[Bored chemist]

At best, you might have found a minor error where I overlooked the lack of strictly massless particles with velocities other than C.
|It didn't affect the point I was making, because, as I said, I was talking about slow particles.
We both agree that they have rest mass.
The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.
Are you saying that is wrong?

Yes, you are wrong!
Mass less particles have zero rest mass.
However, as they move at the speed of light they have relativistic mass due to their velocity.
Never the less, all the massless particles in the UNIVERSE MUST move at the speed of light..
Hence, you are totally wrong with the assumption that there are massless particles that move at "velocities other than C" or "slow velocity".
Therefore, your following point is clearly incorrect (or lie if you wish)

The point I was making was that they also have relativistic mass.

There are no massless particles that move slow and have relativistic mass.
Is it clear to you by now or you insist to waste our time?

I presume you are an idiot, or you are deliberately misinterpreting what I said.

All particles have mass.

Either they have zero rest mass, but are in motion and therefore have kinetic energy and therefore have relativistic mass.
Or they have non-zero rest mass in which case they obviously have mass.

You were still wrong when you said that things had to move fast to have relativistic mass.

Hence, you are totally wrong with the assumption that there are massless particles that move at "velocities other than C" or "slow velocity".

I obviously wasn't  talking about massless particles.


I never assumed that there were massless particles with speeds less than C.
I may have not made that clear, but that's not the same as lying.

What I actually said was

I was talking about slow particles.

Since they are slow, they are obviously not massless.
I never said that they were massless.
What I said was that, they still have  a rest mass and a relativistic mass.
Even if they are slow, there is still some M from E=MC2

So you were wrong to say "However in order to gain a real mass their peculiar velocity should be very high or even close to the speed of light."

You seem to believe everything else Einstein said.
The most famous thing he said was that mass and energy are equivalent.

Do you not accept that, if I am pushed across the room, I gain mass because I gain energy?

Now, once again, please quote something which I said which I knew to be false.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I obviously wasn't  talking about massless particles.
I never assumed that there were massless particles with speeds less than C.
I may have not made that clear, but that's not the same as lying.

Sorry, this is incorrect!
We had long discussion on the pair particle production at the BBT process.
You have stated that:

You do not need an atom or a BH to get pair production.
You just need something with mass.

As an example for something with mass you had offered a photon:

So we know that energy- in the form photons- has mass.

However, photon is actually a massless particle that its velocity is c.
So, you had used an example for massless particle and therefore you lie when you had stated that:

I obviously wasn't  talking about massless particles.

You lie before and you continue to lie also now.
Don't you have any intention to stop those lies?
Please - don't waste my time any more on this nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

We had long discussion on the pair particle production at the BBT process.

And you forgot about this bit of it

A photon has mass.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

We had long discussion on the pair particle production at the BBT process.

And you forgot about this bit of it
A photon has mass.

You lie again.
Photon is a massless particle whose invariant mass is zero
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
"In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons".

[Bored chemist]

We had long discussion on the pair particle production at the BBT process.

And you forgot about this bit of it
A photon has mass.

You lie again.
Photon is a massless particle whose invariant mass is zero
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
"In particle physics, a massless particle is an elementary particle whose invariant mass is zero. The two known massless particles are both gauge bosons: the photon (carrier of electromagnetism) and the gluon (carrier of the strong force). However, gluons are never observed as free particles, since they are confined within hadrons".

If they wanted to say the photon has no mass they would have said so, wouldn't they?
Why do you think they had to put the word "invariant" in there?
It is to distinguish it from relativistic mass- which the photon has in accordance with Einstein's equation.

So, the photon has no rest mass (or invariant mass) but it has relativistic mass.
So it has mass.

And it would be better if you learned some science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Wow
You have stated that

I obviously wasn't  talking about massless particles.

When I have highlighted that you were taking about Photon which is clearly a massless particle, your reply is::

So, the photon has no rest mass (or invariant mass) but it has relativistic mass.
And it would be better if you learned some science.

