[Bored chemist]

The CMB radiation perfectly fits/explained by theory D.
Please let me know if you see any contradiction

I didn't ask about theory D.
I asked about the model universe I described.

Why are you so reluctant to answer this simple question?

What is the meaning of: "it was detected soon after the star was torn to shreds"?."

Which word is giving you trouble?

Did they really see a star when it was a real star,

Yes
"Well-sampled host-subtracted light curves of AT2019qiz were obtained by the ZTF public survey, in the g and r bands, and ATLAS in the c and o bands (effective wavelengths 5330 and 6790 Å). The ZTF light curves were accessed using the Lasair alert broker"

from
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/499/1/482/5920142

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:58:13
Did they really see a star when it was a real star?

Yes
"Well-sampled host-subtracted light curves of AT2019qiz were obtained by the ZTF public survey, in the g and r bands, and ATLAS in the c and o bands (effective wavelengths 5330 and 6790 Å). The ZTF light curves were accessed using the Lasair alert broker"
from
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/499/1/482/5920142

Where do you see in this message a proof for a detected star before it was torn to shreds?

I asked about the model universe I described.
Why are you so reluctant to answer this simple question?

Which model?
Please introduce your full model and ask a clear question.

[Bored chemist]

Which model?

The only one I introduced; the one you have been refusing to discuss.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Which model?

The only one I introduced; the one you have been refusing to discuss.

If I recall it correctly, you have only one Model - The BBT model
Based on this model the Universe is finite.
However, after several unrealistic universe size selections, our scientists finely understood that at any selected size the whole BBT breaks down.
Therefore, they have decided not to decide.
In this case, no one could claim that the selected size is incorrect.
Bravo for our Scientists!!!

They also know that without dark matter and dark energy the whole BBT should be set in the garbage.
Unfortunately for them (and for you) – so far they couldn't find any evidence for those mystery imaginations
Even the idea of the inflation process is totally unrealistic.
Our scientists can't explain why it had stated at that specific moment and also why it had stopped at other specific moment.
Adding to that all the other difficulties as mass creation from energy without real source of electromagnetic shows that BBT it full with holes as a Swiss cheese.
Actually, in Swiss cheese there is at least some cheese between the holes, while in the BBT nothing could cover the infinite hole of that theory.
So, we have a "theory" with infinite hole which should cover a finite Universe without any idea about the size of this finite universe. However, we all should believe that BBT took place only 13.8 BY ago.
Sorry, this isn't science – This is pure imagination.

I keep asking myself – Why?
Why our scientists can't see that this theory is none realistic?
Why do they even lie and invent observations as in falling stars while they don't see any star?
Why they still hold this BBT story/theory while it contradicts the whole spectrum of real science?
Why they don't have any willing to consider other ideas/ theories?
Why do they keep the BBT as it was the holly crown of the science while it clearly doesn't have any connection to science?

So, what is the real story of the BBT.
As it is clearly not science – what is it?

[Bored chemist]

If I recall it correctly, you have only one Model - The BBT model

Then read what I said, rather than relying on your plainly faulty memory.

You are failing to understand the difference between the BBT which is a real theory about how the actual Universe cme to be like it is and this "toy" model that I have been asking you about for over a week (and which you have been ignoring)

Now, imagine that you are in a universe which formed about 14 billion years ago as a rapidly expanding hot gas cloud.
Until that gas cooled down enough for atoms to form, it was opaque.
When it cooled down to the point where atoms(etc) started to form it was very hot and emitted radiation that was appropriate for a black body at that temperature (very roughly 2000K).

And imagine that, since then the universe has expanded, stretching that radiation.

What; in that hypothetical universe, would you see in the night sky?

I'm hoping you are not going to take another six months to answer that.
Either you accept that it looks like what we see or you explain what it would look like and why it would be different.

Remember, this is a purely hypothetical universe, so there is no option for saying anything about its age.
I told you it's 14 billion years old.
I told you that it expanded nd so on.
And, since it's my "model" universe those facts are true.
What would you see in the night sky?

