[Bored chemist]

It proves that the BBT is useless

No... it proves that you don't understand it.

[Bored chemist]

You have just confirmed that there is a problem with the BBT.

No, I didn't.

[Bored chemist]

I'm ready to set my theory in that bin if there is integrated contradiction in the theory.

Why has it taken so long for you to realise this?
Your idea was nonsense at the start, and plenty of people pointed this out.
Your idea ignores the fact that mass/ energy is conserved so continuous generation is impossible.

[Bored chemist]

So how can you claim that there is none for the BBT?

We have no evidence that the universe is infinite,
In a finite universe the BBT works fine.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It proves that the BBT is useless

No... it proves that you don't understand it.

As you understand the BBT, why is it so difficult for you to answer the following:

If you still wish to hold the BBT then please let us know what is the estimated size of the Universe (based on the BBT) at the following time frames:
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-40 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.

Please do not tell me "We don't Know".
.

If you really don't know the answer for the above questions - then please set this BBT theory in the garbage - the sooner is better.

[Bored chemist]

As you understand the BBT, why is it so difficult for you to answer the following:

Because I understand it, I know that a question like

1. Before the Big Bang.

makes no sense.

And because I understand science I understand that a comment like

Please do not tell me "We don't Know".

is really stupid.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As you understand the BBT, why is it so difficult for you to answer the following:

Because I understand it, I know that a question like

1. Before the Big Bang.

makes no sense.

And because I understand science I understand that a comment like

Please do not tell me "We don't Know".

is really stupid.

As you clearly can't answer what is the size of the Universe:
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-40 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.
You prove that you have no clue how the BBT really works.
As long as you have no clue how the BBT really works and you avoid answering those questions - the BBT would stay at the garbage.

It is similar to a designer that tries to design an airplane without any clue about its total size, its wings or its tail size
That airplane would never fly..
Sorry - the size is the MOST important issue in any theory.
In the same token, as you can't tell us about the size of the universe based on your theory, then your theory is useless.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry - the size is the MOST important issue in any theory.

The most important thing about a theory is that you can check it.
There is no way to check the size of the universe.
So the size of the universe can not possible be an important aspect of any theory.

Like I said. you are asking silly questions.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Sorry - the size is the MOST important issue in any theory.

The most important thing about a theory is that you can check it.
There is no way to check the size of the universe.
So the size of the universe can not possible be an important aspect of any theory.

Like I said. you are asking silly questions.

Wow - What a nonsense.
Our BBT scientists can tell us long story about the first second of the Big bang without seeing that first second.
They even divide it to 10^43 frames just to show how cleaver they are.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chronology_of_the_universe#Very_early_universe
They have set a special Planck epoch   <10−43 s    for that first second:
"The Planck scale is the physical scale beyond which current physical theories may not apply, and cannot be used to calculate what happened. During the Planck epoch, cosmology and physics are assumed to have been dominated by the quantum effects of gravity."
Then comes the Grand_unification_epoch:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_unification_epoch
In physical cosmology, assuming that nature is described by a Grand Unified Theory, the grand unification epoch was the period in the evolution of the early universe following the Planck epoch, starting at about 10−43 seconds after the Big Bang, in which the temperature of the universe was comparable to the characteristic temperatures of grand unified theories. If the grand unification energy is taken to be 1015 GeV, this corresponds to temperatures higher than 10^27 K. During this period, three of the four fundamental interactions—electromagnetism, the strong interaction, and the weak interaction—were unified as the electronuclear force. Gravity had separated from the electronuclear force at the end of the Planck era. During the grand unification epoch, physical characteristics such as mass, charge, flavour and colour charge were meaningless.
The grand unification epoch ended at approximately 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang.."

Did you really see this fist 10^-36 sec???
How could those BBT scientists claim for a Temp of 10^27 K during the grand unification epoch which ended at approximately 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang without knowing the size of the Universe in that epoch?

How could they tell us so clearly about the Inflation epoch?
"Inflationary epoch and the rapid expansion of space
Before c. 10^−32 seconds after the Big Bang
Main articles: Inflationary epoch and Expansion of space
At this point of the very early universe, the metric that defines distance within space suddenly and very rapidly
changed in scale, leaving the early universe at least 10^78 times its previous volume (and possibly much more).

