[Dave Lev (OP)]

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

How can you call a Universe without time and without space "the Obvious?"
I claim that the space was always there and the time was also always there.
However, you are the master of the BBT and you are fully allowed to claim what are the conditions for the BBT.

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?

So you fully confirm that you have no valid source for the creation of the BBT energy.
You can't offer a wonderful car without offering the petrol for that car.
A car without petrol is just useless.
In the same token, as the BBT can't offer a valid source for the created energy then there is a severe contradiction in that theory and therefore it is useless.
That by itself is good enough to set the BBT in the garbage for good.
Our scientists don't have a basic clue what is the real size of the Universe.
It is their obligation to tell us what is the current real size.
If we will discover that they have an error then this theory is garbage.
One last question:
What kind of data/observation would convince you that the BBT is useless?
Or, we should assume that the BBT is going to stay with us forever and ever under any contradicted observation/evidence that we might find?

[Kryptid]

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

Are you finally understanding that?

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

I never said that I 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.

Then why haven't you set your own model "deep in the garbage" since you don't have a valid source of energy for the "small bang" that created the first black hole?

As I have stated, the energy of the universe should be covered by a theory of the Universe as the BBT or my modeling.

It makes no sense to require something of a theory that it was never intended to cover in the first place. This is exactly like evolution denialists who claim that lack of proof for how abiogenesis could occur means that evolution is false. It's a straw-man argument.

In the nuclear fusion discussion we don't need to verify the source of the energy as it is already there

Guess what? The energy for the Big Bang was "already there" as well. You can't give one a pass and then not give the other a pass as well.

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.

Now you are contradicting yourself, because you also said, "Krptid have also confirmed that the BBT was never supposed to explain where the Universe's energy came from".

In the same token, as the BBT can't offer a valid source for the created energy then there is a severe contradiction in that theory and therefore it is useless.

Then your model is useless because you can't offer a valid source of the energy for the "small bang" that created the first black hole.

[Bored chemist]

How can you call a Universe without time and without space "the Obvious?"

Nobody did

[Bored chemist]

I claim that the space was always there and the time was also always there.

And real life says that if it had been, it would have "worn out" by now thanks to the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You can't offer a wonderful car without offering the petrol for that car.
A car without petrol is just useless.

Ford don't sell petrol.

So you fully confirm that you have no valid source for the creation of the BBT energy.

Well, I did already point out that we have an idea where the energy comes from,

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.

but you keep ignoring it.
Why do you ignore facts?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:26:12
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.

Then why haven't you set your own model "deep in the garbage" since you don't have a valid source of energy for the "small bang" that created the first black hole?

In my model only the energy for tinny BH is needed.
In the BBT, you need energy for the entire universe to be delivered at just one moment in time (13.8 By ago – not before and not after) and at almost an infinite small point while there is no space anywhere outside that point
Just in the Observable universe there are about 400,000,000,000 (4 10^11) galaxies with about 250,000,000,000 (2.5 10^11) stars in each one.
So, there are about 10^23 stars in only in the observable universe.
For each star in the galaxy there is at least one outside.
Hence we already need 2 10^23
Our scientists claim that based on the BBT theory about one particle out of a million would survive the annihilation phase.
Therefore, the real energy that is needed to have those 2 10^23 stars is equivalent to 2 10^29 stars
This represents only 4% of the total energy (due to dark matter and dark energy).
I also didn't take in my account all the energy that had been transformed into heat and dissipated during the last 13 By.
As the universe is much bigger than the observable universe we can estimate that much more that that is needed.
If the Universe is infinite than the BBT energy must also be infinite.

So, you don't care that almost infinite energy is needed for the BBT.
You just wonder how my modeling could get energy for a single BH.
Is it real?