What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You are failing to understand the difference between the BBT which is a real theory

Well let me explain why the BBT is none realistic:
1.

Now, imagine that you are in a universe which formed about 14 billion years ago

OK
2.

as a rapidly expanding hot gas cloud.

This is the first imagination. Hot gas can't be formed from a bang. In order to have any sort of gas/particles, electromagnetism must be involved. The BBT has no way to set magnetic field. Therefore, if there was a bang, that bang can't create any sort of gas/particles.
3.

Until that gas cooled down enough for atoms to form

Same issue. without electromagnetic filed a gas/particle can't be transformed into atoms. So, it isn't an issue of temperature, it is based on electromagnetic transformation.
Even if there was some imaginary magnetic field, we already know that it takes time to set the transformation of creating matter. Therefore, the idea that the whole/most of the BBT energy had been transformed to gas/quarks at a time frame of 10^-6 of a sec is absolutely none realistic.

Therefore, we can end the discussion at this point, as I have proved that the BBT has no ability to generate any sort of gas/quarks/particles  or atoms from energy without long stable source of electromagnetic field.

4.

it was opaque.

Ok - You can set it at opaque mode
5.

When it cooled down to the point where atoms(etc) started to form it was very hot and emitted radiation that was appropriate for a black body at that temperature (very roughly 2000K).

The BBR isn't an issue of temp. it is an issue of a radiation in a closed environment with walls around it as Cellar/Black box/oven or cavity.
If that opaque universe is considered as a closed environment with walls around it (as cavity) than the radiation at that moment should carry a BBR. Let's call this moment of time T1.
6.

And imagine that, since then the universe has expanded, stretching that radiation.

Well, the question is - what is about the opaque/universe environment? At the same moment that you eliminate the walls around the early universe - you lose the BBR for ever.
The idea that we get today a radiation that had been generated at a very specific time (T1) in the Universe life is absolutely none realistic. How could it be that we get the radiation from T1 (when the radiation carry BBR) and not before or after that time when the Universe has no BBR?
So, the idea that we get today a "ring of bell" from a very specific time of the Universe (T1) is just unrealistic.
7. Temp due to the expansion - assuming that there is nothing outside the expanding universe, not even space, than there is no way to cool the Universe. The expansion process by itself can't decrease the temp due to the thermodynamics law. As you already stated that there is no space outside the current Universe, therefore, that heat can't escape outside the Universe.
Hence, the temp of the expanding Universe must be fixed even as the universe is expanding.
The only difference between small size to bigger size expanding universe is its density.
8.

What; in that hypothetical universe, would you see in the night sky?

Actually, if there was no space outside the current Universe, than all the radiation that tries to go outwards must come back (as there is some invisible walls/mirrors. Therefore, we should get all the radiation of the Universe. Hence, the Night sky should be full with light, almost identical to day sky.
Therefore, a finite Universe that has no space around it MUST set the night sky paradox, while I have proved that a real infinite Universe has no problem with that.

9.

I'm hoping you are not going to take another six months to answer that.

I hope that finely you do understand the fatal errors in your unrealistic model.

[Bored chemist]

Well let me explain why the BBT is none realistic:

No.
This is you explaining that you do not  understand physics.

Hot gas can't be formed from a bang.

That's the stupidest thing anyone has said since teh Chinese discovered gunpowder centuries ago.
However, in this context the hot gas is formed from an even hotter plasma.
It's expanding and cooling.

electromagnetism must be involved

Fortunately electromagnetism is present in my toy universe.
So that's no problem.
If EM were not allowed then there obviously wouldn't be any sort of radiation and I wouldn't have asked about it.

based on electromagnetic transformation.

This seems to be bollocks you have made up.

Even if there was some imaginary magnetic field,

Every proton and every electron carries a magnetic field, so there's no problem there.

we already know that it takes time to set the transformation of creating matter.

That's more stuff you made up.

Therefore, the idea that the whole/most of the BBT energy had been transformed to gas/quarks at a time frame of 10^-6 of a sec is absolutely none realistic.

For a start, please learn the difference between non and none.

