[Bored chemist]

Kryptid had fully confirmed that our scientists totally ignore how the whole energy for our Universe had been evolved before the Big Bang.

Yes, and I explained the two reasons why why.

The alternative would be to waste effort caring about something which we do not, and can not know.

And

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.

But you said

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.

You said I hadn't explained it, but I had.

[Bored chemist]

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.

No.
You asked me to explain why the conservation laws don't apply at the BB and I did.
I just have to show that the mass energy conservation laws no longer apply.
I don't have to show anything else.

[Bored chemist]

The BBT twist the science laws by that idea of  "time is not symmetrical".

That's what the laws say.
Nobody twists them.

Sorry - we are not so stupid as you hope.

Indeed; I had hoped you were less stupid than it turns out.

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

The BBT does not break the conservation laws because, at that point, time was not symmetrical.

Your silly idea about a steady state universe does break the conservation laws, so you have to explain how it can do that.
You have never done so.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

We clearly know how stars are created.
Therefore, when we discuss on the Sun' nuclear fusion activity we do not need to discuss again how it has got its energy.

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.

Even if we agree on that, the Start of the Universe doesn't explain how the whole energy had been created at the first stage.
It only might explain how energy that had been evolved outside that early universe had arrived free of charge to that universe.
So, do you agree that the BBT is all about energy transformation and not about energy creation?
If the BBT explain the energy creation - then please explain how the energy had been created.
As it is all about energy transformation from outside, then somehow this energy must be evolved outside.
However, you and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know that your laws prevents from any energy to be created - not in our current space time and not outside our space time.
Therefore, you all know that new energy can't be created anywhere.
Hence, instead of admit that the BBT is just a useless theory, you claim that you just do not know:

waste effort caring about something which we do not, and cannot know

As you clearly claim that you don't know, then why do you claim that:

he BBT does not break the conservation laws because, at that point, time was not symmetrical.

Please, would you kindly take a decision?
Do you know or you don't know?
If you know that due to the idea that "time was not symmetrical" you can create new energy in the early Universe, then please explain how it works by real mathematics.
If you don't know how the new energy had been evolved, then why do you sell us that nonsense about "time was not symmetrical"?

[Bored chemist]

If the BBT explain the energy creation

It doesn't, and nobody said it did.
In fact, it's the opposite of what was said

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

Why don't you pay attention?

[Bored chemist]

If you know that due to the idea that "time was not symmetrical" you can create new energy in the early Universe, then please explain how it works by real mathematics.

OK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Time_invariance

That's the maths that says that you can't create energy if the laws if physics are symmetrical in time.

And obviously, if  the symmetry is broken, the conservation law no longer holds.

[Bored chemist]

why do you sell us that nonsense about "time was not symmetrical"?

It isn't nonsense.
There was no time "before" the BB, there is time now.
So there's an obvious dissymmetry.

Do you not understand that?

However, you and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know that your laws prevents from any energy to be created -

And yet your silly idea says it is.
So you know that your idea is wrong.

The BBT does not break the conservation laws because, at that point, time was not symmetrical.

Your silly idea about a steady state universe does break the conservation laws, so you have to explain how it can do that.
You have never done so.

[Kryptid]

We clearly know how stars are created.
Therefore, when we discuss on the Sun' nuclear fusion activity we do not need to discuss again how it has got its energy.

If we have to know where the Big Bang got its energy then we have to know where the stars got their energy too. You can't give one a pass and not the other.

Therefore, you all know that new energy can't be created anywhere.

And yet you claim that gravity can create new energy. You are contradicting yourself.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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

Thanks
So, the BBT is the result of the energy being delivered.
However, from where that energy had been delivered and how it had been created over there?

If you know that due to the idea that "time was not symmetrical" you can create new energy in the early Universe, then please explain how it works by real mathematics.

OK
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem#Time_invariance
That's the maths that says that you can't create energy if the laws if physics are symmetrical in time.
And obviously, if the symmetry is broken, the conservation law no longer holds.

