[Bored chemist]

Do you claim that there is no need Negative mass particle, Dark matter, dark energy and many other none realistic ideas as density wave to justify the BBT and the activity of the spiral galaxies in the Universe?

What I'm saying is quite simple.
The BBT was invented before ideas like Dark matter.
So it's clear that a BBT without  those things is not only possible , but it existed.

So, when you say that a BBT needs those things it is clear that you are not telling the truth.

So I'm asking you why you think it's helpful to say things that you know are not true.

I didn't read the rest of your post because it can't alter the fact that LeMaitre drafted the theory in 1927, but the missing matter wasn't noticed until  1933.
For (at least) the intervening years, the BBT existed without dark matter etc.

Did you include anything important in that gish gallop?
If so, please either repeat it, or delete the spurious dross from your earlier post so I can find the useful bit.
Thanks
 

[Malamute Lover]

Based on Newton formula I have found that the total mass should be 75 M sun mass.

I already pointed out to you that you are using the radius of the very large cold gas halo and assigning it the estimated speed of the inner edge of the accretion disk, which is much higher than the outer edge of the halo. This is why your calculation of the mass is way off. And this is why I am not bothering with this thread anymore. You are not listening to anyone but yourself.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I already pointed out to you that you are using the radius of the very large cold gas halo and assigning it the estimated speed of the inner edge of the accretion disk, which is much higher than the outer edge of the halo. This is why your calculation of the mass is way off. And this is why I am not bothering with this thread anymore. You are not listening to anyone but yourself.

I have high appreciation for your knowledge and support.
However, why do you claim that there is a cold gas cloud in the accretion ring?
The accretion disc is actually a ring and it is full with hot plasma.
You have stated that the plasma  temp is 10^7K while I do recall that it was stated 10^9K. I'm sure that Halc can justify that understanding as we had long discussion about it.
So, how that hot plasma (of 10^7 or 10^9K) could be considered as cold gas cloud?.
The plasma is there between the most inwards to the most outwards radius of the accretion disc/ring.
We are located at the same plane of that disc/ring.
Therefore, how can we measure the orbital velocity of the most inwards accretion radius? How can we see it while we are located at the same plane?
Hence, don't you agree that if we can measure the orbital  velocity of the plasma, it must be related to the outer ring of the accretion ring?

In any case, I would mostly appreciate if you can offer a valid article that can justify your understanding.

With regards to your following message, which I have found in other thread:

As I said earlier, if the universe were in fact contracting at the same rate it is now expanding, there would be no change in how stars act. Mass-energy would still be positive, the physics of fusion would still be the same. The expansion of the universe is irrelevant.

How do we know that the Universe is expanding?
Is there any frame in the space?
All we see are galaxies. We all agree that those galaxies are expanding away from us..
However, how the expansion of the galaxies (especially the far end galaxies) could be used as a valid prove that the space itself in our universe is really expanding?
The BBT sets the linkage between the expansions of galaxies to the expansion in space.
However, don't you agree that theoretically, we can offer other idea for the expansion in the galaxies rather than just expansion in space?.

Few weeks ago I have read your tread.
If I recall it correctly, you have stated that there is a problem with the BBT. Is it correct? if so, would you kindly explain what is the problem with the BBT as you see it?

[Bored chemist]

It does not matter.
You can not explain where the first black hole came from, and you can not explain how the Universe came into being.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It does not matter.
You can not explain where the first black hole came from, and you can not explain how the Universe came into being.

Yes, I have already given the answer.
Based on the BBT a bang that took place 13.8 BY ago had set the base for the whole energy and matter in our observable universe.
If you like the BBT, than you actually agree that a bang could create energy/mass that is needed for the Billions over Billions galaxies in our observable Universe. In each galaxy there is a SMBH and Billions of stars. Just in the core of the Milky Way our scientists have found more than 10,000 BH. The mass in a star is equivalent to the mass in a BH. So in total the BBT had created almost out of nothing equivalent mass/energy for Billions over billions over billions over... BH mass/energy.

