[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:23:10
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.

Sorry, it isn't a different issue, it is the MOST IMPORTNANT issue!!!
If you know how the energy for the BBT had been created and delivered/transformed to the Big Bang, then why do you keep it under cover?
Why don't you introduce your speculations?
Without a clear understanding how the energy had been created, any theory is none relevant (even if you call it the BBT).
The energy for any activity is more important than the activity itself!!!
Life on earth wouldn't be evolved without energy source from the Sun.
No one is going to develop an airplane, ship, truck or even a Bimba without clear understanding what kind of energy must be used and how to use that energy.
You can't just bypass this key issue by mumbling something about OUTSIDE energy or some speculations.
You couldn't even answer one of the following questions:

1...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?

I really can't understand how any person which consider himself as a scientist  can support a theory without a clear understanding for the creation of  energy!
This is not a real science.
It is a speculated science!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:23:10
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?

Theory D doesn't breach any known laws of physics at any given moment!
Based on Malamute explanation, it should work.
Somehow you refuse to understand the real meaning of gravity energy.
It is quite clear that you are going to reject any idea/theory which contradicts the BBT.
You don't care about Gravity energy or the supporting message from Malamute.
However, as long as you keep the BBT speculation about the creation of energy under cover, than we all should also keep the BBT under cover.
Theory D is the Only valid theory which at least offer a clear solution for the new energy creation process.
Therefore, theory D is much superior theory over the BBT.

[Kryptid]

Theory D doesn't breach any known laws of physics at any given moment!

Theory D is the Only valid theory which at least offer a clear solution for the new energy creation process.

This isn't going to stop being a contradiction just because you keep asserting it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

This isn't going to stop being a contradiction just because you keep asserting it.

Sorry
There is a clear contradiction in the BBT.
That theory is based on the idea of space expansion.
It is stated the space of the Universe after 10^-43 seconds of its existence, was less than a million billion billionth the size of a single atom.
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."
Therefore, it is clear that before the bang there was no space and no universe.
In this case, how the energy could come from outside while there is no inside and no outside?
Therefore, based on the BBT, there is no meaning to claim that the Energy should come from outside.
If there is outside,  it is our scientists obligation to show how it had been created there and how it had been transformed from the none existence outside Universe to the None existence inside universe.
You don't need to be a scientist in order to understand that without the relevant energy for the whole observable Universe, there is no existence for the BBT.
Therefore, you have two options to overcome this key issue:
1. The energy for the BBT had been created out of nothing as our scientists have stated for almost 70 years - In this case, there is a clear contradiction with the energy conservation of law.
2. The energy for the BBT had been created outside - so please explain your speculation for outside, inside, energy creation and transformation process.

Without it, the BBT is useless.

[Bored chemist]

This is not a real science.
It is a speculated science!

OK guys, do we draw lots or something? Someone has to do it.
It's clearly going to upset him and, to be honest, I'm not much of a diplomat- .
Oh sod it. I can't be bothered trying to break it to him gently.

Dave,
ALL SCIENCE IS SPECULATIVE.

[Bored chemist]

Without it, the BBT is useless.

Without something equally "outside of the universe" to create the first  black hole, your so-called theory is equally useless.
Also unlike the BB, your idea needs an ongoing "outside the universe" source of energy, carefully controlled in both time and space.
How likely is that?

[Kryptid]

Sorry
There is a clear contradiction in the BBT.

Even if that was the case (it isn't, though), that doesn't magically make the contradiction in your own model go away, now does it?

1. The energy for the BBT had been created out of nothing as our scientists have stated for almost 70 years - In this case, there is a clear contradiction with the energy conservation of law.

That actually isn't the case. Conservation of energy is based on time symmetry. If time started at the Big Bang, then there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang. If that's so, then the Universe never had zero energy and therefore never went from a state of zero energy to a state of a large amount of energy. So conservation of energy was not broken at the Big Bang.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:42:44
1. The energy for the BBT had been created out of nothing as our scientists have stated for almost 70 years - In this case, there is a clear contradiction with the energy conservation of law.

