[Dave Lev (OP)]

You just proved that you don't understand science

You have lied to me all the way.
Our scientists clearly know how the Annihilation process works.
They know that any available participle/matter would be annihilated by any available antiparticle/antimatter.
However, somehow they hope that there were more particles than antiparticles as it is stated:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory4.htm
"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. These particles would later combine to form all the matter in the universe."

Therefore, based on that BBT, all the matter that we see in our current universe represents the extra matter/particles over the antimatter/antiparticles that had been survived the annihilation process.

So, our scientists do not claim that they do not know how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process as you do.
They do not lie as you do. They all clearly know that any new created participle must be eliminated with its twin antiparticle due to the annihilation process.
However, somehow they hope that the BBT would deliver more particles than antiparticle.
So, please tell them that only in their dream "pair" means that 1+1 = 3.
If they do not understand the simple meaning of pair then they can't call themselves as BBT scientists.
Any scientist that wishes to believe that during the participle pair creation there will be more participles than antiparticle is just a BBT believer.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:21:05
But, why do you insist on the BBT?

It fits the evidence and is consistent with the laws of physics.

How our BBT scientists/believers could claim that during the participle pair creation process, there were more particles than antiparticles?
That idea is a direct contradiction with the basic law of physics.

Therefore, you have to apologies for all your lies so far, while all the other BBT scientists/believers should go to class A and learn the real meaning of pair (1+1 can't be 3) and improve their knowledge in the law of physics...

In the meantime - that BBI (or BBT if you wish) would be locked in the garbage.

[Bored chemist]

You have lied to me all the way.

Show me a single lie.

[Bored chemist]

So, our scientists do not claim that they do not know how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process as you do.

But all the models  should produce exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
There should be no excess.

And so nobody understand this

There was more matter than anti-matter,

As I have pointed out, we know that it is true- because we are here.
But we do not know why it is true.

As usual, you are calling me a liar because you do not understand the truth.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:35:12
So, our scientists do not claim that they do not know how the BBT could bypass the annihilation process as you do.

But all the models should produce exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter.
There should be no excess.

Thanks
So you fully confirm my understanding that "all the models should produce exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter".
Therefore, our scientists have a fatal mistake as they claim that there was more matter than antimatter.

However, why did you claim that there was more matter than antimatter:

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:35:12
There was more matter than anti-matter,

As I have pointed out, we know that it is true- because we are here.

No, the idea that we are here can't be used to confirm the BBT.
So, as I have pointed out, we are here, but not due to the Big bang science fiction.
Hence by now we know that it is a Lie!

It fits the evidence and is consistent with the laws of physics.

This is a lie.
We all know that based on the law of physics the total no. of matter must be identical to the antimatter and therefore due to the annihilation process not even one participle could be survived.

And so nobody understand this

This is one more lie.
All of us do understand that there is no way to get even one real participle after the annihilation process based on the Big Bang Idea.

As usual, you are calling me a liar because you do not understand the truth.

No, I don't think that you are a liar.
I actually have highly appreciation for your high knowledge in science.
However, you are ready to lie in order to support the BBT.
This is really a frustration for me.
Please wake up.
Please try to understand the truth of our universe.
Try to understand that based on that truth and laws of physics - there is no room for the BBT in the Universe history.

Once we all agree on that, we will look for better story for our Universe.

[Bored chemist]

We all know that based on the law of physics the total no. of matter must be identical to the antimatter and therefore due to the annihilation process not even one participle could be survived.

But it isn't.
We are here.

Therefore, our scientists have a fatal mistake as they claim that there was more matter than antimatter.

It is not a mistake. it is an observation.
We are here.

However, why did you claim that there was more matter than antimatter:

Because it is obviously true, you and I are made of matter but there is hardly any antimatter.

All of us do understand that there is no way to get even one real participle after the annihilation process based on the Big Bang Idea.

And yet, here we are.

That's the thing that nobody understands.

As usual, you are calling me a liar because you do not understand the truth.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:19:15
All of us do understand that there is no way to get even one real participle after the annihilation process based on the Big Bang Idea.

And yet, here we are.

Yes, we are here, but not due to the BBT.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:19:15
However, why did you claim that there was more matter than antimatter:

Because it is obviously true, you and I are made of matter but there is hardly any antimatter.

As there is no antimatter, we must look for better theory.

That's the thing that nobody understands.