Therefore, in the BBT the bang is needed for the whole energy/mass in the observable universe including all the Galaxies, SMBH, MBH, BH, Stars planets moons... Billions over billions over...., while in theory D the bang is needed just for the first BH.

Hence, if you agree that a big bang could create so much energy and mass out of nothing, why is it so difficult to you to agree that a bang can create a single BH?

Actually, if there was a bang, any sort of bang, and something had been created out of nothing at a singularity point than this singularity must be converted immediately to a BH or a SS...SMBH.
Our scientists claim that the size of the Universe after the inflation was 10,000Ly.
So, let's try to set the whole mass in the observable Universe in that limited size.
Billions over Billions massive galaxies in the size of 1/10 than the size of the Milky way.
What would be the outcome?
Don't you agree that due to gravity all of that mass should immediately fall in and set the Biggest BH ever created?
So, how can you even dream that the matter/energy of the whole observable Universe could escape from that compact size?

Therefore, for the starting activity, theory D is much more realistic/superior theory over the BBT.
The chance that a bang (even if we call it big bang) could create so much energy for the whole mass in the Universe out of nothing and against the thermodynamics laws is virtually zero.
Even if you believe in that unrealistic idea, the chance that something could escape after the inflation against Newton Gravity law at that 10,000Ly compact size is also virtually zero.

In theory D, all we ask is just a single BH out of a bang.
So, how could you prefer the BBT over Theory D for that starting point?

[Bored chemist]

Hence, if you agree that a big bang could create so much energy and mass out of nothing, why is it so difficult to you to agree that a bang can create a single BH?

Partly because we actually know how black holes are formed.

Don't you agree that due to gravity all of that mass should immediately fall in and set the Biggest BH ever created?

No because of inflation.

But the real problem is that your idea doesn't work.
If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.
It would evaporate.
It would emit particles- mainly photons which would radiate off into the distance, never to be seen again.
It would also produce a few particles of matter.
But almost all those particles too would have one of two fates they would fall back in, or they would, like the photons, diffuse away into the vacuum.

There would be a few particles which ended up in orbit- initially- but the stream of photons would, eventually push them away too.
Eventually the black hole would evaporate entirely and leave nothing but a few dregs
So the "universe" you have invented doesn't look anything like the real one.

But your biggest failing isn't that you didn't realise this.

No, your most serious fault is that you didn't accept this when I pointed it out earlier.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13
Hence, if you agree that a big bang could create so much energy and mass out of nothing, why is it so difficult to you to agree that a bang can create a single BH?

Partly because we actually know how black holes are formed.

So you claim that because you know how the BH is formed than in one theory (let's call it theory B or BBT) a mass which is equivalent to Billions Over Billons Over... BH could be create in a single bang and out of nothing, while in other theory (let's call it theory D) it is absolutely impossible to get even a single BH in a bang.
Is it real?
What do you know about the BH that could support this unrealistic idea?

Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13
Don't you agree that due to gravity all of that mass should immediately fall in and set the Biggest BH ever created?

No because of inflation.

Based on our scientists, after the inflation the size of the universe was only 10,000LY.
So how could it be that by placing the whole mass/energy of the observable Universe including all the Millions over Billions massive galaxies at the size of 1/10 the Milky Way Newton gravity wouldn't force them all to fall in into a SS...SMBH?
What Newton would say about it?

If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.
It would evaporate.

So, how can you explain the Billion over billions Supper massive BH in our Universe?
How could it be that so many BHs that have to be evaporated, could surprisingly increase their mass so dramatically and became SMBHs?

[Bored chemist]

So, how can you explain the Billion over billions Supper massive BH in our Universe?

Gravity and hydrogen

Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13
Hence, if you agree that a big bang could create so much energy and mass out of nothing, why is it so difficult to you to agree that a bang can create a single BH?

Partly because we actually know how black holes are formed.