That actually isn't the case. Conservation of energy is based on time symmetry. If time started at the Big Bang, then there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang. If that's so, then the Universe never had zero energy and therefore never went from a state of zero energy to a state of a large amount of energy. So conservation of energy was not broken at the Big Bang.

Why are you so sure that the time had started just at the Big Bang?

If time started at the Big Bang, then there is no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.

Do you consider that only the Big bang could start the time?
What about small bang?
If there was a very small bang before the big bang, why that bang couldn't start the time?
Sorry, the time had started from the first moment of creating any sort of energy in our universe.
The big bang has no control on the time.
Don't you agree that only the appearance of the first energy in the universe could start ticking time in our universe?
Therefore, if there was energy before the bang, than the time was already ticking before the bang.
The time had started from the first moment that something (in could be energy/dark energy/matter/dark matter.. had been created in the Universe. Even One particle in the entire universe should start the time of the Universe.
Therefore, there must be a starting point of time when the energy in our universe was virtually ZERO!
That time could take place 14 By ago, 10^1,000,....0 years ago or infinite time ago.
Hence, we can't just start the time at the BBT while the requested energy for that bang was already there..
This is a pure fiction.
Somehow, energy had to be created in the Universe from zero.
If we claim that there is no "before" the Big bang, than we all must agree that there is also no energy "before" the Bang.
If there was energy "before" the bang than it is our obligation to show how that energy which is needed for the Big Bang had been created and how long it took it to accumulate to such high energy.

Conservation of energy is based on time symmetry.

Conservation of energy is based on the idea of energy conservation.
In other words, we can't assume that the energy of the whole Universe would be there just because we need it for the BBT and we can achieve it by setting some manipulation in the time.
Sorry, we must show how that requested energy for the Big bang had been created out of nothing as once upon a time the energy in our universe was clearly Zero.
However, do we have any sort of estimation what is the energy that was needed for the Big bang?
Let's try to answer on the following questions:
How many equivalent Sum mass there is just in the real matter of our observable Universe?
How much equivalent sun mass there is in the dark matter and dark energy?
What was the efficiency of the energy to mass transformation process based on the BBT
How much energy our galaxy  is losing per second or year?
Did we try to estimate the total energy lost for the whole observable Universe in 13.8 BY.
Do we have any idea how much energy the Universe had lost due to the big bang and after the Bang till this moment?
So what is the total energy that was needed for the Big bang?
Is it one million of billion Sun mass or more than one Billion over Billion over... Sun mass?

That number is very important.
You can't just claim that the energy was there.
It is our obligation to find the real amount of energy that was needed for the Big bang!!!
After that, we have to ask if that total energy could come in a special delivery to the BBT and almost from nothing

Don't you agree that creating equivalent energy of only one Sun mass in the whole Universe is total different story than the request to create energy that is equivalent to Billion over Billion Over... Sun mass?

[Kryptid]

Why are you so sure that the time had started just at the Big Bang?

I'm not. Take note how I said "if" the Big Bang was the beginning of time.

If there was a very small bang before the big bang, why that bang couldn't start the time?

It could have, but what evidence is there for any such "small" bang?

Don't you agree that only the appearance of the first energy in the universe could start ticking time in our universe?

Which may very well have been at the Big Bang. We don't know of anything that came before that.

once upon a time the energy in our universe was clearly Zero.

According to what measurements?

Conservation of energy is based on the idea of energy conservation.

Wow, John Madden, you don't say! 

You can't just claim that the energy was there.

Why not? If the energy was there since the very first moment of time, then there was never a point where energy was created from nothing and thus no violation of energy conservation happened.

After that, we have to ask if that total energy could come in a special delivery to the BBT and almost from nothing

Unless there was never "nothing" to begin with.

Don't you agree that creating equivalent energy of only one Sun mass in the whole Universe is total different story than the request to create energy that is equivalent to Billion over Billion Over... Sun mass?

In principle, no. The creation of energy violates conservation of energy regardless of how much (or how little) is created.

[Bored chemist]

The big bang has no control on the time.