We all agree that without energy for my modeling or for the BBT those two modeling should be set in the garbage.
However, what is the chance to get an energy for a single BH (which is equivalent to the energy in a single star or even less than that) to an energy which is equivalent to 10^30 stars and up to the infinity?
It seems to me that only if you have a confirmed contract with some divan power (as God) to create the BBT that unbelievable ultra high requested energy, this theory could work.
So, would you kindly present the contract that you have with that divan power to create & supply the energy that is needed for the BBT?
Otherwise you are just wasting your time with that useless theory.

[Bored chemist]

In my model only the energy for tinny BH is needed.

Then where does the rest of the energy in the universe come from?

[Bored chemist]

So, you don't care that almost infinite energy is needed for the BBT.
You just wonder how my modeling could get energy for a single BH.
Is it real?

No, it isn't real. It is nonsense which you made up.
Because, to make the universe, you need enough energy to make the universe.
This is true whether you make it via a big bang or via your fairy tale.

So the huge number you calculated is just as "impossible" for your model as it is for the BB.

But the universe is here.
So we know that it got the energy somehow.
So we know that it s possible to have got all that energy- at the start of time.
But we also know that we can not have received it since.
So we know you are wrong.

We all agree that without energy for my modeling or for the BBT those two modeling should be set in the garbage.

Yes.
In the case of the BBT the best available hypothesis for the energy source is this sort of thing
https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2007.399

And in the case of your idea the source of the energy is some "magic" which we know is impossible.

So, which idea should we put in the bin?
Should we bin the possible one, or the impossible one?

Do you understand why science says we should throw out the impossible one?

[Kryptid]

In my model only the energy for tinny BH is needed.

So where did that energy come from? Until you answer that question, the pot is calling the kettle black.

However, what is the chance to get an energy for a single BH (which is equivalent to the energy in a single star or even less than that) to an energy which is equivalent to 10^30 stars and up to the infinity?

A judge won't let a bank robber go free just because he stole one thousand dollars instead of one million dollars. If it's impossible for energy to come out of nowhere, then it's just as impossible for a single subatomic particle's worth of energy to come out of nowhere as it is for an entire universe's energy to come out of nowhere. There is no such thing as something being just a little bit impossible. Either something is possible or it isn't.

So is it possible for energy to come out of nowhere?

We all agree that without energy for my modeling or for the BBT those two modeling should be set in the garbage.

I never agreed to that: that is your claim. That being said, why haven't you decided to put both of those models in the garbage yet?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Yes.
In the case of the BBT the best available hypothesis for the energy source is this sort of thing
https://www.nature.com/articles/news.2007.399

That article from 2007 is clearly not updates and I couldn't find any real data about the total stars in the entire Universe.
Based on my simple calculation I have found that the Minimal energy in a Universe radius of only 13.4 LY  (visible Universe) is equivalent to more than 10^30 stars.
So what is your estimation?
In the following article our scientists estimate (in 2019) the size of the Universe:
https://www.livescience.com/how-big-universe.html
1. Based on the BBT – It is stated that based on the BBT age of 13.8 By the maximal radius of the Universe should be 46.5 By:
"46.5 billion light-years away, based on calculations of universe’s expansion since the big bang".
2. Based on the update calculations - One study found that the actual universe could be at least 250 times the size of the 46.5 billion light-years we can actually see (which means 11,625 Bly or 11.6 Trillion LY)
3. Infinite - But Kinney has other ideas: "There's no evidence that the universe is finite," he said, "It might very well go on forever."
Therefore, the maximal size of the Universe based on the BBT is (based on the maximal edge of 13.8 By) is 46.6 BLy.
Don't you think that the BBT must be set in the garbage if the size of the Universe is bigger than that?
So, how can you fit the real universe of  11.6 Trillion Years or even the possibility for infinite Universe in only 13.8 By?
Even if you would find some brilliant idea of twisting the time or space to get that big Universe, do you have an estimation for the requested energy that is needed for that Universe?
I will try to Help you.
The sphere in the radius of 11.6 Trillion LY is bigger than 13.4 Gly by about 865^3 = 6.47 10^8
Hence, if it was almost unbelievable to get the equivalent energy in 10^30 stars for a universe radius with 13.4 Bly, do you really believe that the BBT can somehow get the energy of 6.47 10^38 stars which is needed for a universe size of 11.6 Trillion LY?
What about Infinite Universe?
How can you get infinite energy of Infinite stars to fit them all in an infinite Universe in only 13.8 B years?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:53:47
In my model only the energy for tinny BH is needed.