How do they know that the early universe had been increased at least 10^78 times its previous volume (and possibly much more) in just 10^-32 sec without knowing the size of the Universe before or after?

Sorry -
Our BBT scientists are very cleaver when it comes to the Silly people that can't challenge their unrealistic theory, but they are totally silly when it comes to real questions.

You couldn't even answer one question about the size of the Universe.
Not in the past, not today and not in the Future.
So, all you say is actually - "We don't know as we can't see"

Sorry - if you can't see and you don't know the answer for those four simple questions - then your theory is useless.
You avoid those questions just in order to avoid the Internal contradiction i the BBT.

I'm ready to accept any imagination that you may have in the BBT:
1. You can claim that there was no space, no matter and no energy before the Big Bang (while you don't know what was there before).
2. You can say that you due to "Northern Theory"  you can get the whole energy for our entire universe in less than 10^43 of a Sec while you know that this theory can't work without space.
3. You can claim that the space itself can be created out of nothing and it even could expand its volume in only 10^-32 of a second by 10^78 Times while you bypass the relativity law and the clear message from Einstein that this idea is absolutely incorrect.
4. You can claim that in 10^-6 sec all of that energy had been transformed to real matter due to electromagnetic in the QM while there was no matter to start that QM & EM.

We can continue more and more with the BBT imagination.
I'm ready to accept any imagination that you might have on the BBT.

However once you set the roles for this imagination theory - you can't tell us that They don't know what was the size at each epoch.
If Those BBT scientists really don't know, then it's better for them to look for better Job.

You don't offer answers as you try to avoid the internal contradiction in this useless theory that is called BBT.

So, as long as you can't offer real answer for the size of the Universe:
1. Before the Big Bang.
2. At 10^-43 sec after the bang.
3. At 380,000 Year after the bang.
4. At the current time.
The BBT theory would be set at the garbage.

[Bored chemist]

So, all you say is actually - "We don't know as we can't see"

That isn't what I said.
And you don't seem to have a clue how science works.

. You can say that you due to "Northern Theory"  you can get the whole energy for our entire universe in less than 10^43 of a Sec while you know that this theory can't work without space.

No
We know that Noether's theory (and you should check your spelling) says that you can't create energy or mass i.
And we know that the theory only applies in space (simplistically).
But since we are talking about the creation of space, there isn't any space yet.
So the theory does not apply yet.
So there's nothing to stop the creation of energy.

Do you understand that yet?

Also, you keep asking what happened before time started.
Do you understand how stupid that question is?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

since we are talking about the creation of space, there isn't any space yet.
So the theory does not apply yet.
So there's nothing to stop the creation of energy.

Based on your understanding there was no space in our universe before the bang.
Without a space there was also no Universe. So, there was no space and no Universe before the bang.

Hence, why do you claim that it is a silly question to ask about the conditions before the bang?
 

Also, you keep asking what happened before time started.
Do you understand how stupid that question is?

Why can't you just say that there was no space and no Universe before the bang?
However, without space it is even more difficult task for the BBT to deliver any energy.
We all know that there is no way to have energy or matter at no-space or absolutely zero space.
So, the BBT should generate Space and energy at the same moment.

How any kind of activity could generate the space in the Universe?
Can you use any sort of formula without space?
Does QM works without space?
How any scientist can accept the idea of no space in the early time before the bang?
However, even if we agree on that:

So the theory does not apply yet.
So there's nothing to stop the creation of energy.

Sorry - Energy wouldn't be created without space.
You can't bypass the law of physics just by claiming that there was no space.
If there was no space 13.8 B years ago, then there was no space 100 By ago and even today there couldn't be any space.
However as we live today in the space of our universe - then there was surly a space before that bang.

Let's accept thes idea of no space in the BBT.
Let's assume that somehow the MIGHTY BBT had the power to create a space and energy as requested.
So, let's go back to the Planck epoch time
Why our scientists call it the Planck epoch?
Could it be that as they assume that before the Big bang there was no space then somehow the Universe must start with small size as plank size after the bang?
So, we have an answer for the size of the Universe just after the bang.
Hence, at the first moment after the Bang, the space of the early universe was in the size of a Planck while the entire energy of the whole Universe was concentrated at that size while there was no matter.
However, in order to transform energy to matter we must have EM.
Without matter after the bang – there is no EM. Hence, as there was no matter after the bang, there also no EM and therefore – There is no way to convert the BBT energy to real matter.
So, at that point we do understand that the BBT can't transform any energy into matter. Therefore it’s the time to set the BBT at the garbage.

