fully understand your following question
If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?

OK, answer the other one.

Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?

[jeffreyH]

Every star and galaxy has a lifespan. The fuel in all the stars will run out over time. You can't magically add energy to keep the whole system going. It's all because of the laws of thermodynamics and how they relate to entropy.

[Kryptid]

You can't magically add energy to keep the whole system going. It's all because of the laws of thermodynamics and how they relate to entropy.

Except that's exactly what he proposes. He thinks that black holes can literally create matter and energy. On top of all of that, he thinks that somehow does not violate conservation of mass-energy. My attempt to explain to him that the creation of mass-energy, by definition, violates conservation of mass-energy was completely lost on him. I absolutely could not make him understand that.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If that distance was also based on the expansion impact, than why don't they say that the Comoving + Proper distance of the radiation is 46 BLY?

Because they are measures of two different things. You don't add them together.

If they are two different things than would you kindly direct me to an article that shows how a comoving distance (real distance) of 46 BLY (without even one word about proper distance), could be set in only 13 BY.
If there is an article that claims that comoving distance is actually based on comoving distance + proper distance, than I also would like to see it.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 14:48:12
Galaxy A is moving away from us at a speed which is faster 10 times than the speed of light.

And now you've demonstrated that you don't understand special relativity.

Even special relatively should be limited by velocities and distances.
However, if you think differently, than please explain how special relativity can help us to see a light that is moving away from us at 10 times (or even unlimited times) the speed of light while it is located at 130BLY away from us (or at the infinity).

You can't magically add energy to keep the whole system going. It's all because of the laws of thermodynamics and how they relate to entropy.

Except that's exactly what he proposes. He thinks that black holes can literally create matter and energy.

Thanks Kryptid
You fully understand my point of view.
So, at any given moment any BH, MBH, SMBH, Magnatar, Pulsar... should Generate new energy and new mass.
That is the key element for a "living" infinite Universe.

On top of all of that, he thinks that somehow does not violate conservation of mass-energy. My attempt to explain to him that the creation of mass-energy, by definition, violates conservation of mass-energy was completely lost on him. I absolutely could not make him understand that.

You claim that a BH can't generate any limited new energy/mass, while you believe that the BBT could generate the whole energy/mass for our entire Universe in just a single moment of bang.
Let start with a single BH. Later on if you wish, I will discuss about the atom creation process in the BBT.

BH - Particle Pair is created at the Photosphere around the BH. The energy in the new created pair mass is transformed from the spinning BH by the magnetic force. The acceleration of almost speed of light for this new born pair is given for free by the ultra gravity force of the black hole. Only one pair of particle might be created at any given moment.

So, how it really works?
I have already explained it as follow:

New mass creation:
The gravity and electromagnetism don't contribute to the black hole's expendable energy, but the rotation does.
Chapter 12 of Black Holes & Time Warps does indeed mention that a black hole's rotation can produce radiation. So, new pair of particles can be created in the photosphere around a BH or SMBH.
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 one particle has electric charge of +1 the other must have electric charge of −1, or if one particle has strangeness of +1 then another one must have strangeness of −1."
In order to produce a positron-electron pair, the energy in their mass of 1.022 MeV is transformed by the magnetic force from the spinning BH. However, at the moment of creation they will probably orbit at almost the speed of light.
The energy for that high orbital kinetic energy is given by the gravity force of the BH.
So, while the energy in the mass had been transformed from the energy of the BH by magnetic field, the orbital kinetic energy is given for free by the BH' gravity force.
Please remember that at the moment of the new pair creation at the photosphere, It must fully obey to Newton orbital law.
We can get better understanding by look at the following Newton Cannon Ball explanation:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=7300.gif
If the speed is the orbital speed at that altitude it will go on circling around the Earth along a fixed circular orbit just like the moon.
How Lorentz force works on those new particles pair?
In order to get better understanding let's look at the following video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=135&v=RqSode4HZrE&feature=emb_title
The North/South Poles of the SMBH is up/down with reference to their orbital direction. Therefore, based on that video, one charged particle should be deflected to the left while the other one would be deflected right. Hence, one particle should be deflected inwards to the SMBH direction, while the other one would be deflected outwards to the direction of the accretion disc.
The deflection inwards would decrease its altitude or radius from the SMBH. Therefore, it will face stronger gravity force from the SMBH.
That radius change will force it to fall in as its current orbital velocity would be too low. As it is stated in the following video:
"If the speed is low, it will simply fall back on Earth" (or to the SMBH in our case)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_cannonball#/media/File:Newtonsmountainv=6000.gif
On the other hand, the other particles must be deflected outwards from the SMBH. Therefore, its speed would be too high with reference to its current radius. Even a small deflection should bring it under the influence of the inwards side of the accretion disc. At that aria it would have to obey to the magnetic forces/pressures that are generated by the accretion disc itself. We know that the average orbital velocity at the accretion disc is about 0.3c. So, the new arrival particle might bang with the other particles already orbiting at the inwards side of the accretion ring and reduces its velocity from almost the speed of light to about 0.3c. At that moment it would become a new member at the plasma.
With regards to temperature – A new created particle must come with Ultra high temp. Adding to that the ultra high pressures, forces, Electric current flow and fusion activity in the plasma would increase the temp to almost 10^9 c at the accretion disc.   
This separation deflection process is vital. Without it, any new created particle pair would be eliminated at the same moment of their creation as each particle carry a negative charged with reference to the other.
Energy transformations
The requested energy for electron-positron pair is 1.022 MeV. That energy had been taken from the energy of the SMBH by the transformation of the magnetic field.
So, theoretically, the SMBH had lost 1.022Mev (due to the creation of the particle pair) and gain only half of that as the mass of a falling in particle
However, at the moment of the creation the orbital velocity is almost at the speed of light. That speed is given for free from the Ultra gravity force of the SMBH.
Hence, the Kinetic orbital velocity of each particle -with mass m at the moment of creation (assuming that its velocity is the speed of light) is as follow:
Ek = 1/2 m v^2 = 1/2 m c^2
Each falling in particle (as electron for example) is increasing the total mass of the BH by only 0.511 MeV.
However, it also increases the spin of the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and Tidal. We only discuss on a tiny particle. However, unlimited number of falling in particles can have a similar impact as a falling star with the same total mass.
So the SMBH gravity force had contributed Ultra rotational energy to the created particle pair for free. Some of that rotational energy is transformed back to the SMBH due to Conservation of momentum and due to Tidal energy transformation.
Please remember that Tidal forces transform existing orbital or rotational energy into heat energy.
Therefore, this process doesn't contradict the first law of thermodynamics
Since the total amount of orbital/rotational energy in a New particle pair around the SMBH is ultra high (and it is for free due to the SMBH mighty gravity force), Conservation of momentum, tidal heating process, SMBH Spin, Transformation of energy by magnetic force to new creation particles pair cycle can go on forever.
Hence, as the universe age is infinite, than unlimited number of falling in particles should increase dramatically the total Energy & mass of the BH and converts it over time to a SMBH without violating the first law of thermodynamics.

Please let me know if you still see any violation in the first law of thermodynamics.

[Kryptid]

Please let me know if you still see any violation in the first law of thermodynamics.

If new energy is created, then the first law has been violated.

There is no point in me continuing. I know from past experience that you cannot be reasoned with. I'm done.

[Bored chemist]

I don't fully understand your following question
If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?

OK, answer the other one.

Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If new energy is created, then the first law has been violated.