Non is a negation prefix none is a contraction of not one.

Interactions are known to take place much faster than microseconds.
There's a rule that the rate at which excited sates relax is proportional to the third power of the excitation energy.
Since ordinary light induced transitions can happen on nanosecond timescales, the very high energy stares  in the early universe will do things much faster.

Therefore, we can end the discussion at this point, as I have proved that the BBT has no ability to generate any sort of gas/quarks/particles  or atoms from energy without long stable source of electromagnetic field.

No; You have proved nothing but your own ignorance.

Ok - You can set it at opaque mode

I don't have a choice, hot plasmas are opaque.

The BBR isn't an issue of temp.

Yes it is, that's why a tungsten lamp emits BBR.

it is an issue of a radiation in a closed environment with walls around it as Cellar/Black box/oven or cavity.

No it isn't.
That's why a tungsten lamp emits BBR.

If that opaque universe is considered as a closed environment with walls around it

I invented this toy universe and it has no walls.

Well, the question is - what is about the opaque/universe environment?

It became (much more) transparent.

At the same moment that you eliminate the walls around the early universe -

It never had walls.

ou lose the BBR for ever.

No, even if we were using your silly idea of walls that go away, the light that happened to be moving into the universe rather than out would have a whole universe to traverse before it "escaped".
Given the size of the Universe, that would take a while.
During the journey it will be stretched out by the expansion of the universe, so it's going to take a very long while, and arrive with a much longer wavelength.

How could it be that we get the radiation from T1 (when the radiation carry BBR) and not before or after that time when the Universe has no BBR?

There was radiation before but, because teh universe was opaque, it couldn't reach us.

There has been radiation since, and it does reach us- for example, sunlight.

But the light that was set free when most of opaque plasma of  the electrons and protons combined to form transparent atoms of hydrogen is what we see today as the CMBR.



 

So, the idea that we get today a "ring of bell" from a very specific time of the Universe (T1) is just unrealistic.

It's perfectly realistic, but it's clear that you don't understand it.

Temp due to the expansion - assuming that there is nothing outside the expanding universe, not even space, than there is no way to cool the Universe

Yes there is.
Work is done against gravity.
It's the same process which explains why mountain tops are cold.

Again, the issue here is that you do not understand basic physics.

Actually, if there was no space outside the current Universe, than all the radiation that tries to go outwards must come back

No
Because the light going out is traveling at the same speed as the expansion of space going out.

There's obviously nothing for it to bounce off so there's obviously no way it would come back to us.

Therefore, a finite Universe that has no space around it MUST set the night sky paradox,

Your paradox is imaginary.
It's just a consequence of you not understanding stuff.

while I have proved that a real infinite Universe has no problem with that.

All you have proved is that you don't have a clue.

I hope that finely you do understand the fatal errors in your unrealistic model.

You have yet to demonstrate any errors, fatal or otherwise.

Now, please answer the question.

What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Wow
Thanks for your explanation.
We will discuss all of it.
However, let me start by the very first moment of time immediately after the Bang.

Since ordinary light induced transitions can happen on nanosecond timescales, the very high energy stares  in the early universe will do things much faster.

So, based on the BBT, the early universe starts with Ultra high energy.
Hence, do you confirm that immediately after the Big bang (let's say 10^-100 sec after the bang) there was no matter, only Ultra high energy?
If the answer is yes, then how any sort of EM could be created at that very first moment of time without matter?
As you agree that without EM, matter wouldn't be created, then it is your obligation to show how the EM had been created by that early Ultra high energy.
Let's move on to the baryogenesis -- baryonic matter At around t = 1 x 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm
At around t = 1 x 10-35 seconds, matter and energy decoupled. Cosmologists call this baryogenesis -- baryonic matter is the kind of matter we can observe. In contrast, we can't observe dark matter, but we know it exists by the way it affects energy and other matter. During baryogenesis, the universe filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter. There was more matter than anti-matter, so while most particles and anti-particles annihilated each other, some particles survived.