In any case, even if somehow all the energy had been transformed into ordinary matter – somehow that matter which represents the entire mass of the Universe was concentrated at a fairly small space. 
At this case, the Bang should end as a Mighty SMBH
That is one more key understanding why the BBT is useless.

[Bored chemist]

Hence, why do you claim that it is a silly question to ask about the conditions before the bang?

What is north of the North pole?

If time started with the big bang then you are talking about "at a time before there was time".
Do you see how that makes no sense?

Why can't you just say that there was no space and no Universe before the bang?

I can say that.
I probably did say it.
I certainly said that the BB was the start of the universe and that tells you that there was no universe before the BB.

So, the BBT should generate Space and energy at the same moment.

Yes.

How any kind of activity could generate the space in the Universe?

I already answered that.
The current best view is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
Please pay attention.
The fact that I have to repeat stuff makes you look like a schoolkid who isn't paying attention.

How any scientist can accept the idea of no space in the early time before the bang?

They don't
" time before the bang"
is a contradiction in terms.

You can't bypass the law of physics just by claiming that there was no space.

I'm not the one seeking to bypass the laws of physics.
Your silly idea about continuous generation is the one doing that.

BBT to deliver any energy.

The BBT doesn't deliver the energy
It is the result of the energy being delivered.

How any kind of activity could generate the space in the Universe?

I can keep posting this.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
It won't help until you understand it, so there's no point in you asking the same question again.

Sorry - Energy wouldn't be created without space.

Nobody said they were.
They were created at the same time.

You can't bypass the law of physics just by claiming that there was no space.

You were the one who said that it was anything to do with space.
I pointed out that it was really to do with time.
Symmetry in time is the reason why energy is conserved.
But at the start of time it is not symmetrical, so energy need not be conserved.

However as we live today in the space of our universe - then there was surly a space before that bang

No
The bang was the creation of both the space and the time.
It was the creation of spacetime.

Why our scientists call it the Planck epoch?

Because it's when the universe was smaller than the Planck length.

Could it be that as they assume that before the Big bang there was no space then somehow the Universe must start with small size as plank size after the bang?

No. They assume it started smaller, and grew that big in about 10^-43 sec or something.

So, we have an answer for the size of the Universe just after the bang.

It was presumably smaller than that when it started.
So what?

However, in order to transform energy to matter we must have EM.

You keep saying that.
I keep on pointing out that you are wrong.
Why won't you learn?

So, at that point we do understand that the BBT can't transform any energy into matter. Therefore it’s the time to set the BBT at the garbage.

That claim is based on you saying this "in order to transform energy to matter we must have EM.". But that's just plain wrong.

Why do you believe it?
Did you misunderstand a book somewhere or what?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

1. Hyperspace

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:41:18
How any kind of activity could generate the space in the Universe?

I already answered that.
The current best view is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology
Please pay attention.
The fact that I have to repeat stuff makes you look like a schoolkid who isn't paying attention.

It is stated:
The central idea is that the visible, three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space, called the "bulk" (also known as "hyperspace").
Brane cosmology refers to several theories in particle physics and cosmology related to string theory, superstring theory and M-theory.

Sorry, the idea that our three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space is not realistic.
If you wish to belive in that it is your choice.

2. Electromagnetic transformation

That claim is based on you saying this "in order to transform energy to matter we must have EM.". But that's just plain wrong.

Well, I hope that you agree that just after the bang - the laws of physics must work.

The four forces of nature are considered to be the gravitational force, the electromagnetic force, which has residual effects, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force.
However, Gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force can work only when there is already matter.
So, they can't convert energy into matter.
Therefore, the only force that can convert energy into matter is EM as each particle is actually a cell of energy. So the EM is the only force in the nature that can transform energy into particle.
If you don't understand that - you don't understand physics!