The creation of new energy doesn't contradict the first law as we actually discuss on energy transformation.
In order to understand that let's go to the law itself:
Let's focus on the First_law_of_thermodynamics
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
"The first law of thermodynamics is a version of the law of conservation of energy, adapted for thermodynamic processes, distinguishing two kinds of transfer of energy, as heat and as thermodynamic work, and relating them to a function of a body's state, called Internal energy."
It is also stated clearly:
"The law of conservation of energy states that the total energy of an isolated system is constant; energy can be transformed from one form to another, but can be neither created nor destroyed"
Based on Theory D new energy is not created out of nothing.
On the contrary, due to the law of conservation of energy, energy can be transformed from one form to another.
I have deeply explained how that energy transformation works.
The key element in this process is the orbital kinetic energy that is given by the gravity force.

There is no point in me continuing. I know from past experience that you cannot be reasoned with. I'm done.

Please don't give up.
I have set this process base on your explanation.
If you think that there is a contradiction with the law of thermodynamics, than please let me know where is that contradiction?

However, if we discuss about a violation, than the BBT sets violation to several physics law:
as follow:

BBT violation

Based on the BBT, the process starts from "initial state of very high density and high temperature". So, this "initial state of very high density and high temperature" includes all the energy that is needed to create new mass in the entire Universe including dark energy and dark matter, inflation, expansion
So, somehow, at an instant moment the whole energy of the entire Universe had been given to set our entire universe by one single Big Bang.
So, the contradictions are as follow:
1. Energy source for the BBT:
   What is the source for "high density and high temperature"?
   What does it mean high density? density of what? density of matter or density of energy?
   How that kind of high density and temperature had been created?
   If you can't show the source of energy, than there is a severe violation of thermodynamics law.
   
2. Inflation & Expansion in space -
Is it feasible to set an inflation and expansion in space by any sort of bang?
What kind of physics law can accept the idea of expansion in space due to that bang?
Did we ever try to calculate the energy that is needed to set that kind of activity?

3. Particle creation: ""After its initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later atoms."
Can you please show the physics law that can permit the creation of particles from pure energy as a bang?
It seems that our scientists know for sure that there is no physics law that can accept the idea of creating mass from a bang.
Therefore, they don't claim for that. They only say that there was a bang and than "the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles"
However, we know that the only way to create new particles is by magnetic transformation of energy to real particles/mass in magnetic acceleration. No other process in the whole universe can set even tinny particle without that magnetic transformation. Our scientists do not claim that a magnetic accelerator had been created after the bang. Therefore, how can the estimate that just by cooling the Universe particles could be created from the high energy?

4. Particle pair creation and Annihilation
Let's assume that somehow there was a creation of partials. However, particles should be created in a pair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction 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, without any ability to separate between the pair at the moment of creation, than those new born particle pair should be eliminated instantly at the same moment of their creation by the following process:
Annihilation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Examples
In particle physics, annihilation is the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle to produce other particles, such as an electron colliding with a positron to produce two photons.[1"
The only force that can split between the particle pair is Lorenz force that is based on magnetic field. Without any source for magnetic field in the BBT activity, no particle could be survived due to annihilation process.

5. Mean Lifetime for Particle Decay
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/meanlif.html
"The decay of particles is commonly expressed in terms of half-life, decay constant or mean lifetime. The probability for decay can be expressed as a distribution function"
So, any new created particle has a "probability for decay". the time between the creation of particle in the BBT to the time of Atom creation is very critical. If you wait too long, you have lost all the new created particles.

6. Atom creation - The Atom creation took place about  380,000 years after the Big Bang. That might be too long for any particle to survive. However, let's assume that somehow some particles had left till this moment of time.
However, how can the BBT converts those survived particles to real Atoms? Please remember that due to the inflation and space expansion, the space itself is increasing at Ultra high velocity. so, the particles almost doesn't move. It is the space itself that is increasing dramatically. That cause a severe problem. How the particles can meet each other in order to set a new Atom? Without any possibility to set a contact between particles and without any magnetic field how any new atom could be created?

6. Dark matter and dark energy - Somehow it seems that our scientists have no clue about the dark matter and dark energy although they includes more than 90 % of the total energy in the Universe. There is no info how that "dark" had been created by the BBT.