Therefore, my answer to you is:
It would be better if you first respect yourself.

[Bored chemist]

A photon has mass.

Since you seem to have an obsession with articles...
https://www.desy.de/user/projects/Physics/Relativity/SR/light_mass.html
You seem to stuck with the short answer to recognise that the long answer is what's important here.

It has mass in the sense that it  can carry momentum
And that means that it can act as the mass you need for pair production.
And that's the thing you keep being wrong about.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Let's move on.

It has mass in the sense that it  can carry momentum
And that means that it can act as the mass you need for pair production.
And that's the thing you keep being wrong about.

OK
As you are The master of the BBT science, please answer the following (no need to backup any answer with any article) just your free message:

1. Before the Big Bang?
What was there before the Big Bang?
Are you sure that there was no space, no time, no energy no matter in the entire Universe before the Big Bang?
Actually, what is the meaning of a Universe without space?
If there was a bang at one no space, why there couldn't be other bang at other no space?
So what is the chance that there was other bang before or after the Big bang?

2. Time
If there was other bang at different no space location, why can't we start the time from that other bang?

3. BBT Energy/momentum:
You highlight the idea of Momentum.
So, how that BBT momentum/energy had been created/transformed into no space while there was no other space or energy or even other bang before that Big bang?

4. Space
How the space itself had been created by a bang?
We know about energy transformation or momentum, but is there any possibility for space transformation?
So what could be the source of energy/force/momentum... that could set the proton size of the Early Universe while there was no space at any no space?

4. Curvature in the Universe
Our scientists tell us that there is a curvature in our Universe.
They also add that due to curvature our 3D space acts as a 2D planet surface.
So, if that surface is expanding, don't you agree that it should overlap itself?
Hence, the expansion in 2D planet surface can't increase the planet size.
Therefore, if there is a curvature in our Universe, how the space could increase from that proton size?
Hence, why can't that curvature in our Universe force it to stay at that proton size?
So could it be that we actually living in a proton size while due to curvature idea we only think that our universe is quite big and has no edge?
Let's assume that that the universe can really expands in 3D outside that proton size.
In this case, why can't we assume that there is an edge for the Universe as based on the BBT there is an aria with space and aria without space at that stage.
Hence:
If there is a curvature in space - Our universe should stay at a proton size forever.
If there is no curvature - our real universe Must be infinite (or at least significantly big).

[Bored chemist]

Let's move on.

Does that mean you finally grasped the fact that you were wrong and had been calling me a liar for no reason?

If so, I'm happy to move on, subject to a simple condition.
In the future, when I tell you something, you have to accept that it's true.

The reasoning behind that is simple.
You have consistently demonstrated an utter lack of ability to tell fact from fiction.

So, are we going to move on, or are you still going to question textbook science?

[charles1948]

So, are we going to move on, or are you still going to question textbook science?

Never question textbook science on this site.  It doesn't pay.  The entire site is set up to promote scientific orthodoxy.

But I suspect there's a dissident among the Inner Party.

[Kryptid]

Never question textbook science on this site.

It's perfectly fine to do so if you have evidence. Evidence is the all-important word in that sentence, by the way. Misunderstandings are not evidence (which are almost always what the people in New Theories try to use as evidence).

[Bored chemist]

Never question textbook science without evidence on this site.  It doesn't pay.

FTFY

[Bored chemist]

But I suspect there's a dissident among the Inner Party.

You seem to be hallucinating the existence of a party (inner or otherwise).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:08:25
Let's move on.

Does that mean you finally grasped the fact that you were wrong and had been calling me a liar for no reason?