Says who?

[Kryptid]

There's another thing about "Theory D" that doesn't make sense. If you propose that the Universe started with a single black hole that eventually gave rise to a galaxy, and then that galaxy created more galaxies and so on, then that means that the total amount of matter (and therefore the total amount of gravity) in the Universe is constantly increasing. If that is the case, then that means that galaxies should not be moving away from each other. Instead, the continuously increasing gravity should be pulling those galaxies together more and more strongly over time. We should therefore see galaxies getting closer to each other, not further away.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42
Don't you agree that only the appearance of the first energy in the universe could start ticking time in our universe?

Which may very well have been at the Big Bang. We don't know of anything that came before that.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42
If there was a very small bang before the big bang, why that bang couldn't start the time?

It could have, but what evidence is there for any such "small" bang?

Thanks
I hope that we all agree on the following:
The time should start only from the moment of the appearance of the first energy/mass/particle... in the entire Universe.
Therefore, as long as there was no energy in the entire Universe, the time didn't start ticking.
(However, this isn't the case as I will explain it later on with the help of Lawrence Krauss)
In any case, in order for the time to start at the Big bang or at a small bang, we all should agree that there was no energy in the Universe before that bang.
However, as we all agree that the time should start from the moment of the first energy, and we can even claim when was that time, than it is clear that before that time there was no energy in our Universe.

Only if there was no energy in the entire Universe, then we can agree that the time had started at the same moment of the Big bang.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42
You can't just claim that the energy was there.

Why not? If the energy was there since the very first moment of time, then there was never a point where energy was created from nothing and thus no violation of energy conservation happened.

There might be contradiction in this message.
You claim: "If the energy was there since the very first moment of time,"
It almost sound that you mean that the energy was there before the Big bang.
However, you have already gave the answer about the "If"

.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42
Why are you so sure that the time had started just at the Big Bang?.

I'm not. Take note how I said "if" the Big Bang was the beginning of time.

Therefore, I see only two options:
1. If there was no energy before the Big Bang - than we have to explain how the energy could penetrate to our Universe at the same moment of the bang.
2. If there was already energy before the Big bang - thn the time was already ticking before the Bang. In this case we  also must explain how that energy had been created.

It is clear that: "“Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. It can only converted from one form to another.”

There is no way to bypass the WHOLE requested energy that is needed for the activity of the Big bang. Time manipulation by itself woun't help.

The creation of energy violates conservation of energy regardless of how much (or how little) is created.

Therefore, The key concept of the BBT that the energy is there for free, clearly violates conservation of energy.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:51:42
Don't you agree that creating equivalent energy of only one Sun mass in the whole Universe is total different story than the request to create energy that is equivalent to Billion over Billion Over... Sun mass?

In principle, no.

Sorry, in principle there is a possibility for the existence of energy in the empty space.
In the following video clip  Lawrence Krauss, recipient of a 2012 Public Service Award from the National Science Board, describes how quantum mechanics can explain how our universe began:
He specifically claims that even in empty space there is an energy.
He also highlights the idea that gravity has a negative energy.
Therefore, even if we start our story at an empty space and we think that there is nothing there, we end up with some energy in this empty space.
That explanation of energy in the empty space proves that the time was ticking from the first moment of the existence of the empty space. In other words - the time had started at the infinity and there was no single moment without energy or time.
Therefore, the assumption that the time had started 13.8 By ago at the Big Bang is just a fiction.

Lawrence adds that we can't explain everything in our universe out of the energy in the empty space, but it is clear that something could start in the space as even in empty space there is some energy.

As there is energy in the empty space and as the "Energy can neither be created nor be destroyed. It can only converted from one form to another", then based on Lawrence explanation there is a possibility to get some particles or even a tiny BH somewhere in the infinite empty space.

In theory D all we need is just a single tiny BH.
Lawrence Krauss confirms this possibility.

If you propose that the Universe started with a single black hole that eventually gave rise to a galaxy, and then that galaxy created more galaxies and so on, then that means that the total amount of matter (and therefore the total amount of gravity) in the Universe is constantly increasing.