Conclusions:
Sorry, the whole process of Atoms creation including Dark energy and dark matter by the BBT is just unrealistic.
However, Theory D offers a real activity to create new atoms and fully meets any physics law including the thermodynamics...

[Kryptid]

Please don't give up.

There is absolutely no point in me continuing this because you constantly twist the definitions of scientific terms to suit your agenda. No attempt at explaining how science works has worked on you. The fact that you said something so completely and utterly ridiculous as this...

The creation of new energy doesn't contradict the first law

..proves it.

But if you don't believe me, why don't you go to the "AskScience" section on Reddit and ask them if the creation of new energy violates conservation of energy? Once you see their responses, you should realize that it isn't me who is misinterpreting what conservation of energy means.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

There is absolutely no point in me continuing this because you constantly twist the definitions of scientific terms to suit your agenda.

Sorry, I don't twist any definition of scientific terms.
I just present the two theories in front of our Eyes.
Theory D doesn't contradict any law or scientific terms by creating one particle pair in photosphere of a BH in a given moment. Our scientists see that activity in real action!
We have deeply discussed about the virtual pair scientific term around the BH/SMBH. You have told me clearly that in order to convert those virtual particles that orbits at the speed of light to real particles with real mass, an energy transformation which is equivalent to their mass should be taken by the magnetic field from the rotation of the spinning BH. You didn't claim that also their orbital velocity should be taken from the magnetic field.  .
The orbital velocity for those virtual/real particles is dictated by the BH ultra high gravity force.
Therefore, the added kinetic energy that comes for free by the BH gravity force is the base for the whole mass creation cycle in our Universe.
Please - what is wrong with this process?

However, while you speak in the name of scientific terms and thermodynamics laws, you have totally ignored all the severe violations of the BBT for those scientific terms and laws.
I have just introduces few violations. There are so many more.  I have also clearly introduced articles that claim that the BBT is wrong.

But if you don't believe me, why don't you go to the "AskScience" section on Reddit and ask them if the creation of new energy violates conservation of energy?

If I will ask them about the energy source that was needed for the BBT, would they know the answer?
Why the creation of new energy in the BBT process doesn't violate the conservation of energy?
Why our scientists insist to ignore the energy source for the BBT?
If they have no clue about the energy source of the BBT, how do you know that it can work?
Why do you constantly claim that it is not our job to know about it?
If it is not our job, than why do you insist that it is my job to verify the extra energy for the pair creation activity?
If you give yourself a waiver from the energy source that is needed for the entire universe in a single moment based on the BBT, why don't you give me also a waiver for just one single pair particle in a given moment as needed for theory D?

The creation of new energy doesn't contradict the first law

..proves it.

The particle creation isn't fantasy or twisting the definitions of scientific terms. Our scientists clearly observe that activity in real life in the BH Photosphere!!! There is no higher proving than direct observation. As we clearly see that creation activity, than it proves that theory D is based on real science.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, I don't twist any definition of scientific terms.

And yet you say that creating energy doesn't violate the principle that says that energy can't be created.


Meanwhile, I'm still waiting for you to address this.

I don't fully understand your following question
If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?

OK, answer the other one.

Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Sorry, I don't twist any definition of scientific terms.

And yet you say that creating energy doesn't violate the principle that says that energy can't be created.

There is no violation.
The explanation was just in front of your eyes.
However, as usual,  it seems as an impossible mission for you to read it all..
So, let me copy it for you:

Sorry, I don't twist any definition of scientific terms.
I just present the two theories in front of our Eyes.
Theory D doesn't contradict any law or scientific terms by creating one particle pair in photosphere of a BH in a given moment. Our scientists see that activity in real action!
We have deeply discussed about the virtual pair scientific term around the BH/SMBH. You have told me clearly that in order to convert those virtual particles that orbits at the speed of light to real particles with real mass, an energy transformation which is equivalent to their mass should be taken by the magnetic field from the rotation of the spinning BH. You didn't claim that also their orbital velocity should be taken from the magnetic field.  .
The orbital velocity for those virtual/real particles is dictated by the BH ultra high gravity force.
Therefore, the added kinetic energy that comes for free by the BH gravity force is the base for the whole mass creation cycle in our Universe.
Please - what is wrong with this process?