No
I still fully disagree with you about the BBT process for pair production.
The BBT "pure Energy" that was delivered "free of charge" to our proton Universe size would never ever represent/ create/ or transformed into even one particle pair.
The reasons for that are as follow:
1. Einstein had to told us that in any mass there is energy (E=mc^2), but he didn't say that in any energy there is mass.
2. If you insist that there is mass in any energy then why our BBT scientists are 100% sure that the energy which exists today in our universe (including EM energy) couldn't be transformed into real new particle pair?
Why do you reject the idea that the EM energy around our SMBH can't generate new positive particale pair while we clearly see the strong light of the photons that had been created during that process.
Why only the BBT energy had been set all the particles in the Universe (based on Einstien law E=mc^2) while today that formula doesn't work any more?
Hence, as long as they don't know why the energy of today can't set new particle pair (or even a photon) while they are so sure that the BBT energy could easily do it - this assumption of the BBT pair particle process is clearly not realistic.
3. In any case, based on the BBT theory the energy in the first pure energy could only create particles with relativistic mass but with zero rest mass. Photon and gluons are the ONLY particle in the whole Universe that could meet that description.
However, as the gluons never observed as a free particle. Therefore, the only real particle that can meet the BBT request is Photon.
4. With regards to photon: Photon is actually a cell of electromagnetic energy. As the BBT energy can't be EM than it clearly can't generate any Photon. Even if you personally bring those photons to the BBT it won't help. Photon must move at the speed of light. Therefore although it meets the requirement for relativistic mass, it can't meet the request for nearby mass as requested by pair production process due to its ultra high velocity. Therefore, even one trillion photons won't help to set even one new pair of particle.
5. You are surly fully aware about all of that information. Therefore, in order to break the science limitation, you had suggested that there are other relativistic mass particles (with zero rest mass) that should move at low velocity. However, so far you couldn't offer which kind of particle could meet this imagination request.

That by itself is good enough to kill the BBT idea at the same moment of the bang.

Evidence is the all-important word in that sentence,

Is it?
What is the fit between all the evidences that we have about our universe to the BBT?
Is it 100%?
Do we know what was there before the Big Bang?
Do we know how the BBT energy had been delivered to the early Universe?
Do we know how the space itself had been created at no space and why it is expanding?
Do we know why the BBT energy could set a pair production while the energy today can't set that process any more?
If the answer to all the questions is yes, then we can stop at this point.
If not:
Don't you agree that the BBT comes before any evidence?
Don't you agree that our BBT scientists set the BBT on the table and then they try to fit any new evidence to that BBT?
Actually, it seems to me that in most of the new discoveries there is no fit to the BBT. So first our scientists are quite surprise. Then they invent new patch for the BBT to close the gap.
How many times did they update the BBT from day one of this theory?
What is the current version on that BBT?
As a design engineer, if I was in charge on that BBT software, I would probably set it in the garbage after a few versions.
That what any real design engineer would do. We are lucky that our astronomy scientists do not control on our electronics equipments. In this case, we could stuck at the early electronics time as we stuck with the BBT for almost 100 years.
Why even for just one moment our scientists can't eliminate the BBT and focus only on all the evidences that we have today and then find a theory that meets all of those evidences by 100%?
Don't you agree that only 100% fit (without any message as "we don't know") should be considered as the real theory for our Universe? Hence, a theory with 90% fit or with some integrated sections of "we don't know" should be set in the garbage?

So, let me ask you some questions about "evidence"

1. Space expansion:
Where is the evidence for space expansion? You personally told me that we only see expansion of the galaxies. So why do we claim that we observe the space expansion?

2. CMBR
CMBR doesn't give any evidence for the BBT.
It is a microwave radiation that comes from all directions at almost the same amplitude and therefore it represents the whole Universe.
So, why that CMBR doesn't represent the radiation from the entire Universe around us?
Why do we insist to use it only for the BBT story?

3. Redshift
Don't you agree that redshift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity?
So why do we twist the real meaning of redshift when it comes to BBT?

4. SMBH Accretion disc
Do we see the ultra strong light (Photons) that is ejected from the accretion disc?
Do we see the particles at the accretion disc that are moving at almost at the speed of light?
So, why can't we believe that what we see are actually new created particles?
Why do we reject the clear message from Einstein that new particles are created at our current Universe in order to compensate the matter/galaxies that are drifting away?
Why only the BBT can create new particles while we reject the particles creation activity that we clearly see in front of our eyes?