Yes, that is fully correct!
Lawrence had stated that gravity has a negative energy.
I'm not sure what is the real meaning of "Negative gravity".
However, based on Theory D the added Kinetic energy to each new created positive particles pair is due to gravity energy and Malamute had also confirmed that there is energy in gravity.
So, there is good chance that we get one more confirmation by Lawrence due to the idea of "negative energy".
 

If that is the case, then that means that galaxies should not be moving away from each other. Instead, the continuously increasing gravity should be pulling those galaxies together more and more strongly over time. We should therefore see galaxies getting closer to each other, not further away.

No.
You are missing the key issue how gravity really works.
Do you agree that the gravity force of the Milky Way should be very High?
That galaxy crosses the space at almost 600 Km/s
We all know that for any star in the galaxy there is at least one outside.
So, The MY galaxy should collide with billions stars that are located in its path.
If your assumption was correct, then many stars from outside should enter the galaxy.
How many do we really see?
Do you agree that not even a single star could penetrate into the MY galaxy?
Therefore, the gravity of the Milky Way pushes away any star or other outside galaxy.
Nothing could penetrate into the galaxy.
All the matter that we see in the galaxy and orbiting the galaxy had been created BY the MY galaxy itself.
That also includes all the dwarf galaxies around us.
The Milky Way has no intention to eat any matter from outside.

Please look triangulum Galaxy – Messier 33.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gas-bridge-andromeda-triangulum-galaxy-collision_n_1589634
"Observations from the National Science Foundation’s Green Bank Telescope, a massive radio instrument in Green Bank, W.Va., indicate that hydrogen gas may be streaming between the colossal Andromeda Galaxy, or M31, and its neighboring Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."
Therefore, our scientists estimate that in the past those two galaxies may have had a close encounter or even collide with each other:
"ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Two galaxies near our own Milky Way may have had a close encounter billions of years ago that created a vast bridge of gas that links them together to this day, a new study finds.
So, if in the past they were close encounter, why Andromeda didn't eat triangulum billions years ago?
The answer is based on Theory D
triangulum Galaxy is the baby of Andromeda.
Mothers do not eat their children.
Therefore, Andromeda had no intention to eat her child that is called triangulum.
This galaxy is moving away from Andromeda and over time it might be as big as his mother galaxy – Andromeda
She should be very happy from of her baby!.
So, gravity actually pushes away the galaxies from each other.
All the wonderful Universe that we see is due to GRAVITY force/energy.
It adds new energy for the new created particles and it drifts the baby galaxies from their mothers.
That drifts is the base for the Galaxies over galaxies (or rocket over rocket) theory which I have already explained.
Therefore, at the local aria we see galaxies that are moving in all directions al low velocities (In the range of the orbital velocity around the galaxy), while at the far end we see them moving away from us at almost the speed of light.
So, there is no need for space expansions.
All the galaxies are expanding due to gravity force.
And many thanks to that wonderful gravity force. Without it, our universe wouldn't be created.

[Kryptid]

However, as we all agree that the time should start from the moment of the first energy, and we can even claim when was that time, than it is clear that before that time there was no energy in our Universe.

There is no such thing as time before time. It's an oxymoron.

It almost sound that you mean that the energy was there before the Big bang.

If the Big Bang was the beginning of time, then there would have been no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.

If there was no energy before the Big Bang

If there was already energy before the Big bang

Again, as I have already stated, there is no such thing as "before the Big Bang" if the Big Bang happened at the beginning of time.

The key concept of the BBT that the energy is there for free, clearly violates conservation of energy.

It doesn't violate time symmetry (and consequently conservation of energy) because you can't go back before the beginning of time. There is no such thing as "before the beginning of time".

there was no single moment without energy or time.

Well of course there was no single moment without time. Time is what defines a moment in the first place. That doesn't mean that time goes infinitely far into the past, though.

Lawrence had stated that gravity has a negative energy.

In earlier posts, you denied the existence of negative energy.

Therefore, the gravity of the Milky Way pushes away any star or other outside galaxy.

