[Just thinking]

Did you think about learning science?

Well, I have given learning ago and found out that all your dark matter is hypothetical as there is no agreement as to what it is made up of and for that matter if it even exists at all. What if they decide to call it hydrogen that would be painful. Let me see that would make hydrogen over 99% of the universe OOOO the pain. Anyway, I'm not a test tube baby.

[Bored chemist]

and for that matter if it even exists at all.

There is agreement on that.

What if they decide to call it hydrogen that would be painful.

Well, sort of painful; certainly stupid, because one thing we certainly do know about it is that it isn't hydrogen.

If you actually did learn some science, you would have known that and avoided looking a fool.

[Just thinking]

you actually did learn some science,

Yes, I have as the OP has made most things clear to me at this point my contribution is more of a sideline as the second viable option. Maybe Astrophysics isn't your forte have you tried chemistry.

[Bored chemist]

I have as the OP has made most things clear to me

But... he is wrong about practically everything.

[Just thinking]

If you actually did learn some science,

I brought a pair of binoculars on eBay and started to study dark matter but soon discovered that I was wrong I had left the lens caps on. But it was dark.

[Bored chemist]

If you actually did learn some science,

I brought a pair of binoculars on eBay and started to study dark matter but soon discovered that I was wrong I had left the lens caps on. But it was dark.

Are you stupid ot trolling?

[Just thinking]

Are you stupid ot trolling?

No not stupid and not trolling whatever that means just trying to lighten the moment. It has come to my attention that this word trolling gets used a lot and by the same people over and over again Are you the preacher in the world of science that lets no one else use their mind.

[Bored chemist]

Are you the preacher in the world of science

OK, since you think that science has preachers, I assume that you are stupid.

[Just thinking]

OK, since you think that science has preachers, I assume that you are stupid.

I would be stupid if I listen to and followed a science preacher without having my say. Remember ears open mouth shut work for you not for me due to your way of mouth open ears shut. The irony of it.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Krypid
You have stated that:

Electrical current leading to the development of a force....

Therefore, based on this message it seems that you confirm that electrical current can develop/generate force.
You also confirm that electrical current means electric energy means energy.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:46:20
However, why don't you also agree that electrical current/electric energy means energy?

I never said that.

So why do you insist that:

Electrical current leading to the development of a force is not energy turning into force.

How could it be that you agree that the electrical current (which means energy) can generate force while in the same message you claim that energy can't turning into force?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Are you the preacher in the world of science

OK, since you think that science has preachers, I assume that you are stupid.

Dear BC
Why do you think that anyone that doesn't agree with the BBT imagination is stupid?
I have just left you for a day or so and there is already long discussion.
Let me focus on key aspect of the BBT - Energy.
All 100,000 BBT scientists claim that new energy can't be created in any place (Due to conservation law).
Therefore, they reject the idea that new energy could be created in our current universe by the gravity force.
However, if their understanding is correct, then new energy can't also be evolved also at any place outside our current Universe.
Therefore, as new energy couldn't be evolve in the current Universe, our scientists surly know that energy couldn't also be evolved at any place before the Big Bang - but they don't care.
They prefer to stay with the BBT imagination that all the requested energy for our current Universe (even if it is infinite) had been delivered free of charge in a single moment of time (about 13.8 BY ago) and they just claim that they don't know and don't care about the conditions before the Big Bang.
So, they start their imagination at the Big Bang moment while they totally ignore what was there before that bang.
This is their biggest mistake.
Unfortunately, for all of us, our scientists don't have a basic knowledge about the following:
1. How that energy had been created outside our current Universe (before the Big Bang moment)?
How before the Big Bang new energy could be created/evolved (against the conservation law of our scientists)?
Why the conservation of law is not applicable before the bang?
2. Let's assume that somehow (before the Big Bang Moment and behind the conservation law of our scientists) new energy had been created. However, if It had been created somewhere, then don't you agree that any energy must have some space and time for its existence?
So, assuming that new energy had been evolved somehow before the Big Bang, then how that energy could exist without space and time?
If there was space and time before the Big Bang that could let new energy to be evolved over there, then how the Big Bang could work as there is already space and time for that energy (before the Big Bang)?
That by itself kills the BBT. The whole idea is that new energy could be transformed to our universe just if there was no space-time before the Big bang.
Therefore, all those 100,000 scientists that claim that energy could be evolved without space-time know for sure that this message is totally incorrect!
3. Let's assume that new energy had been evolved somehow and somewhere in some sort of space-time before the Big Bang.
Why and how energy from that space-time could be transformed into our specific space-time?