5. Falling stars into the accretion disc
So far we didn't find any evidence for any falling matter/ gas cloud or stars into the accretion disc of our SMBH.
On the contrary. We ONLY see matter that ejected from the accretion disc. We clearly see that ultra long molecular get stream (27,000LY) that is ejected upwards/downwards from the poles of the SMBH at almost the 0.8 c.
Why do we insist that this matter in an outcome of a falling star instead of new created matte, while the evidence tells us that no star is falling in and we only see matter that is ejected outwards from the SMBH.
So why do we reject the clear evidence that we see?

6. SMBH size
Our scientists don't have a basic clue how all the SMBH in our Universe had been created. The most difficult issue for them is how a young massive galaxies that are located at almost 13 BLY away could establish their SMBH size in so short time after the BBT.
Why they reject the idea that a SMBH/BH should be able to generate the mass that is needed for itself as the mass that is needed for its own galaxy?
Think about the efficiency of that real pair particle production process of our Universe.
One particle is falling into the SMBH and increases its mass, while the other particle is drifting outwards to the accretion disc and would be used later on to form new star.
The efficiency of the pair production in this process is 100%, while based on the BBT - the efficiency was less than 0.00..1% as most of the new particles pair had been eliminated at the same moment of their creation.

7. Curvature in space
Do you confirm that our scientists do not observe any sort of curvature in space?
Hence, there is no evidence for curvature in our Universe space. So why our BBT scientists are 100% sure that there is curvature in the space?

So please
Would you kindly use real observations and real evidences for our Universe theory instead of imagination ideas as the BBT?

[Bored chemist]

No
I still fully disagree with you science about the BBT process for pair production.

FTFY
It's the same pair production process that we can observe in a lab today.

1. Einstein had to told us that in any mass there is energy (E=mc^2), but he didn't say that in any energy there is mass.

He didn't need to.
Emmy Nether had already told us that. the combination of energy/ mass is strictly conserved (except at the start  and end of time).

If you insist that there is mass in any energy

It happens regardless of anyone insisting on anything. It's nothing to do with me; I'm just the messenger here.

In any case, based on the BBT theory the energy in the first pure energy could only create particles with relativistic mass but with zero rest mass.

It does not matter how often you try to pretend that pair production can't happen; it still happened.
I can prove that.
We are here.

As the BBT energy can't be EM ...

Who said it can't?
Though it doesn't really matter much. we know that energy is quantised even if it's energy associated with the other forces.. I already pointed this out.

There was energy
That energy must have been in some combination of the 4 fundamental forces.
Those forces only exist by virtue of force carries- the photon, which carries the EM force, is the best known.
So if there was EM energy there were photons.

It really would be better if you paid attention.

You are surly

Not especially
surly
/ˈsəːli/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
bad-tempered and unfriendly.
"the porter left with a surly expression"..

aware about all of that information.

Yes I am, and it would be much better if you were also properly informed about it.
Please learn some science. That way you might stop making silly mistakes like those I have highlighted above.

What is the fit between all the evidences that we have about our universe to the BBT?
Is it 100%?

Yes.

If you think otherwise, please show us examples (real ones- not the nonsense you have posted so far)

Do we know why the BBT energy could set a pair production while the energy today can't set that process any more?

We know that it can.
#It's just that you don't understand it- see above,.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:23:15
If you insist that there is mass in any energy

It happens regardless of anyone insisting on anything. It's nothing to do with me; I'm just the messenger here.

So please show us how the energy of our current universe transformed into real positive particale pair.

It's the same pair production process that we can observe in a lab today.

Sorry - no real pair production took place at any Earth Lab.
Why our scientists do not observe the biggest real mighty lab in the Universe, which is the accretion disc of the SMBH?
So why our scientists claim that the SMBH EM energy can't transformed into real positive pair particles today?

