[Kryptid]

So far you couldn't offer even one real law of science that theory D violet.

Conservation of energy.

[Bored chemist]

So, how can we take a variant that only valid for velocity and convert it to distance?

Finally, you get round to answering my question

Do you understand the idea of indirect measurement?

And, as I suspected, the answer is no.


Here's the bit you missed.
We do not  measure distance by red shift.
We measure distance by using standard candles.
But there aren't usually enough of those , so we extrapolate measured distances using red shift.

Now do you understand why I asked the question?

Just think- if you hadn't been too arrogant to answer it, we could have got here a couple of weeks ago.

[Bored chemist]

So far you couldn't offer even one real law of science that theory D violet.

You started by saying this

The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.

And it's a violation of the laws of physics.
Because the CMB would look the same if we were in a large (but finite) cold box which obeys the laws of physics.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 13:59:07
So far you couldn't offer even one real law of science that theory D violet.

Conservation of energy.

I have already explained this issue.
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."
Einstein have told us that: E = Mc^2
Therefore, the energy in a positron or electron is 0.511Mev
Hence, in order to produce a positron-electron pair, the energy in their total mass of 1.022 MeV is transformed by the magnetic force from the spinning BH.
That energy (and much more than that) is given back to the BH by a tidal forces from all the objects (stars+ gas clouds+ accertion disc..) that orbits around it.

In any case, at the moment of pair creation they will probably orbit at almost the speed of light.
Therefore, the Kinetic energy at the moment of creation for each particle is: 1/2 M c^2
That kinetic energy is given by the gravity force of the BH.
So, while the energy in the mass itself had been transformed from the spinning energy of the BH by magnetic field, the orbital kinetic energy is given by the BH' gravity force.
However, due to Lorentz force, one particle should fall in and the other one should be ejected outwards to the accretion (or actually excretion) disc.
The total energy in a falling particle is:
E(falling particle) =  Its mass energy (E=Mc^2) + its Kinetic energy (Ek = 1/2 M c^2) = 1.5Mc^2
That by itself is not enough as the BH had contributed 2Mc^2 for the creation of those particles pair.
So, we still miss 1/2 Mc^2.
However, most of the Kinetic energy of the particle that gets to the accretion disc is transformed back to the BH due to tidal force. (As it starts at almost the speed of light and eventually ejected outwards from the disc at much lower speed)
Later on that particle will be converted to Atom and molecular and will be used to form new gas cloud or new star.
That new gas cloud/star will set a tidal force on the BH in order to keep the spinning energy of the BH that is needed for the new creation process.
So, the impact of the tidal forces from all the objects orbiting the BH should set enough energy to continue the process of creating new particles and increasing the BH's mass during that process without violating the Conservation of energy or the thermodynamic law.
Therefore, the kinetic energy that is given for free by the BH's gravity force, is the extra energy that is needed to create new particles, New gas clouds, New stars, New BH and new galaxies in our Universe.

Do you understand the idea of indirect measurement?
And, as I suspected, the answer is no.
Here's the bit you missed.
We do not measure distance by red shift.
We measure distance by using standard candles.
But there aren't usually enough of those , so we extrapolate measured distances using red shift.

Yes, I fully understand the meaning of indirect measurement.
However, as redshift doesn't carry any information about distance, than it can't give any sort of information about indirect distance.
I also fully understand that we measure distance by using standard candles.
However, those candles are located relatively close (or at least with low level of redshift).
Therefore, they are not applicable for high redshift.
Hence, we have no reference points or "candles" for distance of galaxies with high redshift.
If you claim that we have, than please offer a candle for high redshift.

Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/03/2020 19:21:42
The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size.

And it's a violation of the laws of physics.
Because the CMB would look the same if we were in a large (but finite) cold box which obeys the laws of physics.

No, you have a fatal error.
I agree that the CMB would look the same ONLY if we were in the CENTER of a large (but finite) sphere.
However, what is the chance that we are located at the center of our finite Universe?
I have already proved that the chance for that is virtually ZERO.
So, any size of the Universe is not good enough to cover the possibility to that we are not at the center of that Universe.

Hence, the only possibility that the CMB MUST look the same from any location is ONLY if the universe is INFINITE.

[Kryptid]

the process of creating new mass and increasing its mass during that process without violating the Conservation of energy or the thermodynamic law.