So you claim that because you know how the BH is formed than in one theory (let's call it theory B or BBT) a mass which is equivalent to Billions Over Billons Over... BH could be create in a single bang and out of nothing, while in other theory (let's call it theory D) it is absolutely impossible to get even a single BH in a bang.
Is it real?
What do you know about the BH that could support this unrealistic idea?

Quote from: Dave Lev on 08/08/2020 05:30:13
Don't you agree that due to gravity all of that mass should immediately fall in and set the Biggest BH ever created?

No because of inflation.

Based on our scientists, after the inflation the size of the universe was only 10,000LY.
So how could it be that by placing the whole mass/energy of the observable Universe including all the Millions over Billions massive galaxies at the size of 1/10 the Milky Way Newton gravity wouldn't force them all to fall in into a SS...SMBH?
What Newton would say about it?

If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.
It would evaporate.

So, how can you explain the Billion over billions Supper massive BH in our Universe?
How could it be that so many BHs that have to be evaporated, could surprisingly increase their mass so dramatically and became SMBHs?

For better or worse you seem to have commented on much of what I said.
You missed a bit.

.

But the real problem is that your idea doesn't work.
...
So the "universe" you have invented doesn't look anything like the real one.

You need to address that.
One BH doesn't make a Universe

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You need to address that.
One BH doesn't make a Universe

Yes it is.
As an example let's use the evolvement of life on Earth.
Do you agree that based on Darwin theory all the variety of life had been evolved from just one cell of life as Ameba?
However, that cell of life must have the ability to create other cell of life.
In the same token, a BH which should be considered as a "living" cell of mass as it has the ability to create new mass.
In the core of the Miky Way galaxy, our scientists have found more that 10K BHs.
Those BH's didn't migrate inwards just because they wish to be eaten by the SMBH.
They are there as each one of them is a new born baby BH of the SMBH.
All of them are migrating away from the SMBH.
Over time they will increase their mass. Not by eating anything, but by the ability to create new particles.

If you accept Darwin theory for the evolvement of life, you should accept theory D as the best theory for the evolvement of galaxies in our Universe.
One cell of life in the whole planet V.S one "living" cell of mass (BH or MBH) in the whole Universe.

In any case, what is the chance that all the energy/mass of the whole observable Universe could be created in a bang out of nothing?
Don't you agree that the chance to create equivalent energy/mass of just one BH in a bang out of nothing is Billion over billion over.. Billion higher than the chance to create equivalent energy/mass of Billion over billion over...billion BHs?
So, do you agree that the creation of a single BH in a bang by theory D is much more realistic than the idea of creating all the energy/mass of our universe in a bang out of nothing?

[Bored chemist]

As an example let's use the evolvement of life on Earth.

No, because that's silly.

If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.
It would evaporate.
It would emit particles- mainly photons which would radiate off into the distance, never to be seen again.
It would also produce a few particles of matter.
But almost all those particles too would have one of two fates they would fall back in, or they would, like the photons, diffuse away into the vacuum.

There would be a few particles which ended up in orbit- initially- but the stream of photons would, eventually push them away too.
Eventually the black hole would evaporate entirely and leave nothing but a few dregs
So the "universe" you have invented doesn't look anything like the real one.

Show,- using physics, rather than wishful thinking- how I'm wrong about what would happen to as single black hole on its own in an empty void.

[Bored chemist]

In the same token, a BH which should be considered as a "living" cell of mass as it has the ability to create new mass.

Two problems.
It has not got the ability to do that. Sadly you don't have the ability to understand the conservation of energy.

And, if it did, it wouldn't help, because it wouldn't create a universe like this one- see above

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It has not got the ability to do that. Sadly you don't have the ability to understand the conservation of energy.