 

Emmy Nether had already told us that. the combination of energy/ mass is strictly conserved (except at the start  and end of time).

You miss the whole idea of Emmy Nether.
I have told you before and you still don't understand it.

It does not matter how often you try to pretend that pair production can't happen; it still happened.
I can prove that.
We are here.

We are here, but not due to the BBT.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:23:15
What is the fit between all the evidences that we have about our universe to the BBT?
Is it 100%?
Yes.
If you think otherwise, please show us examples (real ones- not the nonsense you have posted so far)

As long as you don't know what was there before the Big Bang, then you can't know for sure what was there after the bang.

Why don't you answer the following?

So, let me ask you some questions about "evidence"

1. Space expansion:
Where is the evidence for space expansion? You personally told me that we only see expansion of the galaxies. So why do we claim that we observe the space expansion?

2. CMBR
CMBR doesn't give any evidence for the BBT.
It is a microwave radiation that comes from all directions at almost the same amplitude and therefore it represents the whole Universe.
So, why that CMBR doesn't represent the radiation from the entire Universe around us?
Why do we insist to use it only for the BBT story?

3. Redshift
Don't you agree that redshift is all about velocity and ONLY about velocity?
So why do we twist the real meaning of redshift when it comes to BBT?

4. SMBH Accretion disc
Do we see the ultra strong light (Photons) that is ejected from the accretion disc?
Do we see the particles at the accretion disc that are moving at almost at the speed of light?
So, why can't we believe that what we see are actually new created particles?
Why do we reject the clear message from Einstein that new particles are created at our current Universe in order to compensate the matter/galaxies that are drifting away?
Why only the BBT can create new particles while we reject the particles creation activity that we clearly see in front of our eyes?

5. Falling stars into the accretion disc
So far we didn't find any evidence for any falling matter/ gas cloud or stars into the accretion disc of our SMBH.
On the contrary. We ONLY see matter that ejected from the accretion disc. We clearly see that ultra long molecular get stream (27,000LY) that is ejected upwards/downwards from the poles of the SMBH at almost the 0.8 c.
Why do we insist that this matter in an outcome of a falling star instead of new created matte, while the evidence tells us that no star is falling in and we only see matter that is ejected outwards from the SMBH.
So why do we reject the clear evidence that we see?

6. SMBH size
Our scientists don't have a basic clue how all the SMBH in our Universe had been created. The most difficult issue for them is how a young massive galaxies that are located at almost 13 BLY away could establish their SMBH size in so short time after the BBT.
Why they reject the idea that a SMBH/BH should be able to generate the mass that is needed for itself as the mass that is needed for its own galaxy?
Think about the efficiency of that real pair particle production process of our Universe.
One particle is falling into the SMBH and increases its mass, while the other particle is drifting outwards to the accretion disc and would be used later on to form new star.
The efficiency of the pair production in this process is 100%, while based on the BBT - the efficiency was less than 0.00..1% as most of the new particles pair had been eliminated at the same moment of their creation.

7. Curvature in space
Do you confirm that our scientists do not observe any sort of curvature in space?
Hence, there is no evidence for curvature in our Universe space. So why our BBT scientists are 100% sure that there is curvature in the space?

So please
Would you kindly use real observations and real evidences for our Universe theory instead of imagination ideas as the BBT?

[Bored chemist]

Sorry - no real pair production took place at any Earth Lab.

Page 6 here
https://www.tcd.ie/Physics/study/current/undergraduate/lecture-notes/py1t10/JFSTR10.pdf
Shows a photograph of pair production from 1932

Why don't you learn some science?

[Bored chemist]

You miss the whole idea of Emmy Nether.
I have told you before and you still don't understand it.

You don't understand it any more than you understood pair production- which is to say you don't understand it at all.

[Bored chemist]

Why don't you answer the following?

Because there's no point.
You do not pay attention.

[Bored chemist]

As long as you don't know what was there before the Big Bang, then you can't know for sure what was there after the bang.

That's just silly, isn't it?