Do you mean that nobody from the science community understands?
However, I do understand why we are here and why the BBT is wrong.
So, please don't say "nobody" even if you think that I'm nobody for you.

[Bored chemist]

However, I do understand why we are here and why the BBT is wrong.

Your previous idea which you mistakenly called "theory D" shows that  you do not understand.

[Bored chemist]

As there is no antimatter, we must look for better theory.

In the mean time, the fact that we don't have all the details of the BBT does not stop it being useful.

"Theory D", on the other hand, would never work, which does stop it being useful.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:12:22
As there is no antimatter, we must look for better theory.

In the mean time, the fact that we don't have all the details of the BBT does not stop it being useful.

This is a lie.
You lie when you claim that you don't know how the BBT can bypass the annihilation process as it is clear that it can't do so.
While the other 10,000 BBT scientists lie when they claim that there were more particles than antiparticles.
Actually, you have just confirmed that they lie when they claim that there were more matter than antimatter, while based on their input you lie when you claim that not every participle would be eliminated by its twin antiparticle.
Hence, all of you lie on that key issue of the particle creation.
Without clear information about the particle creation there is no meaning for the BBT.
You and all the other 10,000 BBT believers have full knowledge about the law of science and all the requested details.
Therefore, you all know that based on the law of science there is no way to get even one free particle out of the Big Bang theory.
But you do not want to share this key information with us.
You insist to keep the BBT alive.
Therefore, you lie when you claim that you don't know
Yes – you and all the other 10,000 BBT believers know by 100% that the BBT is useless, but due to some imagination you wish us to believe that the BBT is real.
Shame on you - all of you!
There is no miracle in science. It is very clear to all of us.
The meaning of "law of science" should be clear to any individual in our Universe even if he calls himself as a BBT scientist.
Therefore, you lie when you have stated that the BBT meets the law of science as it clearly can't create even one free particle.
The only meaning for your "we don't know" is that you know that you don't know how to keep that useless BBT alive while it fully contradicts the law of science.

In any case
Let's move on.
So far we have found that the BBT can't generate even one free particle.
However, this is just the very minor difficult of the BBT.
Now I would like to discuss about the space itself.
We have a formula that can show the transformation from Energy to mass/matter
E=mc^2
However, what kind of formula are you going to use for the creation of the space itself?
What kind of energy is needed to create space?
The assumption that before the bang there was no space is a pure fiction.
If there was no space before the bang then there will be no space after the bang unless you can show the law of science or the formula that is needed to create space..
Therefore, without a clear indication of "law of science" for the space creation, there is no way to create space.

Hence, the BBT is just a useless theory based on the following two key elements:
1. It can't explain the creation of even one real particle based on law of science.
2. It can't explain the creation of the space itself based on law of science (even not at the size of proton).

Conclusion:
Please keep the BBT deep in the garbage and let us know just when you really know how to twist/bypass the law of science.

[Bored chemist]

You lie when you claim that you don't know how the BBT can bypass the annihilation process as it is clear that it can't do so.

Something must have broke that symmetry.
We know that because we are here.

There is more matter than antimatter.

We do not know how it was broken.
My view- and that of scientist the world over, is that somehow, the extreme conditions of the early universe with enormous temperatures pressures and energies  produced a breach of the symmetry and allowed matter to dominate.

You, on the other hand are saying that the universe is , and was always, like it is today.

Well, if that was true, then we would see the matter antimatter equality rule broken today just as it must have been in the past.

So why don't we see it today?

Actually, you have just confirmed that they lie when they claim that there were more matter than antimatter,

Have you ever seen antimatter?

There really is more matter than antimatter.

So far we have found that the BBT can't generate even one free particle.

Yes it can; because it did.

Therefore, without a clear indication of "law of science" for the space creation, there is no way to create space.

Nonsense.
Just because we don't yet know what the rules are, that didn't stop the universe doing it anyway,
The Universe isn't sat there waiting for us to discover the laws of physics, is it?
So why would us not knowing the rule stop the universe expanding?

Again, these are all failings of logic on your part.
You haven't even got to the bit where you not understanding the physics would matter.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

There is more matter than antimatter.

What do you mean by antimatter?
Is it a negative mass or negative charge?
If it is a negative charge, then how do we know if there are more electrons than positrons in our Universe?
If it is a negative mass - then please forget it. There is no negative mass at all in our Universe. Just Zero!!!

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:22:06
You lie when you claim that you don't know how the BBT can bypass the annihilation process as it is clear that it can't do so.

Something must have broke that symmetry.
We know that because we are here.