As a scientists you have to know that by breaking the conservation law it doesn't prove that new energy would be created.
You are the one that claim that there was no time before the Big Bang:

There was no time "before" the BB, there is time now.
So there's an obvious dissymmetry.

So, if there was no time before the Big Bang, and we also know that there was no space before the Big Bang, then how energy could be created under those conditions?
You are the master of your BBT theory.
You can set the conditions of the Universe (before the bang and after the bang) as you wish.
No one can argue with you about those conditions.
Therefore, it is your obligation to prove that those conditions could create the energy that is requested for the BBT.
If you can do it, then your theory is valid.
If you can't do it, then your theory is useless.
So, you claim that when there was no time (before the Big Bang moment), the " the symmetry is broken and the conservation law no longer holds"
But that is not good enough.
Please show that the conditions to create the requested energy was there before the big bang moment and prove it by real math/explanation.

If we have to know where the Big Bang got its energy then we have to know where the stars got their energy too. You can't give one a pass and not the other.

If our scientists don't know where the Big Bang got its energy, while they have set the conditions for the BBT, then there is a clear contradiction in that theory.
They are fully allowed to change the conditions (before the Big Bang) in order to generate the requested energy.
If time and space is needed to create new energy (before the Big Bang) then it proves that there was time and space before the bang.
I assume that in this case the Big bang can't work any more.
So please it is your obligation to start your theory with the creation of energy.
Chose any conditions that you wish to show how new energy could be created (before the big bang.
Just after having the requested energy, you are allowed to move on to the next phase of the Big Bang moment.
If you can't do so, then please set this BBT in the garbage and the sooner is better.

And yet you claim that gravity can create new energy. You are contradicting yourself.

There is no contradiction in my theory.
I offer you a clear explanation how energy could be created by force.
The only problem is that you don't wish to accept the idea that force can generate energy.
You are allowed to set the conditions for your theory and I am allowed to set the conditions to my theory.
Based on the condition that our scientists have set for the BBT - there is a sever contradiction with the creation of new energy and therefore the BBT can't work.
Based on the conditions that I have set for my theory - there is no contradiction for new energy creation and therefore this theory can work.
This is the big difference between the two theories.

[Kryptid]

If our scientists don't know where the Big Bang got its energy, while they have set the conditions for the BBT, then there is a clear contradiction in that theory.

So if we didn't know where the hydrogen originally came from in stars, we would be unable to discern how nuclear fusion in stars works? I'm afraid that doesn't follow...

So please it is your obligation to start your theory with the creation of energy.

Then you'd also have to do that. You'd have to say where the original energy came from in your model too in order to get everything started.

There is no contradiction in my theory.

If you say in one post that energy can't be created and then in another post that it can, then you are, by definition, contradicting yourself. Either energy can be created or it can't be. You can't have it both ways.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So if we didn't know where the hydrogen originally came from in stars, we would be unable to discern how nuclear fusion in stars works?

The Hydrogen source is important for any theory.
Based on the BBT it had been created about 380,000 years after the bang.
Based on my model it is created constantly at the SMBH' accretion disc.

You'd have to say where the original energy came from in your model too in order to get everything started.

Thanks for your question.
Based on my model the time and space was always there in the infinite Universe.
We all know that even in an empty space there is some sort of energy.
So, based on my model, at some point of time due to a small bang a single BH had been created.
Once this single BH is there with ability for creating EM, in the empty infinite space, then my model can work and transform the EM radiation + gravity to new particle pairs creation.
As one particle falls in the other one is ejected outwards.
Over time the BH would gain more mass and the ejected particles would set an accretion disc around the BH.
By their Tidal gravity force, they would increase the internal heat in the BH which would increase its EM energy.
That single BH would be converted to a SMBH with billions of stars around it.
It would create new BHs that would eventually take control on all the space in our infinite Universe.
Therefore, in my model only one single BH is needed to get our wonderful infinite Universe
My model is based on Darwin model.
Darwin claimed that all the variety of life had been evolved from a single Ameba.
In my model all the galaxies and stars in the infinite Universe had been evolved from a single BH..
No need for dark matter.
No need for dark energy.
Just a single BH with ability for EM radiation.