[Bored chemist]

Why do you think that anyone that doesn't agree with the BBT imagination is stupid?

I don't.
Why do you think I do?

[Bored chemist]

However, if their understanding is correct, then new energy can't also be evolved also at any place outside our current Universe.

That's not meaningful, never mind true.
However, if there's a place somewhere in which time is not symmetrical then the conservation of mass/ energy does not apply.
One example would be the start of the universe.
I have pointed this out to you repeatedly.

I do think that people who keep asking the same question, in the hope of getting a different answer are stupid or trolls.

Which are you?.

they just claim that they don't know and don't care about the conditions before the Big Bang.

The alternative would be to waste effort caring about something which we do not, and can not know.
That would be a stupid waste of time, wouldn't it?

How before the Big Bang new energy could be created/evolved (against the conservation law of our scientists)?

It is, as I pointed out, perfectly consistent with the conservation laws.
Only someone stupid would not recognise that after being told a few times.

[Kryptid]

How could it be that you agree that the electrical current (which means energy) can generate force while in the same message you claim that energy can't turning into force?

Because...

in the first case energy doesn't literally become force and in the second case it does.

Ask me again and I'll give you the same answer.

1. How that energy had been created outside our current Universe (before the Big Bang moment)?
How before the Big Bang new energy could be created/evolved (against the conservation law of our scientists)?
Why the conservation of law is not applicable before the bang?

We don't even know if there is such a thing as "outside our current Universe" or "before the Big Bang", so that question could well be based on false assumptions.

I'm tempted to split the topic where Just Thinking started talking about dark matter, but I'll hold off on that unless that tangent continues. In any case, remember to keep things civil, all of you.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 14:57:21
How before the Big Bang new energy could be created/evolved (against the conservation law of our scientists)?

It is, as I pointed out, perfectly consistent with the conservation laws.

Sorry - you have never pointed out how the energy that had been delivered free of charge to our Universe had been created.
How energy could be evolved anywhere and still be perfectly consistent with the conservation laws?
You are using the conservation of law to prevent any opportunity for new energy/mass to be created anywhere.
So if no new energy could be created, then how any sort of energy could be created before the Big Bang?
 

However, if there's a place somewhere in which time is not symmetrical then the conservation of mass/ energy does not apply.

Well, "if there's a place somewhere in which time is not symmetrical then the conservation of mass/ energy does not apply" then how do you know that we are not living in that place which time is not symmetrical?
If there is a place where time is not symmetrical - why can't we be there?
Sorry - our scientists can't act as the master of the universe to claim where the conservation of law works and where it doesn't work.
Law is law.
The same law that our scientists have invented to keep the BBT from any other real theory, must work everywhere - if they like it or not.

One example would be the start of the universe.
I have pointed this out to you repeatedly.

Sorry - you have never explained how new energy that had been delivered to our universe free of charge at the big bang moment, had been created without the limitation of the Ultimate conservation law.
So, please - try to explain it.

The alternative would be to waste effort caring about something which we do not, and can not know.
That would be a stupid waste of time, wouldn't it?

Sorry – it isn't realistic to claim that something which you do not, and cannot know - then no one would ever know.
If you don't know, then please don't claim that no one can know.
You can't just tell us a story of the Universe without knowing the real source of the energy that had been delivered to our universe.

We don't even know if there is such a thing as "outside our current Universe" or "before the Big Bang", so that question could well be based on false assumptions.

As you don't Know if there is such a thing as "outside our current Universe" or "before the Big Bang, then how can you bypass the source of energy
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.
If you start it while all the energy is there, why don't you start it while all the matter and galaxies are there?
In any theory - it is vital to show how new energy could be created.
We don't care about free energy delivery.
We want to know how that energy had been created.
If our scientists don't know how the energy for our entire Universe had been created and delivered to our Universe then please set that useless BBT theory in the garbage.

[Kryptid]

Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.

Of course you can. The Big Bang theory never claimed to explain where the energy came from. All it does it explain the evolution of the Universe from its first moments up until now.

If you start it while all the energy is there, why don't you start it while all the matter and galaxies are there?

Because we know that the matter and galaxies weren't always there. The early Universe was too hot and dense for matter and galaxies to exist.