That violates conservation of mass-energy by the very definition of what mass-energy conservation is. That's like arguing that you stole something from a store but you aren't a thief. It's an oxymoron.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That violates conservation of mass-energy by the very definition of what mass-energy conservation is. That's like arguing that you stole something from a store but you aren't a thief. It's an oxymoron

Do you agree that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force?
If so, you have to agree that this is the source for the extra energy that is needed to create new particles, new gas clouds, new stars, New BH and new galaxies in our Universe.
The BH's gravity force is for free and we can use it without any need to steal something from anyone.

[Kryptid]

Do you agree that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force?
If so, you have to agree that this is the source for the extra energy that is needed to create new particles, new gas clouds, new stars, New BH and new galaxies in our Universe.
The BH's gravity force is for free and we can use it without any need to steal something from anyone.

There is no "extra energy". If the energy in the system is not constant, then the law of conservation of energy is violated.

Which of these statements is true?

(1) Mass-energy can be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is violated, or
(2) Mass-energy cannot be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.

There is no third option possible.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Please answer the question:
Do you agree that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force?
Please, Yes or no?

[Kryptid]

Do you agree that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force?
Please, Yes or no?

Yes, and that gravitational potential energy is finite.

Now answer my question.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 22:39:16
Do you agree that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force?
Please, Yes or no?

Yes and that gravitational potential energy is finite.

Thanks!!!
I don't need more than that.
Once you confirm that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force, than you have to agree that this BH gravity force contribute new energy (kinetic energy) to our Universe.

Hence, with regards to your message:

There is no "extra energy". If the energy in the system is not constant, then the law of conservation of energy is violated.

You have just confirmed that the BH gravity force contributes new kinetic energy to our universe.
That energy is used for the new created particales.
So, there is no extra energy out of nothing. There is a simple extra kinetic energy out of gravity force.

Which of these statements is true?
(1) Mass-energy can be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is violated, or
(2) Mass-energy cannot be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.
There is no third option possible.

Yes there is a third option:
(3) Kinetic energy for new created particles is created by the BH's gravity without violating the law of conservation of mass-energy
This new energy is used to create new Mass and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.

[Kryptid]

Once you confirm that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force, than you have to agree that this BH gravity force contribute new energy (kinetic energy) to our Universe.

No it doesn't. That energy isn't new nor is it unlimited.

You have just confirmed that the BH gravity force contributes new kinetic energy to our universe.

This is a lie. Lying does not make you look good. Nowhere did I say that new energy is created.

Yes there is a third option:
(3) Kinetic energy for new created particles is created by the BH's gravity without violating the law of conservation of mass-energy

This is not a true option because it is an oxymoron. Do you know what an oxymoron is? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron

Now, answer the question properly: the only answers that aren't self-contradictory are (1) and (2).

[Bored chemist]

I agree that the CMB would look the same ONLY if we were in the CENTER of a large (but finite) sphere.

You can't "agree" with something that nobody said.

And your assertion is absurd. What you are saying is that a perfectly black wall looks different if you are close to it.

How can you tell how far you are from a black body wall?
(If you are considering the inverse square law, you are proving that you can't learn- go and look through the thread again)

It's you who has made the fatal error, but, things are looking up, we are getting to the root of your lack of understanding.

Imagine that you and I  are in a spaceship and that ship is inside a cube a billion miles on each edge.
The walls of the "box" are at exactly 10K, and they are perfectly black
You think we are in the centre, and I think we are only 100 miles from one face of the cube.

What measurement do you think you could do which would decide which of us is right?
(Obviously a 101 mile selfie stick would work, but what could we do from inside the ship?)

[Bored chemist]

This is not a true option because it is an oxymoron.

I think he was short-changed on the "oxy" bit.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 23:05:22
Once you confirm that the kinetic energy that is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force, than you have to agree that this BH gravity force contribute new energy (kinetic energy) to our Universe.

No it doesn't. That energy isn't new nor is it unlimited.

Sorry if I didn't understand you correctly.
However, why that kinetic energy isn't new?
You have confirmed that the kinetic energy which is given to the new created particles is due to the BH's gravity force.
Therefore the BH's gravity force adds to any new particle the following kinetic energy:
Ek = 1/2 M c^2.
So, why this kinetic energy that is added to a new created particle by the gravity force can't be considered as new energy?
If you estimate that this energy can't be considered as new energy than it must be transformed/come from some other source of energy.
So, who is losing that amount of energy (Ek = 1/2 M c^2.) which is delivered to the new created particle by the BH's gravity force?
If it comes from other source, than why do you confirm that this energy is due to the BH's gravity force?
Would you kindly explain the contradiction?