Therefore, each particle in our Universe got its energy by EM transformation.
Hence, without EM, the Big Bang won't create even one tiny particle.

3. SMBH after the Bnag
As you confirm:

Because it's when the universe was smaller than the Planck length.

So why after the bang while the early universe was very small and full with matter, it didn't collapse into a SMBH?

[Bored chemist]

So why after the bang while the early universe was very small and full with matter, it didn't collapse into a SMBH?

One property- some would say a definition- definition of the Planck length is that it's the scale below which we don't expect the laws of physics to work properly.
(This is not an excuse for breaking them at whim).
However, since you believe this
" Gravitational force, the weak nuclear force, and the strong nuclear force can work only when there is already matter."
And you think there isn't any matter, you believe there is no gravity.
So there can't be the ultimate SMBH you talk about.

EM is the only force in the nature that can transform energy into particle.

No.
The strong nuclear force is also noted for doing it.
It's one of the interesting things about quarks.
So

If you don't understand that - you don't understand physics!

Sorry, the idea that our three-dimensional universe is restricted to a brane inside a higher-dimensional space is not realistic.

You have spent long enough clinging to an idea of spontaneous generation- even though it is known to be impossible- that we all know that you can not judge what is realistic.
You can't? can you?
You think this is realistic
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=79004.msg596466#msg596466
but it's plainly wrong.
You do not know how to tell if something is realistic.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:40:34
EM is the only force in the nature that can transform energy into particle.

No.
The strong nuclear force is also noted for doing it.
It's one of the interesting things about quarks.
So

The strong nuclear force can work ONLY once you have the quarks.
However, how those quarks could be created by pure energy while there are no matter no particles and no EM?
Sorry - You don't have a basic clue why the EM is so important for quark creation!
Therefore, as long as you claim that the BBT can only deliver space and energy - there is no way for any sort of quark or particle to be created!
This is real science!

Hence, you have two options:
1. Change the BBT to deliver the EM/Quarks with the first creation of energy and space
Or
2. Set the BBT idea in the garbage.

[Bored chemist]

The strong nuclear force can work ONLY once you have the quarks.

You keep saying that.
You say it as if it is somehow obviously true.
But you have not said why you think it is true (and you are actually wrong)

There's another point.
The early universe was full of energy.
If that wasn't in the form of the 4 fundamental forces, you have to explain what form it was in.
What options are there?

Sorry - You don't have a basic clue why the EM is so important for quark creation!

It's not that I don't have a clue why it is needed.
It's that I know it is not needed.
I don't have to explain a figment of your imagination.

[Bored chemist]

1. Change the BBT to deliver the EM/Quarks with the first creation of energy and space
Or

That's not a change to the theory.
What would be a change would be your (impossible- as usual) idea that there was energy in the eagerly universe but that it wasn't in the form of EM, gravity, strong + weak forces (or combinations thereof)

You are saying we should bin the theory because you don't understand it.
Wouldn't it be better to bin your opinion?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The early universe was full of energy.

So, you confirm that at the first moment the Universe was full with energy. However, you only mention energy. So, there was no particle or quark at the first moment.

If that wasn't in the form of the 4 fundamental forces, you have to explain what form it was in.

Energy by itself can't be in the form of the form of 4 fundamental forces.
As I have already explained -
Gravity could only work with matter. So you need matter as atom, particle or quarks in order for it to work.
Same issue with weak nuclear force and strong nuclear force. Those forces won't work without Atom particle or quark.

Hence, the ONLY left over force that could set a work in that early universe is EM.
However, as the early Universe can't generate any EM without matter, then there is no way for it to transform its energy into any sort of particle or quark.

Dear Halc, Kryptid & evan_au

I would like to get your feedback about this issue.
Do you think that any quark or particle could be created by energy while there is no EM or any matter at all?
If yes, would you kindly explain how it works and offer Examples?

[Bored chemist]

Energy by itself can't be in the form of the form of 4 fundamental forces.

A photon is energy in the form of electromagnetism

Learn physics.

[Bored chemist]

I would like to get your feedback about this issue.

I gave you feedback.
You ignored it and prattled on about stupid things like "Energy by itself can't be in the form of the form of 4 fundamental forces."