In any theory - it is vital to show how new energy could be created.

Only if that theory claims that new energy is indeed being created. The Big Bang theory does not.

If our scientists don't know how the energy for our entire Universe had been created and delivered to our Universe then please set that useless BBT theory in the garbage.

You're straw-manning the Big Bang theory. You might as well claim that, "since the nuclear fusion theory for the Sun doesn't explain where the Sun got its energy from in the first place, we should put that theory in the garbage".

[Bored chemist]

Sorry - you have never pointed out how the energy that had been delivered free of charge to our Universe had been created.
How energy could be evolved anywhere and still be perfectly consistent with the conservation laws?

Why tell that lie?

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

I also already explained this.
The start of the universe is the only circumstance under which time is not symmetrical.
So Noether's theorem does not apply.
So the mass/energy conservation law does not apply.
Again, you already lost this argument.
Please don't waste anyone's time by bringing it up again.

we have Dave saying this
Quote from: Dave Lev on 11/03/2021 17:30:54
So as long as you claim that nothing could be created today – you actually kill the creation process at the big bang moment.

But we have already explained to him that he's wrong about this (e.g. 11/12/19 "However, Noether's theorem shows that the start of the universe is the only time when getting that energy might be possible."


and 10/12/19
"Finally, you nearly understand it.
Because the big bang is a unique event  with space (and time) after it, but not before, it is not symmetrical and the conservation law does not apply.

That's why the sudden existence of mass at the start of the universe is mathematically permitted.

You kept on asking how all that mass and energy didn't break the conservation laws.
It now seems that you understand it."

And 5/12
"Again?
OK
Here it is.
Please pay attention this time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
"

[Bored chemist]

If there is a place where time is not symmetrical - why can't we be there?

Because yesterday is pretty much the same as tomorrow.
The laws of physics are symmetrical in time.

Sorry - our scientists can't act as the master of the universe to claim where the conservation of law works and where it doesn't work.
Law is law.
The same law that our scientists have invented to keep the BBT from any other real theory, must work everywhere - if they like it or not.

And the law is "If time is symmetrical then energy is conserved".

That law applies everywhere.
And , except at the beginning (and, if there is one, the end) of the universe time is symmetrical.
So, energy is conserved.
But at the start and end, energy is not conserved.

It is all the same law of physics.
It is consistent.
The scientists are not changing anything.
It's just that you don't understand because you are a troll.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Sorry - you have never pointed out how the energy that had been delivered free of charge to our Universe had been created.
How energy could be evolved anywhere and still be perfectly consistent with the conservation laws?
Why tell that lie?

No. I do not lie.
Kryptid had fully confirmed that our scientists totally ignore how the whole energy for our Universe had been evolved before the Big Bang.

The Big Bang theory never claimed to explain where the energy came from. All it does it explain the evolution of the Universe from its first moments up until now.

This is the highlight of my message.
Our scientists just don't want to deal with that key question of how the whole energy in our universe had been created and there is good explanation for that.
Based on our scientists Noether's theorem and conservation laws are absolute and they prevent from any new energy to be created.
If that is correct, then those laws should also prevent from new energy creation at any other time space.
Therefore, new energy can't be created before the Big Bang.
It is not good enough to explain how the Universe had been evolved from that energy that the universe got free of charge.
In any real theory it is our OBLIGATION to offer real solution how the energy had been evolved (in our current universe or at any twisted space time..
As the BBT bypass that key question about the creation of the energy it is just a Useless theory.

The start of the universe is the only circumstance under which time is not symmetrical.
So Noether's theorem does not apply.
So the mass/energy conservation law does not apply.

The BBT twist the science laws by that idea of  "time is not symmetrical".
If the time was not symmetrical before the Big Bang (as you claim) and actually there was no time, no space and no Universe then it is also your obligation to show how energy could be evolved under those extreme conditions.
You can't twist the time & space in order to bypass Noether's theorem and conservation laws without offering clear explanation how the energy had been created before the Big Bang even if you position yourself as the master of knowledge While all the others are absolutely stupid.
Sorry - we are not so stupid as you hope.
It is the obligation of our BBT scientists to explain how the entire energy had been evolved against the Noether's theorem and conservation laws at any twisted space time that you wish.
Without it - the BBT is just irrelevant theory.

[Kryptid]

Remember when I said that the theory of solar nuclear fusion doesn't address where the energy in the Sun came from in the first place? Does that make it a useless theory?