So, gravity actually pushes away the galaxies from each other.

All the galaxies are expanding due to gravity force.

This has got to be one of the dumbest things you have ever said on this discussion board. Gravity pushes things away? Really? You know that's not true. If it was, you wouldn't be on Earth right now. It's gravity would have pushed you into space long ago. I honestly shouldn't even have to correct something like this. Even children know better than that.

[Bored chemist]

It almost sound that you mean that the energy was there before the Big bang.

Do you understand the concept of "at the same time"?
It doesn't mean "before".

Therefore, The key concept of the BBT that the energy is there for free, clearly violates conservation of energy.

You seem to have also missed a point.
We know that energy is conserved.
It's not just that we have done experiments and checked.
It follows from Noether's theorem that, for a universe symmetrical in time, energy must be conserved.
And that criterion- a universe that is symmetrical in time - has existed since the beginning of time.

But it did not apply at the moment where time started because, at that point "backwards in time" was impossible, but "forwards in time" was possible.
That lack of symmetry means that the conservation law at the moment of creation simply does not apply.
So there is no "problem" with the BB creating energy and/ or matter.

On the other hand , what you are saying is the BH are currently generating mass.
That is a breach of the conservation laws because, essentially, yesterday looks like today.

There is a fundamental difference between the one-off event of creation where time is not symmetrical and so the conservation laws do not apply, and your variation of the discredited idea of continuous generation which breaches the conservation laws.

Do you understand that?
.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Well of course there was no single moment without time. Time is what defines a moment in the first place. That doesn't mean that time goes infinitely far into the past, though.

Yes it does.
The Universe and its space were not created 13.8 By ago by the Big Bang. The space was always there forever and ever!!!
If we could go back to the infinity in time we surly see that the Universe is there. However, we might find a Universe with empty space.
Never the less, empty space doesn't mean a Universe without energy.

Lawrence Krauss gives perfect explanation about the idea that even in the empty space there is an energy:

Therefore, as there was always some energy in the Universe space (even if it was completely empty), the time was always ticking.
Hence, the idea that the time should start ticking only 13.8 By ago, at the same moment of the bang is a pure fiction.
The time was always there as the energy was also always there. No one could stop the time from ticking. Not by theory D and not by theory B.

Again, as I have already stated, there is no such thing as "before the Big Bang" if the Big Bang happened at the beginning of time.

As I have already explained, time and energy were there in the empty space forever and ever. Therefore, the assumption that "if the Big Bang happened 13.8 By ago, at the beginning of time" is clearly wrong.
The time had started long before that 13.8 By ago.

There is no such thing as time before time. It's an oxymoron.

That wasn't my intention.
I hope that by now it is clear that the time was always there.

In earlier posts, you denied the existence of negative energy.

No, I didn't claim for negative energy.
I have stated that there is no Negative particles in our universe and those kinds of particles had never been created in our Universe.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:59:16
All the galaxies are expanding due to gravity force.

This has got to be one of the dumbest things you have ever said on this discussion board. Gravity pushes things away? Really? You know that's not true. If it was, you wouldn't be on Earth right now. It's gravity would have pushed you into space long ago. I honestly shouldn't even have to correct something like this. Even children know better than that.

You insist to ignore the observation.
Do you agree that Triangulum Galaxy had a close encounter with Andromeda in the past?
Please - Yes Or No?

Please look triangulum Galaxy – Messier 33.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/gas-bridge-andromeda-triangulum-galaxy-collision_n_1589634
"Observations from the National Science Foundation’s Green Bank Telescope, a massive radio instrument in Green Bank, W.Va., indicate that hydrogen gas may be streaming between the colossal Andromeda Galaxy, or M31, and its neighboring Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."
Therefore, our scientists estimate that in the past those two galaxies may have had a close encounter or even collide with each other:
"ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Two galaxies near our own Milky Way may have had a close encounter billions of years ago that created a vast bridge of gas that links them together to this day, a new study finds.