Well, I have already gave the answer for the conservation of energy for the particle creation process.
The energy for the new created particle pair (Both with positive mass but with opposite polarity) is transformed by the electromagnetic field of the BH/SMBH.
However, their velocity is given for free by the Newton gravity force.
Therefore, this velocity is the added kinetic energy which drives the whole Universe.
Hence, this added kinetic energy is the ultimate answer for the energy conservation in theory D.
Due to Lorentz force, as one partial is directed inwards and fall into the SMBH, the other opposite polarity particle is ejected outwards directly into the accretion ring.
So, I show a clear answer for your question. You might accept it or reject it. But it is there and it is very logical.
However, we all agree that our scientists don't have any idea what is the energy conservation for the BBT (correct or incorrect).
So, how could it be that you race the flag of the conservation of energy in one hand against theory D, while on the other hand you completely ignore it when it comes to the BBT?
Can you please explain the source of energy for the Big Bang?
Please explain how the conservation of energy works at the BBT?
How the energy/mass for millions over billions massive galaxies had been created out of nothing?
If you can't explain it in the theory that you like, how could you ask about it when it comes to other theory?

So let's agree.
Even if you don't like my explanation about the real impact of Newton gravity, as long as you can't answer for the source of energy at the Big bang and how the conservation of energy works there, than you can't reject other theory based on this law.

One law for any theory.
As our scientists gave a waiver for this law when it comes to the BBT, than it is an obligation to give the same waiver to any theory!!!

 

If, by act of God or whatever, there was a black hole in the middle of an infinite void we know what would happen.
It would evaporate.
It would emit particles- mainly photons which would radiate off into the distance, never to be seen again.
It would also produce a few particles of matter.
But almost all those particles too would have one of two fates they would fall back in, or they would, like the photons, diffuse away into the vacuum.

There would be a few particles which ended up in orbit- initially- but the stream of photons would, eventually push them away too.
Eventually the black hole would evaporate entirely and leave nothing but a few dregs
So the "universe" you have invented doesn't look anything like the real one.

As I have already explained:
There are only positive particles in our Universe!!!
The idea of Negative mass is a pure fiction that had been invented by Hawking. If it is there, than please prove it. If you can't do so, than let's agree that it is a speculation idea.
So, without negative mass there is no way to evaporate the mass of the BH/SMBH.

As one particle is falling in, the BH/SMBH is increasing their mass over time.
The other particle is ejected outwards and used as a new matter in our observable Universe.
So the SMBH are increasing its mass without any need to eat any star or gas cloud from out side.
Therefore, our scientists claim that the SMBH is a picky eater.
Milky Way’s Black Hole a Picky Eater
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/

It is just a wishful hope by our scientists.
The SMBH is not a picky eater as it is stated: "Milky Way’s Black Hole a Picky Eater"
Have you ever seen a picky eater elephant?
Sorry, the SMBH is an excellent Eater. It won't give up even on a single particle. However, Due to the nature of mass creation, for any created particle pair  it can only eat one.
Therefore, the other one is ejected outwards into the accretion disc due to Lorentz force

It's amazing that our scientists don't see any in falling matter, but they are positively sure that it must eat something from outside.
"When astronomers used Chandra to study Sgr A*, in one of its longest ever observations, they found that more than 99% of the in falling material was ejected long before reaching the event horizon"
They claim for 99% from the in falling matter is ejected outwards. So, we might think that all the mater in the accretion disc is there due to in falling matter and at least 1% is falling in from the accretion to the SMBH.
This is misleading information, as NOTHING is drifted inwards to the accretion disc.
The ultra high SMBH's magnetic field would prevent from any particle or atom to fall into the accretion disc.
If something from outside will dare to come closer to the accretion disc, it will be boosted upwards/downwards at 0.8c to the molecular jet stream.

Actually, do we really see anything that falls in?
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/430/1/60/983995
"Measured outflow velocities span a continuous range from <1500 km s−1 up to ∼100 000 km s−1, with mean and median values of ∼0.1 c and ∼0.056 c, respectively."
In this articled they have only found real observation for outflow. There are over than 100 words of "outflow" and not even a single word about inflow or inwards. As we hope that the SMBH eats food from outside, why can't we see it?
In the article they claim that they have difficulties to see it.
However, they clearly see an outflow.
Hence, as long as they only see outflow, than there is no inflow.
As there is only outflow it proves that the SMBH is used as mass creation with or without the conservation law.