I hope that this time you could read all of it.
If you did so, than you probably have got the answer.

However, I see that the question about the thermodynamics law represents "double standard"..
You wish to disqualify theory D by claiming that it doesn't offer a valid energy source for the creation of new particle at BH photosphere, while our scientists don't have a basic clue about the energy source that was needed for the BBT
Actually, I have proved that a bang can't generate even one tinny particle even if you call it a "Big Bang" and you get an Unlimited Dense and Heat for free, while I have offered real observation for the creation of the new particles at the BH photosphere..
Let me tell you story about that double standard:
You stay next to a train full with apples.
You take one and eat. Than a burglar takes the whole train and tells you that it is forbidden to take an apple which doesn't belong to you.
In the same token, our scientists have no basic idea about energy source that is needed for the BBT in order to generate the whole Universe in one Big bang. Therefore, by definition they can't fulfill that thermodynamics law.
Hence, it is a real double standard that in one hand you try to criticize the missing source of energy that is needed for the creation of participle pair in a BH photosphere (that we clearly see), while on the other hand your theory (BBT) totally disobey the same thermodynamics law that you offer.

.

If they are "young"- say 20 billion years, how is it that we happen to be here in the 20 billion when there are stars here?
Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?

Do you mean: why stars can live so long time?
Well, stars can live much longer than your estimation.
Actually, our scientists have no basic clue about the real age of stars.
Let's use our sun as an example:
Our scientists claim that its age is about 6 BY.
This is a fatal error.
In order to estimate the real age of a star you need to understand where and how new born stars had been created.
All/most of the stars are created in a gas cloud near the SMBH. There is no way to create a star outside the center of the galaxy. Without the impact of the Ultra high nearby gravity force and electromagnetism that a SMBH can offer, there is no way to form any star.
So, Our Sun had been created at one of those gas clouds orbiting the SMBH.
All the matter/ molecular for those gas clouds had been delivered from the Molecular jet stream by the matter that falls back to the galactic disc 
So, if we could verify the time that it takes the Sun to drift all the way from the center to our location, than we could get a perfect understanding for the real age of our Sun.
I estimate that the min age of our whole solar system should be 500 BY (Yes, including all the planets and moons).
Therefore, the stars could live much more than your current estimation.

[Bored chemist]

However, as usual,  it seems as an impossible mission for you to read it all..

i read it.
It didn't help.
I accept your point that, at first glance the BB looks like a violation of the conservation laws.
It's not.
If you are claiming a huge number if "tiny bangs" creating a single hydrogen atom or something,  then say so.

Actually, our scientists have no basic clue about the real age of stars.

We have experimental data about fusion rates.
We have quite good data about the age of the Earth from radioactive dating, but there's no need for that level of sophistication. Your figures are just not plausible. If the Earth was 500 Billion years old, there would be no uranium.
Considering the Solar system, if the Sun isn't " a bit older, but not hugely older than the Earth" then you have to explain why the Sun waited for billions of years (or more) before starting the process of forming the Earth.

Do you mean: why stars can live so long time?

Did you not see what I posted?

Why haven't they, and their progeny, died out trillions, or quadrillions of years ago?

Even if you say that a star lasts a quintillion years (at which point everyone will laugh at you) I will point out that the Universe has- in your view, been round infinitely longer than that, so the stars (and their successors) should have died out long ago.

We should  look up and see only the heat death of the universe.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I accept your point that, at first glance the BB looks like a violation of the conservation laws.
It's not.
If you are claiming a huge number if "tiny bangs" creating a single hydrogen atom or something, then say so.