Hence, at that time frame the Ultra high energy had been transformed to matter and anti-matter.
However, the EM is still missing. The BBT doesn't answer this question.
Actually there is a jump from Ultra high energy to matter/anti matter without any explanation how that activity could take place without EM.

So, let's stop at this moment of time and please set your explanation how the matter and antimatter could be transformed from the ultra high energy of the Big Bang without EM.

[Bored chemist]

As you agree that without EM, matter wouldn't be created,

I never said I agreed with that, I said it was irrelevant.
And, thanks to QM variations in the field, it still is.

None of this could possibly be relevant anyway, even if you were right.

We are not (at the moment) discussing the real universe , we are discussing my toy one.

So, yet again...

Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Bored chemist]

Let's move on to the baryogenesis -- baryonic matter At around t = 1 x 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm
At around t = 1 x 10-35 seconds, matter and energy decoupled. Cosmologists call this baryogenesis -- baryonic matter is the kind of matter we can observe. In contrast, we can't observe dark matter, but we know it exists by the way it affects energy and other matter. During baryogenesis, the universe filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter. There was more matter than anti-matter, so while most particles and anti-particles annihilated each other, some particles survived.

Hence, at that time frame the Ultra high energy had been transformed to matter and anti-matter.
However, the EM is still missing. The BBT doesn't answer this question.
Actually there is a jump from Ultra high energy to matter/anti matter without any explanation how that activity could take place without EM.

So, let's stop at this moment of time and please set your explanation how the matter and antimatter could be transformed from the ultra high energy of the Big Bang without EM.

If you actually knew about science you wouldn't waste time writing all that .
As it stands, I can write it off in two letters, and make you look a fool.

QM

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Let's move on to the baryogenesis -- baryonic matter At around t = 1 x 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm
At around t = 1 x 10-35 seconds, matter and energy decoupled. Cosmologists call this baryogenesis -- baryonic matter is the kind of matter we can observe. In contrast, we can't observe dark matter, but we know it exists by the way it affects energy and other matter. During baryogenesis, the universe filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter. There was more matter than anti-matter, so while most particles and anti-particles annihilated each other, some particles survived.

Hence, at that time frame the Ultra high energy had been transformed to matter and anti-matter.
However, the EM is still missing. The BBT doesn't answer this question.
Actually there is a jump from Ultra high energy to matter/anti matter without any explanation how that activity could take place without EM.

So, let's stop at this moment of time and please set your explanation how the matter and antimatter could be transformed from the ultra high energy of the Big Bang without EM.

If you actually knew about science you wouldn't waste time writing all that .
As it stands, I can write it off in two letters, and make you look a fool.

QM

Sorry those two letters shows that if there is a fool between us it is surly not me.
The QM is not about matter creation or especially about pair production process.
It is very clear that you don't even try to read the article which I have offered.
https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm
Please read it again:
In that article it is stated very clearly that any particle creation must start with particle pair as particle and antiparticle which also called matter and antimatter:
"During baryogenesis, the universe filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter."
So, any sort of particle creation must start with matter and antimatter or particle with antiparticle which is also called "particle pair production" process.
We must understand how that pair particle process really works.
https://www.britannica.com/science/pair-production
"one negative and the other positive (positron), from a pulse of electromagnetic energy traveling through matter, usually in the vicinity of an atomic nucleus."
So, we claerly see the impact of electromagnetic energy.
It is also stated:
"Pair production is a direct conversion of radiant energy to matter."
That statement is the highlight of any sort of matter creation or pair production (even if it took place at the baryogenesis era just after the Big bang)
So what is the real meaning of radiant energy?
https://www.britannica.com/science/radiant-energy
"Radiant energy, energy that is transferred by electromagnetic radiation, such as light, X-rays, gamma rays, and thermal radiation, which may be described in terms of either discrete packets of energy, called photons, or continuous electromagnetic waves. The conservation of energy law requires that the radiant energy absorbed or emitted by a system be included in the total energy."
Therefore, let's go back to the baryogenesis process moment and try to understand how the the universe could be filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter from the energy which had been given by the Big Bang.
So, let's assume that Bang had delivered all the requested energy to our Universe.
However, in order to convert that energy into matter/antimatter we clearly see that electromagnetic is involved.
Hence, Energy by itself would never ever be transformed into particle pair without the involvement of electromagnetic.
Therefore, without EM not even a single particle pair would be created by the Big bang process.
Hence, as our scientists do not claim for the existence of EM in the first moment after the Bang, then no matter/antimatter won't be created.
So, as the baryogenesis process can't start without EM, and as the QM can't help for that process, then we can set the BBT in the garbage at this point.