[Bored chemist]

However, their velocity is given for free by the Newton gravity force.

Anywhere near a black hole, the big component of that force is going to be towards it.
So they will get a velocity- in the wrong direction.

So let's agree.
Even if you don't like my explanation about the real impact of Newton gravity, as long as you can't answer for the source of energy at the Big bang and how the conservation of energy works there, than you can't reject other theory based on this law.

I'm hardly going to agree with something that is plainly wrong.
The BBT more or less depends on the idea that the energy came from outside.
ONE TIME ONLY.

Whereas you are expecting it to happen all the time- but only where you want it to.

That's the sort of special pleading that you might as well call "God", and be done with it.

Well, I have already gave the answer for the conservation of energy for the particle creation process.

No, because, as others have pointed out, your "explanation" doesn't work.

Therefore, our scientists claim that the SMBH is a picky eater.
Milky Way’s Black Hole a Picky Eater

Well, it actually says "If there’s one thing nearly everybody knows about a black hole, it’s that they voraciously gobble up anything and everything that drifts nearby. It’s not true, of course, since they’re powered by nothing more mysterious than gravity, so plenty material falling inwards manages to miss the black hole and gets sling-shotted back into space." which is true.
Trying to pretend that a journalistic headline is a scientific principle is a bit silly.

As I have already explained:
There are only positive particles in our Universe!!!

You didn't "explain" that , you just kept repeating it in the hope that it was true.

But you keep missing the big picture.
Even if you were right, you would still be wrong.

If there was a single black hole, it wouldn't produce a universe like ours.

It's amazing that our scientists don't see any in falling matter,

Not really.
The thing about stuff that's falling in to a black hole is that it disappears into a black hole. So it's no longer there to see.
Of course, what they do see is stuff that's in orbit around it.
And the cool thing about an orbit is that it's what you get when something "falls in", but misses.
So, all the stuff in orbit is, in fact, falling in.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The BBT more or less depends on the idea that the energy came from outside.
ONE TIME ONLY.
Whereas you are expecting it to happen all the time- but only where you want it to.
That's the sort of special pleading that you might as well call "God", and be done with it.

So you claim that The BBT depends on the idea that the energy came from outside ONE TIME ONLY.
In other words, you bypass the conservation of energy only one time.
However, to justify that bypass you call for some help from God.
Therefore, you claim that God had delivered the total requested energy for the Big Bang that took place 13.8By ago in ONLY ONE TIME and then left us alone.
If God was there 13.8 By ago and contribute the requested energy to the Big Bang, why he can't be with us today and at any time after that bang and contribute the requested Kinetic energy that is needed for any new created particles?
How could it be that you are limiting the power of God for ONLY ONE TIME activity in the Universe and prevent its support for the constant activity of the Universe?
Sorry, I really can't agree with this approach.
As God was there 13.8 By ago, he also must be with us today and at any given moment.
Therefore, you can't limit its power for Just ONE TIME activity.
I wonder what might be the response from the Vatican for this limitation in God power.

In any case, the same OUTSIDE power that could deliver the Ultra requested energy (Infinite/almost infinite) for the BBT out of nothing, can also deliver the very limited (or almost neglected) kinetic energy that is needed for the process of the new particle pair creation at any given moment.

We must agree for One law and One God at any given moment for any given theory.

 

And the cool thing about an orbit is that it's what you get when something "falls in", but misses.
So, all the stuff in orbit is, in fact, falling in.