If you say in one post that energy can't be created and then in another post that it can, then you are, by definition, contradicting yourself. Either energy can be created or it can't be. You can't have it both ways.

I always said that in my model gravity force can be transformed into tidal energy.

[Bored chemist]

Based on the BBT it had been created about 380,000 years after the bang.
Based on my model it is created constantly at the SMBH' accretion disc.

And only one of those is consistent with the laws of physics.

Over time the BH would gain more mass

That's pretty obviously breaking the conservation of mass, so we know it is wrong.

set an accretion disc around the BH.

The orbital mechanics of that can't work.
An orbit is associated with a particular energy (essentially the energy you would get if you dropped a particle from that height).
And there's no plausible mechanism for a BH to spit out particles with exactly the energy needed to reach the disk, but no further.

By their Tidal gravity force, they would increase the internal heat in the BH which would increase its EM energy.

That would only happen at the expense of their KE, which would mean they would fall back into the BH.

I always said that in my model gravity force can be transformed into tidal energy.

That may happen in your "model" but it does not, and can not happen in the real universe.
It proves that your model is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:33:57
Over time the BH would gain more mass

That's pretty obviously breaking the conservation of mass, so we know it is wrong.

The conservation law doesn't prevent from gravity to transfer tidal energy.
You know that and all the science community know that.

there's no plausible mechanism for a BH to spit out particles with exactly the energy needed to reach the disk, but no further.

Yes, the BH has a perfect mechanism.
It is called EM energy.
The new created particle pair carries positive mass with negative charge to each other.
Therefore, due to Lorentz force as one particle is forced to fall in while the other one with negative charged (compare to the first one) is forced to be elected outwards.
What is the problem with that?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:33:57
By their Tidal gravity force, they would increase the internal heat in the BH which would increase its EM energy.

That would only happen at the expense of their KE

Ok.
We have already discussed about it in the past.
If I remember correctly, you have stated that due to tidal force/energy the orbital object is spiraling outwards.
That is perfectly ok with me.
So, why do you claim now that:

which would mean they would fall back into the BH.

That may happen in your "model" but it does not, and can not happen in the real universe.
It proves that your model is wrong.

Sorry, you can't use the conditions of one modeling for other modeling.
Based on the BBT, 13.8 By ago there was no time and no space.
I think that it is totally incorrect.
The space was always there and the time was always ticking.
Therefore, while our scientists can set the conditions for their BBT, I can set the conditions for my modeling.
As they can set the conditions for the BBT and even twist the time and space, you can't prevent me to claim that gravity force can transfer tidal energy.
The BBT is just useless as based on its conditions new energy can't be created.
Therefore, it is your obligation to set the BBT in the garbage and look for better modeling.
I wonder why you and Kryptid support the BBT.
Is it because you estimate that this theory has a perfect fit to all the observations and meet all the laws including new energy creation? or is it just because there are other 100,000 BBT scientists that believe in that theory?
We all know that it can't explain the creation of energy.
So, as it clearly can't work as a modeling for our universe, can I assume that you are BBT believers just in order to join the mainstream and be considered as the good guys while I represent the bad Guys as my modeling might kill the BBT?

[Bored chemist]

The conservation law doesn't prevent from gravity to transfer tidal energy.

No, but in the same way that you can transfer water from one container to another, you have to stop when the first container is empty.

What is the problem with that?

It isn't science.
It makes no sense.

If I remember correctly,

You don't.

you have stated that due to tidal force/energy the orbital object is spiraling outwards.

No

I'm saying it's more complicated than that, but irrelevant because your hallucination requires a breach of the conservation laws.

Sorry, you can't use the conditions of one modeling for other modeling.

Don't be silly.
We do it all the time.

I can set the conditions for my modeling.

No.
The laws of physics set the conditions.
One condition is the conservation of mass/ energy.
And you have to obey that if you are going to do science.

As they can set the conditions for the BBT

Nobody set the conditions for the BB.
Nobody was there.

We know that the universe obeys laws.
We didn't make those laws.