So where did that energy come from? Until you answer that question, the pot is calling the kettle black.

Why it is allowed for you and our scientists to get almost infinite stars energy at the Big Bang and I can't get just one tinny star energy?
If you can twist the time 13.4 By ago, why I can't do so at the infinity time ago?

A judge won't let a bank robber go free just because he stole one thousand dollars instead of one million dollars. If it's impossible for energy to come out of nowhere, then it's just as impossible for a single subatomic particle's worth of energy to come out of nowhere as it is for an entire universe's energy to come out of nowhere. There is no such thing as something being just a little bit impossible. Either something is possible or it isn't.

Sorry, an average person doesn't need to robe the bank for only one thousand dollars.
He can get it without robe the bank.
However, if he needs the One Million Dollars, then he must robe the bank.
So, an empty Universe can offer energy in one tinny BH at some point of time.

So is it possible for energy to come out of nowhere?

Yes it is.
we know that there is energy in the empty space.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/study-about-nothing
"Constant fluctuations in energy can spontaneously create mass not just out of thin air, but out of absolutely nothing at all."

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 08:53:47
We all agree that without energy for my modeling or for the BBT those two modeling should be set in the garbage.

I never agreed to that: that is your claim. That being said, why haven't you decided to put both of those models in the garbage yet?

I would like to remind you that so far you didn't specify what kind of observation/evidence would convince you that the BBT is useless?
Don't you think that the BBT must be expired at some maximal size of the Universe?
Are you sure that the BBT MUST stay with us forever and ever and ever and ever...under any sort of contradiction?

[Bored chemist]

Why it is allowed for you and our scientists to get almost infinite stars energy at the Big Bang and I can't get just one tinny star energy?

How many ways are you going to ask that question
I keep answering it; but you just ask it again.
That's the sort of thing which makes you look like an idiot, or a troll.
The answer is still the same: at the start of the universe, the laws of physics were not symmetrical in time, but after that point, they are symmetrical.

we know that there is energy in the empty space.

Yes, but it can only "borrow" it.
 I already explained this.

Sorry - In our Universe there is no loan.

Yes there is; the amount you  borrow determines the time you get to pay it back.
It's called the uncertainty principle.


(the uncertainty principle does not allow you to borrow a whole universe worth of mass for 14 billion years- just in case you wondered.)

Why do you not pay attention?

[Bored chemist]

I would like to remind you that so far you didn't specify what kind of observation/evidence would convince you that the BBT is useless?

It would have to contradict actual evidence.
For example, you saying "The universe might be infinite, in which case the BBT would be impossible"  is not a reason for me to change my mind because I can simply point out that it might not be infinite.

Why did you not think that through for yourself?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I would like to remind you that so far you didn't specify what kind of observation/evidence would convince you that the BBT is useless?

It would have to contradict actual evidence.
For example, you saying "The universe might be infinite, in which case the BBT would be impossible"  is not a reason for me to change my mind because I can simply point out that it might not be infinite.

1. Infinity - If you would know for sure that the Universe is infinite, would you agree that the BBT is useless?
2. Universe temp - Our scientists claim that the Universe temp at the Big bang moment was very high.
Even at age of 500 My the Universe was still compact and hot.
We can clearly observe far end galaxies that their estimated age is 13.3 Gy
So, if we discover that the temp of those galaxies is absolutely the same as ours, does it means that the BBT is useless?
3. Space expansion - How do we know that the galaxies are expanding due to space expansion and not due to a self velocity in space?
Do we have any possibility to measure directly the expansion of the space?
If we would verify one day that the expansion in space is zero (even for a distance of 13.4 BLY) would you agree that the BBT is useless?