This is your biggest Mistake!!!
There is no possibility for falling in object to increase its ORBITAL velocity while it decreases the eccentricity of the orbital path (in order to set a circular orbit).
This is a pure fantasy.
The accretion disc for example is almost a pure circular orbit. The particle/plasma orbits at almost 0.3c while any nearby star orbit at the much lower velocity.
It takes S2 almost 16 years to set only one elliptical cycle of 2 x 10 Light days.
Therefore, even if S2 will come closer to the SMBH it might increase its orbital velocity near the focal point, but its eccentricity should increase. Therefore, it could be for example 1 x 20 Light days. In any case, it would never decrease the eccentricity while increasing the orbital velocity.

Objects can increase their velocity near the focal point only if they increase the eccentricity of the orbit.
Please look at the elliptic Kepler orbit with an eccentricity of 0.7 in the following diagram:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler_orbit#/media/File:Kepler_orbits.svg
We can incease its orbital velocity near the focal point by decreasing its distance to that point.
However, in order to acheave this gool we must increase the eccentricity of the orbital object.
In other words, there is no way to increase the maximal orbital velocity without increasing the eccentricity (assuming that we are not using external rocket to boost our velocity).

Well, it actually says "If there’s one thing nearly everybody knows about a black hole, it’s that they voraciously gobble up anything and everything that drifts nearby. It’s not true, of course, since they’re powered by nothing more mysterious than gravity, so plenty material falling inwards manages to miss the black hole and gets sling-shotted back into space." which is true.

Yes, I fully agree with your explanation.

However disagree with the following:

Trying to pretend that a journalistic headline is a scientific principle is a bit silly.

We can't use one error in order to disqualify the whole articale

But you keep missing the big picture.
Even if you were right, you would still be wrong.

Well, once we agree that the same law and the same God is applicable for theory D as for theory B, than we all must agree that new energy (Only Kinetic energy) is added to the system (from OUTSIDE) by the creation of new particle pair process.
Once we cross this issue, we actually set the base for our wonderful Universe that had been evolved from a single BH.

[Bored chemist]

However, to justify that bypass you call for some help from God.

No, I didn't.
Try reading what I said.
I said that a one time event- more likely a crash of 'branes than- God is plausible.
But that your system needs energy to be added to the system, in contravention of physics, but exactly in a specific place- the outskirts of a black hole, and all the time- but in an apparently controlled way, across the entire universe.

Now that sort of special pleading needs a God.

Do you understand the difference?

[Bored chemist]

This is your biggest Mistake!!!
There is no possibility for falling in object to increase its ORBITAL velocity while it decreases the eccentricity of the orbital path (in order to set a circular orbit).
This is a pure fantasy.

The fantasy is on your part.
I never said this bit- you made it up.
" falling in object to increase its ORBITAL velocity while it decreases the eccentricity of the orbital path (in order to set a circular orbit)."
I just reminded you that things fall into black holes rather than falling out of them.

Please don't try that sort of straw man attack again; it makes you look silly.

[Bored chemist]

We can't use one error in order to disqualify the whole articale

I didn't even try to discount the article, I cited part of it.

But, let's see what you said "Therefore, our scientists claim that the SMBH is a picky eater.
Milky Way’s Black Hole a Picky Eater
https://www.urban-astronomer.com/news-and-updates/milky-ways-black-hole-a-picky-eater/

It is just a wishful hope by our scientists."
Now, did the scientists actually say it's a picky eater?
No.
So is it wishful  hope on their part?
No, it isn't.

[Bored chemist]

Well, once we agree that the same law and the same God is applicable for theory D as for theory B, ...

We are not going to agree on that - because it is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I said that a one time event- more likely a crash of 'branes than- God is plausible.

The BBT more or less depends on the idea that the energy came from outside.
ONE TIME ONLY.