Again - the idea that we are here can't be used to prove the BBT or any other theory.
Only a theory that meets the law of science by 100% should be used!

We do not know how it was broken.

As long as you do not know - then please don't tell us that you know that the BBT is correct!

My view- and that of scientist the world over, is that somehow, the extreme conditions of the early universe with enormous temperatures pressures and energies  produced a breach of the symmetry and allowed matter to dominate.

So, please prove it by law of science, math or by real experiment if you can.
If not, then please keep this view/imagination at the garbage next to the BBT.

Well, if that was true, then we would see the matter antimatter equality rule broken today just as it must have been in the past.

We see electron and we see positron.
So, why do you claim that there is no antimatter?

Have you ever seen antimatter?
There really is more matter than antimatter.

Again - if you mean antimatter as negative mass or anti-mass then it is a fatal mistake as there is no anti-mass.
If you mean to negative charge – then we see it everywhere.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:22:06
So far we have found that the BBT can't generate even one free particle.

Yes it can; because it did.

It is your obligation to explain how the BBT can generate particles.
The idea that we are here can't be used as evidence or confirmation for the BBT (or any other theory)!!!
The BBT must confirms what we see.
As it can't confirm the particles creation by real law of science, then it is a useless theory.

Please be aware that for the BBT it is actually not relevant in any form of antimatter. (If the antimatter is negative charge or Negative mass). In both cases the annihilation process should kill any particle with its twin antiparticle.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:22:06
Therefore, without a clear indication of "law of science" for the space creation, there is no way to create space.

Nonsense.
Just because we don't yet know what the rules are, that didn't stop the universe doing it anyway,

Again - the fact that we are here or that the Universe is doing whatever is needed doesn't prove that the BBT is correct or Theory D is incorrect
Any theory should meet the law of science by 100%.

The Universe isn't sat there waiting for us to discover the laws of physics, is it?

The laws of physics are very clear to us.
If the theory meets those laws - then we can claim that the theory is correct.
If not - then we should set the Theory in the garbage - or change the law if there is an error in that law.

So why would us not knowing the rule stop the universe expanding?

The Universe is not expanding.
This is one more lie from our BBT believer.
We only see expanding galaxies.
Therefore, the galaxies are expanding, while the space of the Universe is fixed.
So, as long as you can't show us the relevant law of science for the creating new space - the whole idea of space creation by the BBT is useless.
As I have already pointed - that idea is even worse than the idea of creating more matter than antimatter.

You, on the other hand are saying that the universe is , and was always, like it is today.

It is not just my understanding.
I actually represent Einstein approach.
We can discuss about it after killing the BBT.
If we would find that Einstein was wrong, then we would kill also that theory.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Would you kindly advice what do you mean by antimatter?
Is it anti-charge or Anti-mass (Negative mass)?

[Bored chemist]

Would you kindly advice what do you mean by antimatter?

Again?

I mean what grown-up science means
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antimatter

Please pay attention.

Also, please answer this.

Show me a single lie.

I don't mean things that you don't agree with, or don't want to be true.
I mean show me something where I said something which I know is false.
(You won't be able to, of course)

[Bored chemist]

I actually represent Einstein approach.

You are faithfully supporting the thing he called his greatest mistake.
Why?

If it is a negative mass - then please forget it. There is no negative mass at all in our Universe. Just Zero!!!

Did you check?

If it is a negative charge, then how do we know if there are more electrons than positrons in our Universe?

We would see the annihilation radiation from the "boundary" between areas where matter and antimatter predominate.
(Did you really not understand that there was an obvious answer to that?
It suggests, once again, that you don't know science.)

If we would find that Einstein was wrong,

We don't need to.
Einstein already found that Einstein was wrong.

[Bored chemist]

The Universe is not expanding.

Yes it is.

This is one more lie from our BBT believer.
We only see expanding galaxies.
Therefore, the galaxies are expanding, while the space of the Universe is fixed.
So, as long as you can't show us the relevant law of science for the creating new space - the whole idea of space creation by the BBT is useless.

OK
Here's the law involved.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble%27s_law

Did you think that would be difficult?
Did you not understand that we have that law?

[Colin2B]

Would you kindly advice what do you mean by antimatter?
Is it anti-charge or Anti-mass (Negative mass)?

Everyone should be using the standard accepted definition, broadly - “ a particle and its anti-particle (for example, a proton and an antiproton) have the same mass, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge.” It’s worth checking the detail for each pair on Wiki.