If in the past they were close encounter, why Triangulum didn't fall into Andromeda at that time by the gravity force?
You clearly don't believe that "Gravity pushes things away".
So, how could it be that gravity force couldn't bring Triangulum to fall into Andromeda while they were so close together in the past?
What kind of force could push them away from each other while they are so close together? if it is not gravity, what is it?
In the same token, do you agree that the Milky Way crosses Millions or Billions of stars in its way in space?
If so, why we can't see even one star that penetrate from outside into the galactic disc of the Milky Way galaxy?
As you claim that "Even children know better than that" so why due to gravity we can't see any "falling stars" into the galaxy?
Why the Mighty Milky Way gravity force couldn't pull in even one star from outside?
Do you estimate that our children might have an explanation for that?

You seem to have also missed a point.
We know that energy is conserved.
It's not just that we have done experiments and checked.
It follows from Noether's theorem that, for a universe symmetrical in time, energy must be conserved.
And that criterion- a universe that is symmetrical in time - has existed since the beginning of time.

Thanks for your explanation.
However, the key question is when was the "beginning of time".
You wish to believe that it took place 13.8 By ago at the Big bang moment.
I claim that the time was always there even if the Universe was completely empty as Lawrence Krauss had confirmed that even in the empty space there is some energy.
Therefore, your assumption to start the beginning of time at the Big bang moment is clearly incorrect!
 

There is a fundamental difference between the one-off event of creation where time is not symmetrical and so the conservation laws do not apply, and your variation of the discredited idea of continuous generation which breaches the conservation laws.

As the time was always ticking (long before that 13.8BY), your assumption about a "one-off event of creation where time is not symmetrical and so the conservation laws do not apply" is completely Wrong!
My idea of continuous generation doesn't breach the conservation laws.
The added kinetic energy is due to Gravity energy.

[Bored chemist]

You wish to believe that it took place 13.8 By ago at the Big bang moment.

That's what the evidence says.
The point is that the idea that it started 13.8 B years ago is plausible and, if it's true then that provides a way to avoid what would otherwise be an insurmountable problem- the conservation of energy.

Your idea does not provide the same explanation of how to get past that problem.
Nor does it provide any other  explanation.

I claim that the time was always there even if the Universe was completely empty as Lawrence Krauss had confirmed that even in the empty space there is some energy.

That's only a problem if there was "empty space", but there wasn't.

As the time was always ticking (long before that 13.8BY),

Simply asserting that- in spite of the fact that the evidence shows otherwise, does not make it true.

My idea of continuous generation doesn't breach the conservation laws.

Yes it does.

The added kinetic energy is due to Gravity energy.

But there's nothing there to have gravity.

[Bored chemist]

What kind of force could push them away from each other while they are so close together? if it is not gravity, what is it?

Momentum.
It's not unlike this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anode_ray

[Kryptid]

The space was always there forever and ever!!!

How do you know?

Do you agree that Triangulum Galaxy had a close encounter with Andromeda in the past?

It's possible.

You clearly don't believe that "Gravity pushes things away".

It provably doesn't. Drop an apple. Does it fall to the Earth or is it repelled into space?

What kind of force could push them away from each other while they are so close together? if it is not gravity, what is it?

Probably momentum. If they were travelling too quickly relative to each other, then gravity wouldn't be able to stop them from continuing on their journey. Gravity is a purely attractive force and therefore cannot be responsible for pushing them apart.

Why the Mighty Milky Way gravity force couldn't pull in even one star from outside?

Who said that it hasn't? How would you know that any given star that you are looking at didn't come from outside of the Milky Way?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43
I claim that the time was always there even if the Universe was completely empty as Lawrence Krauss had confirmed that even in the empty space there is some energy.

That's only a problem if there was "empty space", but there wasn't.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43
The space was always there forever and ever!!!

How do you know?