Ok.
Please let me know if now I understand it correctly:
From now on you don't claim that the energy of the observable universe had been created out of nothing as that concept clearly contradicts the conservation of energy law.
Instead of that, the new approach is that the energy came from outside the Universe.
Therefore, the requested energy was actually waiting outside our universe and exactly 13.8 By ago it had been transformed into our new born Universe.
In this case, there is no requirement for energy out of nothing and therefore, it fully obey the conservation of energy law.
If that is the case, let me ask few questions:

1. What is the meaning of outside? Do you agree that before the Big bang there was no universe?
In the following article it is stated:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/space/universe/origins-of-the-universe/
"Here’s the theory: In the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence, the universe was very compact, less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom."
So, it is quite clear that before the first 10^-43 seconds of its existence there was no Universe at all.
Therefore, how any sort of energy could be transformed from outside that doesn't exist to inside that also doesn't exist?
Hence, as there is no Universe (inside or outside) and no space for both, what is the real meaning of outside? Outside of what?

2. Now let's assume that there was energy outside. That energy must be located in some sort of space and location. In other words, do you agree that it must be located in a Universe that can be called Outside Universe?
3. If so, why that Universe didn't use its energy to create there stars and galaxies? What could be the reason for him to transformed its energy to our none existence Universe?
4. How the energy had been transformed from the outside Universe to the inside Universe? Please explain the energy transformation process between both locations. Do we know if all the energy of the outside universe had been transformed or just some of the energy?
5. Do you agree that sometime in the past (if you wish - at the infinity time) there was no Universe and no energy, not inside, not outside, not above the inside and not below the outside? So, there was a time that there was virtually no energy at all. Hence, don't you agree that somehow we need to understand how the infinite or almost infinite energy that was requested to our universe had been created outside out of nothing?
6. why do you insist for ONE TIME ONLY?

Conclusion:
Somehow, the energy which is needed to our universe must be created somewhere.
The BBT doesn't offer any realistic process of creating that requested energy.
Transformation by itself isn't good enough. Therefore, the missing element of creation energy in the BBT shows that this theory is not complete and therefore not realistic, especially while you can't even claim where is the location of that outside and how/why this transformation process really work?
In theory D there is a clear explanation for the source of new energy.
That new energy is due to the kinetic energy of the new created particle.
Malamute had already confirmed that gravity has an energy

Gravity definitely has energy, which means that it modifies gravity force. This is one of the things that makes GR math so nastily non-linear and solving GR problems so hard. Luckily the interaction of gravity energy with other gravity energy is convergent, that is, the end result is finite.

That energy is added to the new created particles as new Kinetic energy. It is not part of the creation of negative/positive particles process. In other words, the kinetic energy of the new particles doesn't affect the total energy of the positive/negative pair energy . As the kinetic energy is always positive (even for the negative particles), than the outcome is that the kinetic energy of the new particle pair is actually for free.
Malamute had stated that:

Since the negative energy particle tunnels through the event horizon courtesy of quantum uncertainty, there is no falling involved. The negative energy (negative frequency) of a photon that goes through the black hole accounts for the existence of a real photon outside. In the case of photons, the speed is always lightspeed. Negative mass-energy particles with non-zero negative mass tunneling through the event horizon can account for the existence of a real positive mass-energy particle with positive mass outside. But it does not provide them with kinetic energy.

Energy as a real quantity is not dependent on position. Potential energy and kinetic energy are observer dependent and can change values or even vanish in different reference frames.

So, the only solution is that the kinetic energy is there due to the gravity energy and not to any sort of energy transformation by the positive/negative particles creation process.
As the gravity is for free, than the kinetic energy due to gravity is also for free.
Even if you don't like this explanation, at least there is an integrated explanation in theory D how new energy could be created.
The idea to bypass this key issue with energy transformation is just not good enough.
Therefore, without clear explanation for that key element, any theory (including the BBT) is just irrelevant.

[Bored chemist]

The BBT doesn't offer any realistic process of creating that requested energy.

It never claimed to.
So, you just wasted a page or so saying it doesn't.
We know that.
There's some speculation about how it happened, but that's a different issue.

In theory D there is a clear explanation for the source of new energy.

It's clear that it does not work, or at least, that if it works it does so by an ongoing breach of the known laws of physics happening all the time, in specific places and in a very carefully controlled way. Which is really lucky, isn't it?

And it still doesn't give you a universe that looks like this one.