[Bored chemist]

1. Infinity - If you would know for sure that the Universe is infinite, would you agree that the BBT is useless?

No.
There may be a way to get everything in at once.
After all, an infinite number of infinitely small things don't take up much space.

So, if we discover that the temp of those galaxies is absolutely the same as ours, does it means that the BBT is useless?

No, because they have been heated up by fusion in stars and so has our Galaxy.
There's no reason why the heating must be exactly the same, but they might be.

Space expansion - How do we know that the galaxies are expanding due to space expansion and not due to a self velocity in space?

We see things that are further than 13.8 GLY away.

When you post these questions, do you actually think about them first?

do you think
"This is a hard one; he will have to think about it",
or is it just
"Here's another repeat of a question I asked and a few other easy things thrown in"?

Do you not realise that your questions are easy, but repetitive and dull?

[Kryptid]

Why it is allowed for you and our scientists to get almost infinite stars energy at the Big Bang and I can't get just one tinny star energy?

I'm not the one claiming that both theories have to explain the source of their energy: you are. So what is your explanation?

Sorry, an average person doesn't need to robe the bank for only one thousand dollars.
He can get it without robe the bank.
However, if he needs the One Million Dollars, then he must robe the bank.

I see my analogy went over your head...

So, an empty Universe can offer energy in one tinny BH at some point of time.

How? Where did the energy come from?

Yes it is.
we know that there is energy in the empty space.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/study-about-nothing
"Constant fluctuations in energy can spontaneously create mass not just out of thin air, but out of absolutely nothing at all."

Okay, so what is the upper limit on how much energy is allowed to be created at the beginning of the Universe?

I would like to remind you that so far you didn't specify what kind of observation/evidence would convince you that the BBT is useless?

Observations that contradict predictions made by the Big Bang theory (and I mean observations that actually contradict the predictions, not the straw-men that you keep providing).

Don't you think that the BBT must be expired at some maximal size of the Universe?

No. The Big Bang theory doesn't set an upper limit on the Universe's total size.

Are you sure that the BBT MUST stay with us forever and ever and ever and ever...under any sort of contradiction?

No and I never said that.

1. Infinity - If you would know for sure that the Universe is infinite, would you agree that the BBT is useless?

No, the Big Bang theory works just fine for an infinitely-large Universe.

I'm still waiting for you to build a perpetual motion machine in order to prove us wrong. Why not use a water wheel? Water wheels are powered by gravity so surely you must think it's possible to build a water wheel that provides unlimited energy. Why not get to building one?

[Origin]

Universe temp - Our scientists claim that the Universe temp at the Big bang moment was very high.
Even at age of 500 My the Universe was still compact and hot.

No it wasn't.  Even after 67 pages you are still clueless about the BBT, which you rail against.  When the universe was only 20 million years old the average temperature was below 100 C.

Space expansion - How do we know that the galaxies are expanding due to space expansion and not due to a self velocity in space?

The galaxies aren't expanding, but I think you meant 'moving'.  I wonder how many times this has been explained to you over the last 67 pages; 5 times? 10times?
If the recession velocity was due to all the galaxies velocity through space, that would mean that the earth is the center of the universe. In addition if galaxies were moving through space it would make no sense that the farther the galaxy is from earth the faster it moves.

would you agree that the BBT is useless?

What you keep asking is:  if the BBT were falsified would the BBT be falsified... yes it would.  But your points are all trolling, pseudoscience drivel or astoundingly illogical, so they are not close to falsifying the BBT.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:36:16
Yes it is.
we know that there is energy in the empty space.
https://www.insidescience.org/news/study-about-nothing
"Constant fluctuations in energy can spontaneously create mass not just out of thin air, but out of absolutely nothing at all."