The BBT is just useless as based on its conditions new energy can't be created.

No, because it happened at the start of the universe.
That removes the symmetry condition.
And that means the conservation of mass/ energy need not apply.

Therefore, it is your obligation to set the BBT in the garbage and look for better modeling.

Your lack of  understanding does not oblige us to do anything.

I wonder why you and Kryptid support the BBT.

It fits the data.

We all know that it can't explain the creation of energy.

It doesn't need to.
That law didn't apply at the time.

So, as it clearly can't work

It works; but you don't understand why.

Why don't you learn science?

my modeling might kill the BBT?

An idea which a high school student can show is wrong will not kill the BBT.

I represent the bad Guys

Not "bad" just ignorant; why don't you learn?

[Kryptid]

The Hydrogen source is important for any theory.

So you're saying that if we didn't know where the Sun's hydrogen originally came from, that would somehow prevent us from knowing that it is powered by nuclear fusion?

So, based on my model, at some point of time due to a small bang a single BH had been created.

What was the source of energy for that "small bang"?

I always said that in my model gravity force can be transformed into tidal energy.

So you believe that energy can be created.

We all know that it can't explain the creation of energy.

It was never supposed to explain where the Universe's energy came from any more than the theory of nuclear fusion was supposed to explain where the Universe's hydrogen came from.

[Just thinking]

I think the formation of hydrogen is due to the fact that hydrogen is such a small particle collection that the electrons pulled it together at some time after the BB or LB. As we can imagine the formation of matter starts with the very smallest of matter.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear BC
You have stated that the BBT doesn't deliver the energy and it is the result of the energy being delivered.

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

Krptid have also confirmed that the BBT was never supposed to explain where the Universe's energy came from:

It was never supposed to explain where the Universe's energy came from

Your messages proves that you don't have any clue how the energy for the BBT had been created.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 12:33:50
The BBT is just useless as based on its conditions new energy can't be created.

No, because it happened at the start of the universe.
That removes the symmetry condition.
And that means the conservation of mass/ energy need not apply.

If you twist the time you don't create new energy.
By that time twist you might transform energy from one system to another, but energy won't pop up just because you claim that the BBT clock time starts to work.
So again - if you think that the BBT can create new energy at the first moment of its creation - then please show how it works.
We have no interest in energy delivered. Only in new energy creation.
If you can't do so, it is your obligation to set the BBT deep in the garbage as any theory (including the BBT) can't work without valid source of energy.
Let's first verify that key issue.
Even if you don't like my modeling, a theory without valid source of energy is just useless theory.
Once we agree that the BBT is useless without valid source of energy, we will continue the discussion about my modeling.

Dear Kryptid

It was never supposed to explain where the Universe's energy came from any more than the theory of nuclear fusion was supposed to explain where the Universe's hydrogen came from.

I don't understand why you repeat the same question.
As I have stated, the energy of the universe should be covered by a theory of the Universe as the BBT or my modeling.
In the nuclear fusion discussion we don't need to verify the source of the energy as it is already there (from the BBT or my modeling).
However, you can't just assume that in the BBT the energy is there as the main task of the BBT (or any other modeling for the Universe) is to show the source of energy for that modeling.
Without it - any modeling (including the BBT) is useless.

[Bored chemist]

Your messages proves that you don't have any clue how the energy for the BBT had been created.

Nobody ever said it did.

What point did you think you were making?

[Bored chemist]

If you twist the time you don't create new energy.

Pointing out that the rules of physics changed when the universe started is not "twisting time" ; it is stating the obvious.

By that time twist you might transform energy from one system to another, but energy won't pop up just because you claim that the BBT clock time starts to work.

And again; nobody said it did.

If you can't do so, it is your obligation to set the BBT deep in the garbage as any theory (including the BBT) can't work without valid source of energy.

Well, if you believe that, you need to ditch your idea because it has no energy source.

[Bored chemist]

Once we agree that the BBT is useless without valid source of energy, we will continue the discussion about my modeling.

Your model is useless because it is "without valid source of energy".

Why do you not see that?