Well, if there is a Universe, than it must has space.
That is correct at any given moment before or after the bang.
In any case, if you can prove that the entire Universe is no bigger than the observable Universe, then you can theoretically justify your assumption that the space had been created by the Big bang.
However, many of our scientists claim that the entire Universe is much bigger than the maximal size of the observable Universe. Some of them discuss about Multiverse and some about Infinite Universe.
The BBT can only set a universe at the size of the observable Universe (92 BLy) while the minimal size of the entire universe is considered as 250 Bly. This proves that at least some space was there before the Bang (Let's call it the space - Pre Big bang Space).
Lawrence Krauss had stated clearly that in any empty space there is an energy.
Therefore, as the pre big bang space was clearly there before the big bang, and as based on Lawrence Krauss even if that space was completely empty, there was already some energy there.
Hence, even small amount of energy in the in the pre Big bang space/Universe must already ticking the time of the Universe.
Therefore, you can't claim any more that the time had started to tick only at the Big bang moment.

It seems to me that the assumption that the Big Bang had also created a space in the Universe is purely unrealistic.
Do you really consider that the entire Universe was just waiting for the bang to set some space in it?
What about conservation law of space?
How any sort of bang could create new space?
Sorry, If there was no space in the universe before the bang, then there will be no space after the bang.
The creation of space due to the Big bang is clearly unrealistic
How any sort of bang could create a space?

Conclusion - If the entire Universe is bigger than the observable universe - you should set the BBT at the garbage of the history as the time was already ticking before the bang..

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43
Do you agree that Triangulum Galaxy had a close encounter with Andromeda in the past?

It's possible.

Thanks
Do we have any idea how close they were in the past?
Why the Momentum can't be due to Gravity?
Triangulum Galaxy is the baby of Andromeda. Therefore for sure it was orbiting around its mother when it was in the stage of dwarf galaxy. We know that there are several dwarf galaxies around the Milky Way. Do we know if anyone of those galaxies has any intention to fall into the Milky Way?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:35:43
Why the Mighty Milky Way gravity force couldn't pull in even one star from outside?

Who said that it hasn't? How would you know that any given star that you are looking at didn't come from outside of the Milky Way?

So you claim that stars from outside are falling into the galactic disc.
Based on this assumption, all the 400,000,000 stars came from outside.
If that is the case, then we should find at any given moment at least few stars that are in their way to fall on the galactic disc.
Therefore, would you kindly show even one single star that is moving at the direction of the galactic spiral arms?
However, this star should be located at the range of 3,000 to 6,000 LY above or below the spiral arms galactic plane (and not at the edge of the spiral arms).

[Kryptid]

The assumption that the Big Bang had also created a space in the Universe is purely unrealistic.

Why?

Do you really consider that the entire Universe was just waiting for the bang to set some space in it?

If the Big Bang happened at the beginning of time, then there was no waiting. You can't wait when there is no time.

What about conservation law of space?

There is no such law.

Sorry, If there was no space in the universe before the bang

Again, there is no such thing as "before the bang" if the Big Bang happened at the beginning of time.

Therefore, as the pre big bang space was clearly there before the big bang

Stop saying "before the Big Bang". How many times do I have to tell you that time before time is an oxymoron?

Hence, even small amount of energy in the in the pre Big bang space/Universe must already ticking the time of the Universe.

The problem is that you are assuming that there was such a thing as "pre Big Bang space". If time started at the Big Bang, then there wasn't.

Therefore, you can't claim any more that the time had started to tick only at the Big bang moment.

If time started at the Big Bang, I most certainly can.

Why the Momentum can't be due to Gravity?

It could have been, but that would be because the two galaxies were falling towards each other like an apple towards the Earth. But you claim that gravity pushes galaxies apart, so you can't invoke that as an explanation.

Do we know if anyone of those galaxies has any intention to fall into the Milky Way?

They aren't living things. They can't have an "intention".

So you claim that stars from outside are falling into the galactic disc.

No. What I said is that you can't tell if any given star you are looking at came from outside or not.

Any conclusions you draw based on the assumption that gravity pushes things apart is just plain wrong and goes against common observation (have you dropped that apple yet?). As you are so fond of saying, it is "fiction".

[Bored chemist]

So you claim that stars from outside are falling into the galactic disc.
Based on this assumption, all the 400,000,000 stars came from outside.

Why would you make such a stupid comment?