Do you really think that this kind of answer could cover the total energy that was requested for the BBT out of nothing?
Again - what is the source of energy for the BBT?
Try something more logical please.
So far I didn't get any answer for the following points:

1. Energy source for the BBT:
   What is the source for "high density and high temperature"?
   What does it mean high density? density of what? density of matter or density of energy?
   How that kind of high density and temperature had been created?
   If you can't show the source of energy, than there is a severe violation of thermodynamics law.
   
2. Inflation & Expansion in space -
Is it feasible to set an inflation and expansion in space by any sort of bang?
What kind of physics law can accept the idea of expansion in space due to that bang?
Did we ever try to calculate the energy that is needed to set that kind of activity?

3. Particle creation: ""After its initial expansion, the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles, and later atoms."
Can you please show the physics law that can permit the creation of particles from pure energy as a bang?
It seems that our scientists know for sure that there is no physics law that can accept the idea of creating mass from a bang.
Therefore, they don't claim for that. They only say that there was a bang and than "the universe cooled sufficiently to allow the formation of subatomic particles"
However, we know that the only way to create new particles is by magnetic transformation of energy to real particles/mass in magnetic acceleration. No other process in the whole universe can set even tinny particle without that magnetic transformation. Our scientists do not claim that a magnetic accelerator had been created after the bang. Therefore, how can the estimate that just by cooling the Universe particles could be created from the high energy?

4. Particle pair creation and Annihilation
Let's assume that somehow there was a creation of partials. However, particles should be created in a pair.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pair_production
"For pair production to occur, the incoming energy of the interaction 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, without any ability to separate between the pair at the moment of creation, than those new born particle pair should be eliminated instantly at the same moment of their creation by the following process:
Annihilation - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annihilation#Examples
In particle physics, annihilation is the process that occurs when a subatomic particle collides with its respective antiparticle to produce other particles, such as an electron colliding with a positron to produce two photons.[1"
The only force that can split between the particle pair is Lorenz force that is based on magnetic field. Without any source for magnetic field in the BBT activity, no particle could be survived due to annihilation process.

5. Mean Lifetime for Particle Decay
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Nuclear/meanlif.html
"The decay of particles is commonly expressed in terms of half-life, decay constant or mean lifetime. The probability for decay can be expressed as a distribution function"
So, any new created particle has a "probability for decay". the time between the creation of particle in the BBT to the time of Atom creation is very critical. If you wait too long, you have lost all the new created particles.

6. Atom creation - The Atom creation took place about  380,000 years after the Big Bang. That might be too long for any particle to survive. However, let's assume that somehow some particles had left till this moment of time.
However, how can the BBT converts those survived particles to real Atoms? Please remember that due to the inflation and space expansion, the space itself is increasing at Ultra high velocity. so, the particles almost doesn't move. It is the space itself that is increasing dramatically. That cause a severe problem. How the particles can meet each other in order to set a new Atom? Without any possibility to set a contact between particles and without any magnetic field how any new atom could be created?

7. Dark matter and dark energy - Somehow it seems that our scientists have no clue about the dark matter and dark energy although they includes more than 90 % of the total energy in the Universe. There is no info how that "dark" had been created by the BBT.

Can you please try to answer?

Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/04/2020 08:00:31
If that distance was also based on the expansion impact, than why don't they say that the Comoving + Proper distance of the radiation is 46 BLY?

Because they are measures of two different things. You don't add them together.

Can you please explain how can you fit real distance of 46BLY in only 13BY.
How the CMB radiation that had emitted 13 BY ago could get to us after crossing real distance of 46BLY?

We have experimental data about fusion rates.
We have quite good data about the age of the Earth from radioactive dating, but there's no need for that level of sophistication. Your figures are just not plausible. If the Earth was 500 Billion years old, there would be no uranium.

Your data is incorrect as your theory is incorrect.
All the planets and Moons have been created as a hot gas balls at the same day as the sun and with the same matter.
Our current earth has less than 2% from its day of birth.
So, it was significantly much bigger, very hot and full with Hydrogen and helium.
It probably took it very long time to cool down and eject most of the light gas.
Why do you claim that: "If Earth was 500 Billion years old, there would be no uranium"?