Okay, so what is the upper limit on how much energy is allowed to be created at the beginning of the Universe?

No more than one tinny BH.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 15:36:16
I would like to remind you that so far you didn't specify what kind of observation/evidence would convince you that the BBT is useless?

Observations that contradict predictions made by the Big Bang theory (and I mean observations that actually contradict the predictions, not the straw-men that you keep providing).

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:59:16
1. Infinity - If you would know for sure that the Universe is infinite, would you agree that the BBT is useless?

No.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:59:16
So, if we discover that the temp of those galaxies is absolutely the same as ours, does it means that the BBT is useless?

No,

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 17:59:16
Universe temp - Our scientists claim that the Universe temp at the Big bang moment was very high.

Even at age of 500 My the Universe was still compact and hot.
No it wasn't.

So, don't you have even one observation that could kill the BBT?
Just nothing for all of you?
Are you all sure that the BBT is the Best of the Best.
Could it be that you are just afraid from the BBT that you all can't even say one word against it?
I can give you many observations that could kill my modeling and you can't offer even one.
So how could it be that none of you can offer even one issue or negative aspect with the BBT?
It almost sounds as some sort of the Mighty BBT dictator.
We are not living today in North Korea or under the Taliban
What would happen to you if you would dare to say one word against this master of the Universe that is called BBT?
Are you going to lose your life?
If no, please find one negative aspect.

Even after 67 pages you are still clueless about the BBT,

It is very clear by now that even if God by himself will tell you all face to face 67 times or 67,000 times that the BBT is useless - it won't help.
For you - BBT is the Ultimate master of all the masters.

if galaxies were moving through space it would make no sense that the farther the galaxy is from earth the faster it moves.

I clearly explain how my modeling solves this problem.

If the recession velocity was due to all the galaxies velocity through space, that would mean that the earth is the center of the universe.

No
Our real Universe is infinite.
That is correct by 100%!
We all know that the farther the galaxy its recession velocity is higher.
Therefore, we can only get radiation from a limited sphere.
Hence, at any location that we would be in the infinite Universe we would get a radiation from a finite sphere and think that we are at the center of the Universe.
The CMBR is the same at any location in the infinite universe and it would stay at the same level forever and ever and ever.

[Bored chemist]

Our real Universe is infinite.
That is correct by 100%!

Did you go and check, or are you making it up?

[Bored chemist]

So, don't you have even one observation that could kill the BBT?
Just nothing for all of you?

There are, in principle, plenty of things that would kill the BBT.
But we haven't seen any of them.
(and they are not the things you are talking about)

But we have seen (and mathematically proved) a thing which kills your idea. So it is dead.
Mourn it, and move on.

I clearly explain how my modeling solves this problem.

You don't clearly explain anything.

Therefore, we can only get radiation from a limited sphere.
Hence, at any location that we would be in the infinite Universe we would get a radiation from a finite sphere and think that we are at the center of the Universe.

And we would see exactly the same in a finite, but large universe, wouldn't we?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Our real Universe is infinite.
That is correct by 100%!

Did you go and check, or are you making it up?

Based on my modeling the Universe MUST be infinite.
If it is finite then I will set my modeling in the garbage.

There are, in principle, plenty of things that would kill the BBT.
But we haven't seen any of them.
(and they are not the things you are talking about)

So please share it with us.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 20:32:00
I clearly explain how my modeling solves this problem.
You don't clearly explain anything.

I can do it again

And we would see exactly the same in a finite, but large universe, wouldn't we?

What is your question?

[Kryptid]

And what evidence do you have that the upper limit on the amount of energy you are allowed to get in an infinite universe for free is only that for a "tiny black hole". Show us the math you used to arrive at this conclusion.

I'm still waiting for your perpetual motion machine to be invented.