[Kryptid]

I'll answer that once you've answered this (though to be fair, I answered that question a long time ago):

Which of these statements is true?

(1) Mass-energy can be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is violated, or
(2) Mass-energy cannot be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I'll answer that once you've answered this (though to be fair, I answered that question a long time ago):

Which of these statements is true?

(1) Mass-energy can be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is violated, or
(2) Mass-energy cannot be created and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.

I have already answered this question:

Yes there is a third option:
(3) Kinetic energy for new created particles is created by the BH's gravity without violating the law of conservation of mass-energy
This new energy is used to create new Mass and thus the law of conservation of mass-energy is not violated.

However, now I understand that you reject the idea that the kinetic energy could be considered as new energy.
Therefore, please advice what is the source for that energy.
If it is not due to the BH's gravity force and there is other source for it, than we come again to the previous question:

If it comes from other source, than why do you confirm that this energy is due to the BH's gravity force?
Would you kindly explain the contradiction?

So, it's now up to you to clear the issue.
If the Kinetic energy E=1/2 Mc^2 of the new created particle is not due to the BH's gravity force, than what is the other source for it?
If it comes from other source, than why do you confirm that this energy is due to the BH's gravity force?

[Kryptid]

I have already answered this question:

If you did not give (1) or (2) as an answer, you did not answer the question. Instead, you made up some nonsense that contradicts itself and pretended that it was an answer. Here is an analogy for what you did: Let's say that I asked you "which do you agree with?:"

(1) You did not steal and therefore did not commit theft, or
(2) You did steal and therefore did commit theft.

Then you come along and pretend that there is a third option, saying:

(3) You did steal and therefore did not commit theft.

Did you honestly not see the clear contradiction in terms here? Theft, by the very definition of what it is, is stealing. You cannot say that you stole but did not commit theft because theft is stealing. Claiming that you can create energy without violating conservation of energy is exactly the same kind of self-contradiction. A child would be capable of understanding this. If you create energy, you violated the law of conservation of energy. Period. That's all there is to it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If you did not give (1) or (2) as an answer, you did not answer the question. Instead, you made up some nonsense that contradicts itself and pretended that it was an answer. Here is an analogy for what you did: Let's say that I asked you "which do you agree with?:"

(1) You did not steal and therefore did not commit theft, or
(2) You did steal and therefore did commit theft.

Your analogy is completely wrong.
Gravity force doesn't still its force/energy from any other source.
There are billions over billions of stars orbiting around the galaxy.
The formula for the gravity force is:
F=G m1 * m2 / r^2
That gravity force could theoretically last forever and ever without losing even one bit of mass from any object in the orbital system.

Did you honestly not see the clear contradiction in terms here?

No, I do not!
Do you confirm that gravity force is for free?
So, how could you claim in your analogy for steal or commit theft while this force is for free?
If you believe that gravity force isn't for free, than would you kindly show why we should considered the BH's gravity force as steal or commit theft?

[Kryptid]

Your analogy is completely wrong.

So you are claiming that a law that says "energy cannot be created" is somehow, magically, not violated when energy is created?

Do you confirm that gravity force is for free?

Force is not energy. Please don't make this mistake again.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So you are claiming that a law that says "energy cannot be created" is somehow, magically, not violated when energy is created?

I only claim that gravity force is for free.
Therefore, the energy that is contributed to the orbital object due to that force is also for free.
Our scientists are using this force/energy to boost their space ship for free.
So they are using the energy in the gravity force to accelerate their space ship in the direction of the moon, the Sun or any other direction.
All of that comes for free.

Force is not energy. Please don't make this mistake again.

Any Force can be converted to energy.
The gravity force that boosts the space ship adds a severe kinetic energy to that space ship.
Our scientists could use the rocket engine in the space ship in order to add the requested kinetic energy that is needed to boost it in any direction
However, in this case, they will have to pay for that kinetic energy.
So, do you agree that by using the Erath' gravity force, the space ship gets new kinetic energy for free.
If the space ship could get new kinetic energy for free from the Erath gravity force, why a new created particle can't also get it's kinetic energy for free due to BH's gravity force?