.
 

Even if you say that a star lasts a quintillion years (at which point everyone will laugh at you) I will point out that the Universe has- in your view, been round infinitely longer than that, so the stars (and their successors) should have died out long ago.

You can all laugh as you wish, however you all have no clue how our universe really works.
There is no expire date for a star.
There is no successor for a star.
Once it die it dies forever. Its mass could be lost in space or be used to create new BH. There is no way to form new star from the mass of a star that have lost its life in a supernova

[Bored chemist]

Your data is incorrect as your theory is incorrect.

My data is the half life of uranium, which I can measure, and the fact that I can find uranium about the place which is obviously true.
It's not a "theory" as you put it, it's an observation.

Do you really think that this kind of answer could cover the total energy that was requested for the BBT out of nothing?

Yes; it does.

Why do you claim that: "If Earth was 500 Billion years old, there would be no uranium"?

Because I can do arithmetic.

Once it die it dies forever. Its mass could be lost in space

And yet, after what you claim is an infinite time, there are still some here.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

My data is the half life of uranium, which I can measure, and the fact that I can find uranium about the place which is obviously true.
It's not a "theory" as you put it, it's an observation.

Can you please direct me to the article that could confirm the age of the Universe by uranium?
Please remember that based on theory D each planet and moon had been created as hot gas ball.
So, how the Uranium could set the age of a hot gas ball?

Do you really think that this kind of answer could cover the total energy that was requested for the BBT out of nothing?

Yes; it does.

So, you claim that the following answer can generate the total energy for the BBT:

if you are claiming a huge number if "tiny bangs" creating a single hydrogen atom or something,  then say so.

However, even "Tinny bangs "need some external energy source.
So what is the energy source?
If you think that it could work without energy source, than why can't we use this "brilliant" idea to create unlimited energy to our cars?

Why did you ignore my following question:

Can you please explain how can you fit real distance of 46BLY in only 13BY.
How the CMB radiation that had emitted 13 BY ago could get to us after crossing real distance of 46BLY?

So, let's see if I understand it correct.
The radiation which had been emitted at the time of the Atom formation had been ejected to the open space.
Due to the expansion it actually had crossed 46BLY in only 13 BY.
So how could it be?
The real distance is only 13BY, therefore, due to the expansion the radiation had to cross
46-13=31BLY
So, how can we force the radiation to cross 31BLY directly due to the expansion?
31/13 = 2.4
It actually represents a velocity which is 2.4 times the speed of light.
I wonder how only the expansion can contribute a velocity which is relevant to 2.4 times the speed of light?
This is a big question mark by itself.

In any case, this Expansion increases the distance between any nearby Atoms.
However, in order to form Stars we need to brig atoms together.
So, the expansion contradicts the process of forming new stars.
Therefore, the BBT has a built in contradiction that prevents the formation of new stars.
We need the expansion in space to explain the extra 31 BY of comoving distance in the CMB. Which is equivalent to extra velocity of 2.4 the speed of light.
While if there is an expansion in space, than we actually increases the distance between any nearby atoms and prevent the requested process that is needed to form star or even Asteroid.
Therefore, this is one more input why the BBT is absolutely none relevant
It is amazing that there are so negative points in the BBT that each one of them by itself should knock down that theory
How could it be that our scientists with deep knowledge in science totally ignore all negative points and real observations that the BBT is wrong?

I do recall a discussion with Kryptid. He told me that the BBT isn't a perfect theory, but it is currently the best that is available.
However, Now I offer a perfect theory for our Universe.
It covers any aspect of the Universe activity and fully meets any observation.
Based on this theory we can understand where we had been and where we should be in the Future.
It meets the Universe by 100%. However, you still refuse even to consider it or any other theory for our Universe.

What is there in the BBT that all of you try to protect as it was some sort of holly crown?
Are you sure that the BBT is all about science?