However, Just in case that you insist that this process is valid because you know that it must work, then lets continue:
Let's assume that somehow you can help the BBT in order to "conversion of radiant energy to matter" with or without the EM.
So, let's accept the idea that at 1*10^-35 of a sec after the bang, the early very compact universe is full with matter and antimatter.
However, it is stated:
"There was more matter than anti-matter, so while most particles and anti-particles annihilated each other, some particles survived."
Therefore, they are fully aware that any new created particle must be annihilated by a nearby antiparticle in that early compact Universe while there is no space outside.
However, as they also clearly know that any sort of particle creation must start by pair, than they also should know that the total number of particle should be absolutely identical to the number of antiparticle.
Therefore, based on what data they assume that "There was more matter than anti-matter"
This assumption proves that they don't understand the real meaning of "pair".
Based on Google translate: "Pair" - a set of two things used together or regarded as a unit."
Therefore
1+1 = 1+1 = 2
I hope that we all agree that there is no way to assume that:
1+1=3
Therefore, the total no. of all the particles at the end of the baryogenesis era must be 100% identical to the total no of the antiparticles.
Therefore, after the annihilated process not even one particle would be survived.

Therefore, if you wish we can extend the BBT fiction to this point and just now set it in the garbage.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry those two letters shows that if there is a fool between us it is surly not me.

If you plan to call someone a fool, make sure you spell "surely" correctly.

r especially about pair production process.

Yes it is.
It's just that you don't know enough physics to realise that.

Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

Therefore, the total no. of all the particles at the end of the baryogenesis era must be 100% identical to the total no of the antiparticles.

Just a quick reminder; that applies to your idea for the universe too.
If the BB can't make baryons, not can a black hole- for exactly the same reason.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:41:15
r especially about pair production process..

Yes it is.

Thanks
So, you confirm that during baryogenesis, the universe filled with matter and anti-matter due to the pair production process.
I do appriciate your honest answer.

However, you should understand that the real meaning of "pair" - is one particle/matter plus one antiparticle/antimatter:

Based on Google translate: "Pair" - a set of two things used together or regarded as a unit."
Therefore
1+1 = 1+1 = 2
I hope that we all agree that there is no way to assume that:
1+1=3
Therefore, the total no. of all the particles at the end of the baryogenesis era must be 100% identical to the total no of the antiparticles.
Therefore, after the annihilated process not even one particle would be survived.

Hence, there is not even a chance of one to 10^100....0 that there will be one particle/matter more than antiparticle/antimatter.
Therefore, the following wish of our scientists is clearly incorrect:
"During baryogenesis, the universe filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter."
In reality -
During baryogenesis, the universe filled with exactly nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter.
Therefore, as I have already stated:

after the annihilated process not even one particle would be survived.

However, it seems that you know how the BBT physics really works:

It's just that you don't know enough physics to realise that.

So, would you kindly advice how could it be that there will be more matter than antimatter?

If you can't explain it, then this theory should be set in the garbage.
However, if you still supporting that non realistic BBT, then it shows that you really don't care about real physics or science. You only care about the BBT (with or without science).
So, would you kindly let us know once and for all why do you keep supporting that non realistic theory?
Please - direct answer.

[Bored chemist]

However, you should understand that the real meaning of "pair" - is one particle/matter plus one antiparticle/antimatter:

I have understood that for the last 4 decades or so...

And the point is that it applies to your idea of where particles come from.
So, it's just as much of a nail in the coffin of "Theory (actually guess) D" as it is of BB.