A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner leads to their mutual annihilation.

There is no antimass.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Would you kindly advice what do you mean by antimatter?
Is it anti-charge or Anti-mass (Negative mass)?

Everyone should be using the standard accepted definition, broadly - “ a particle and its anti-particle (for example, a proton and an antiproton) have the same mass, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge.” It’s worth checking the detail for each pair on Wiki.
A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner leads to their mutual annihilation.
There is no antimass.

Thanks for your answer
Do appreciate.
Actually I have just found an excellent explanation from Kryptid at the following thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81882.msg634195#msg634195

[Bored chemist]

Would you kindly advice what do you mean by antimatter?
Is it anti-charge or Anti-mass (Negative mass)?

Everyone should be using the standard accepted definition, broadly - “ a particle and its anti-particle (for example, a proton and an antiproton) have the same mass, but opposite electric charge, and other differences in quantum numbers. For example, a proton has positive charge while an antiproton has negative charge.” It’s worth checking the detail for each pair on Wiki.
A collision between any particle and its anti-particle partner leads to their mutual annihilation.
There is no antimass.

Thanks for your answer
Do appreciate.
Actually I have just found an excellent explanation from Kryptid at the following thread:
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=81882.msg634195#msg634195

It is good to see that you  are starting to learn science.
Who knows; in a year or two, you might understand why practically everything you have posted on this site is nonsense.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The missing antiproton and the missing positrons

The missing antiproton and the missing positrons in our Universe is the most important observation in our Universe.
It clearly tells us that the BBT is useless.
As the proton includes quarks & gluons it can't be considered as a single particle.
It is closer to atom than closer to a single particle.
Therefore, the same process that could create an atom must create the proton.
Actually, there are no free protons/antiprotons and no free electron/positrons
Therefore, as Atom can't be created by the single particle pair process, also the proton can't be created by that process.
Hence, the same natural process that had been created the Hydrogen atoms had also created its integrated proton plus its extra electron.

Hence, the atom had been created in a single process with its proton and electrons in order to balance its internal electrical charge.
This can clearly explain the missing antiproton and positrons in our Universe.

Our scientists tell us that they know what is correct or incorrect with regards to the antimatter, while they clearly don't know the real answer for the missing antimatter.

The real particle generator in our Universe

The accretion disc around the SMBH is the real particle generator in our Universe
The plasma in that accretion disc is orbiting at about 0.3 the speed of light, while its temp is 10^9 c.
Our scientists wish to believe that this accretion disc is due to falling stars or cloud.
However, they have never ever seen even one falling atom into our accretion disc.
If that was correct, then it is expected to observe some sort of inwards spiral movement of matter that is taken from an external star or gas cloud as we see in the following image:
https://www.physics.wisc.edu/tag/accretion-disks/
Or
https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/accretion/

However, that is not the case in the SMBH accretion disc which is actually a ring.
The minimal radius (R1) is quite close to the event horizon while the maximal radius (R2) is limited.
Therefore, if the matter in the accretion disc was due to the falling stars, how could it be that they fall all the way to that R2 ring and accelerated to that ultra high velocity(0.3c) at almost pure circular cycle?
Why the aria between R2 to the minimal orbital radius of G cloud and S stars is so wide, while there is no matter at all in that aria?
In other words, how could it be that a star (as S2 for example) which has an elliptical orbital cycle at a relative low velocity, would fall all the way to R2 and surprisingly get that ultra high circular velocity?
Our scientists have a fatal misunderstanding about the real functionality of the accretion disc.
It seems to me that in any SMBH accretion disc the ratio between R1 to R2 must be almost fixed while R1 must be located at a fixed ratio from the event horizon.
Therefore, the matter in the accretion disc can't come from outside but can ONLY come from inside.
In other words - the accretion disc works as particles/atoms/molecular generator.
We have a confirmation for that by the molecular jet stream that we clearly see above and below the SMBH poles.
This jet stream ejects the new created matter from the accretion disc far above/below the SMBH galactic disc.

This particle generator creates only matter.
Hence, all the matter that we see in our universe had been created by the accretion disc of the SMBHs
Therefore, there is no Antimatter in the Universe.

Why is it so difficult for our scientists to understand that simple explanation?

[Bored chemist]

It clearly tells us that the BBT is useless.

If that was anything close to being true, nobody would be using the BBT, but they are.
So you are plainly wrong.

Why do you post stuff that is obviously wrong?