Now that you have successfully killed your own idea, you might as well answer this

Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08


Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You have already confirmed that all the particles/antiparticles had been created by the pair production during the baryogenesis era.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:41:15
r especially about pair production process.

Yes it is.

Now you confirm that for each particle that had been created by that pair production, an antiparticle must also be created.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:17:38
However, you should understand that the real meaning of "pair" - is one particle/matter plus one antiparticle/antimatter:

I have understood that for the last 4 decades or so...

Hence, do you confirm that the total no of particles which had been created at the baryogenesis era are absolutely identical to the same no. of the antiparticles?
Therefore, why our scientists claim that: "During baryogenesis, the universe filled with a nearly equal amount of matter and anti-matter."
Why isn't it clear to them and to you that:  During baryogenesis, the universe filled with exactly equal amount of matter and anti-matter?

If you still assume/believe/wish that there should be more particles than antiparticles, then please introduce the article which can explain/confirm the physical base to that wrong assumption.

If you can't offer any article that supports that this wrong wish, then as particles and anti-particles annihilated each other, not even a single particle could survive.
Hence, we have to agree that the BBT should be set in the garbage 10^-35 sec after it started!!!

[Bored chemist]

If you still assume/believe/wish that there should be more particles than antiparticles, then please introduce the article which can explain/confirm the physical base to that wrong assumption.

Do you understand that we are actually here?
We are matter.
So, while we don't know how it happened, at some point in the past, some process must  have produced more matter than antimatter?

You presumably recognise that, don't you?

Now, since it's not credible that you will actually explain that symmetry violation, you might as well ignore it for the time being and answer this.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:57:38
Now, please stop wittering about the big bang and answer the question I asked.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:53:08


Quote from: Bored chemist on 13/10/2020 17:44:07
Now, please answer the question.
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 08:24:44
What would the CMBR look like in that toy universe?
Would it look like the CMBR in our real universe?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you understand that we are actually here?
We are matter.

Agree, we are surly here.
Howevr, the unrealistic BBT theory isn't here.

So, while we don't know how it happened

As you clearly don't know how it happend why do you claim that you know how it/BBT happened?

at some point in the past, some process must  have produced more matter than antimatter?

Sorry, this isn't a feasable process.
You have totally failed to show any articale which could support that unrealistic assumption..
Therefore, we all must agree that without this imagination wish/assumption, the BBT should be set in the garbage.
Once we agree on that, you have to tell us why do you insist to support that unrealistic BBT theory?

[Bored chemist]

Howevr, the unrealistic BBT theory isn't here.

Your idea is also not here.
It violates the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle.

Do you understand that?

it/BBT

THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING.
Do you understand that?

Sorry, this isn't a feasable process.

You have just said that the whole universe of matter is not feasible.
Did you mean that?
Do you not understand that, if it didn't happen, we would not be here?

Once we agree on that, you have to tell us why do you insist to support that unrealistic BBT theory?

EXACTLY THE SAME MUST  BE SAID OF THE IDEA THAT YOU KEEP MISLEADINGLY INSISTING ON CALLING "THEORY D".
DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:57:33
However, the unrealistic BBT theory isn't here.

Your idea is also not here.
It violates the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle.

Well, by now we all agree that the BBT violates the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle.
Therefore, not even a single particle could be survived after the annihilated process at the end of the baryogenesis era.

Now, after setting the BBT in the garbage of the science history, we can go on to theory D and verify if it really works while the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle is 100% correct.
If it can't work, then this theory also should be set in the garbage.

EXACTLY THE SAME MUST  BE SAID OF THE IDEA THAT YOU KEEP MISLEADINGLY INSISTING ON CALLING "THEORY D".

Same rules must be applied to any theory.
It doesn't matter if we call it BBT, theory D or Abra-Cadabra.
Any theory which violates the rule that you can't make a particle without making an antiparticle must be eliminated.

[Bored chemist]

We are here
We are made of matter particles.
So it's plainly true that something made more matter than antimatter.

Do you understand that?