[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

How can we agree on something that you say no and I say yes.
I claim that gravity force can contribute Tidal energy and you say no.

[Bored chemist]

I claim that gravity force can contribute Tidal energy and you say no.

No
The rules of dimensional analysis say no.
So you are actually wrong.
Why don't you accept this?

[Bored chemist]

I can do it again

Yes, you can fail to explain anything as often as you wish.
But it doesn't help, so please don't bother.

[Bored chemist]

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

Your model is garbage, no matter how big the universe is.
Your model is dead.
Why are you still carrying the carcass around with you?
It stinks.
Leave it to rot somewhere else and walk away from it.

[Bored chemist]

So please share it with us.

The obvious answer is anything older than 14 billion years.

Again; did you think it was a difficult 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.

How can we agree on something that you say no and I say yes.
I claim that gravity force can contribute Tidal energy and you say no.

I see neither math nor a perpetual motion machine in this reply.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on Today at 21:03:29
And we would see exactly the same in a finite, but large universe, wouldn't we?
What is your question?

It's written there in front of you.
"wouldn't we see exactly the same in a finite, but large universe?"

Was your screen not working or something?

[Bored chemist]

I see neither math nor a perpetual motion machine in this reply.

That's because he's a troll or an idiot.

[Bored chemist]

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?

[Origin]

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

That is correct there have been no observations or experiments that have falsified the BBT.  Of course there are many things that could falsify the theory, but none of these have been seen.

Could it be that you are just afraid from the BBT that you all can't even say one word against it?

No, I am not afraid, I have nothing invested in the BBT to be afraid for.  It just happens to be the best current theory.

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.

That was a strange little rant.  No scientist thinks the BBT is the perfect end all theory.  There is absolutely no doubt that it will be modified in the future as more knowledge is gained.  However your ideas are just wrong and absurd.
 

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.

It isn't God making silly claims, it is just you.  The BBT is just one of many theories that is proving to be very useful in understanding the universe.

I clearly explain how my modeling solves this problem.

There is no problem.  Your pseudoscience doesn't explain anything.

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

Does it feel good to have such strong faith?

[Kryptid]

I can give you many observations that could kill my modeling and you can't offer even one.

Okay, I'll give you some examples of things that would be evidence against the Big Bang theory:

(1) The discovery of a large number of new galaxies that show there is no net relationship between their distance from us and their redshift values. In other words, the discovery that the redshift of galaxies is random instead of increasing with distance.

(2) The discovery of objects that are too old to be accounted for by the Big Bang theory. Black dwarf stars, blue dwarf stars and iron stars are a few examples.

(3) A reassessment/remeasuring of the evidence which shows that the visible universe is either significantly larger or significantly smaller than we thought it was (the fact that the visible universe is about the same size as a black hole equal in mass to the visible universe is consider evidence for the Big Bang. Take note that I am talking about the visible universe when I say this, not the entire universe).

(4) New evidence that shows the abundance of chemical elements is inconsistent with the Big Bang theory (the BBT predicts that hydrogen should be far and away the most common element in the Universe, followed by helium and then the rest of the periodic table).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I see neither math nor a perpetual motion machine in this reply.

OK
m = particle mass
E=Particle energy = mc^2
The requested energy for two particles (pair) = 2E = 2mc^2
As one particle falls in, the other one is ejected outwards.
Therefore, while the SMBH invest 2E from its EM energy for the particle pair creation, it actually lose only one E as it gets back the other E as a falling particle.
That falling particle comes at the speed of light. Therefore it also contributes its mass and its falling kinetic energy at the collision moment with the SMBH.
So, the SMBH is actually losing less than one E for the pair creation.
The other one that is ejected outwards into the accretion disc orbits at almost the speed of light.
It also contributes tidal energy to the SMBH.
However, the same EM field that push it into the accretion disc will force it also to be ejected eventually from the disc to the Bulge as UFO.
It will first join one of the G gas cloud.
By using the ultra high SMBH gravity force the Gas cloud will use that particle to form new S star.
As those G gas clouds and S stars orbits around the SMBH, they would contribute significant tidal heat to that SMBH which should compensate the losing EM radiation due to the ejected particle.
Due to that tidal transformation, all the new formed S stars have to spiral outwards (as all planets are spiraling outwards from the Sun).
Therefore, the SMBH would NEVER EVER eat any S star or G gas cloud.
It just will convert their tidal energy (as they drift/spiral outwards) into EM energy and gain more mass in that process.
Therefore, as there will be more G gas clouds and more S stars around the SMBH, it will gain more tidal heat energy.
As the Internal heat of the SMBH would be higher, it would have higher EM radiation.
As the EM radiation of the SMBH would be higher, it would create more particle pair.
More particle pairs would contribute more falling particles that increase the mass of the SMBH.
In the same token, more particle pairs would contribute more plasma in the accretion disc, more UFO, more G gas cloud and more stars.
Eventually, that SMBH would create millions and billions stars.
All stars are spiraling outwards and therefore, we get the wonderful shape of spiral galaxy.
Therefore, all the matter for the 250 B stars in the MW has been created over there at the SMBH' accretion disc.
All of them are brothers. Not even one comes from outside.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 21:09:17
So please share it with us.

The obvious answer is anything older than 14 billion years.

Our scientists claim that in that due to the expansion rate, in 13.8 By the radius of the Universe might be 46.5 BLY.
It can't be bigger.
Therefore, if the Universe is bigger the BBT is useless.

Okay, I'll give you some examples of things that would be evidence against the Big Bang theory:

Thanks

(1) The discovery of a large number of new galaxies that show there is no net relationship between their distance from us and their redshift values. In other words, the discovery that the redshift of galaxies is random instead of increasing with distance.

Perfect fit with my modeling, as galaxies are moving randomly in all directions. The space is fixed. It doesn't move.

(2) The discovery of objects that are too old to be accounted for by the Big Bang theory. Black dwarf stars, blue dwarf stars and iron stars are a few examples.

Perfect fit with my modeling as the real age of the Universe is infinite.

(3) A reassessment/remeasuring of the evidence which shows that the visible universe is either significantly larger or significantly smaller than we thought

Based on my modeling the VISIBLE Universe is Significantly larger!!!

(4) New evidence that shows the abundance of chemical elements is inconsistent with the Big Bang theory (the BBT predicts that hydrogen should be far and away the most common element in the Universe, followed by helium and then the rest of the periodic table).

Based on my modeling all the matter (ALL the Atoms and all Molecular) are constantly created at any SMBH' accretion disc at any location in the entire Universe.
Do you thing that this kind of matter creation fits better the observation?

[Bored chemist]

As one particle falls in, the other one is ejected outwards.
Therefore, while the SMBH invest 2E from its EM energy for the particle pair creation, it actually lose only one E as it gets back the other E as a falling particle.

Except, for Hawking radiation to work, the one which falls in has negative mass.
Which is why
(1) mass is conserved and
(2) the BH evaporates.


So we are still waiting for the maths, rather than your mistakes.

Therefore, the SMBH would NEVER EVER eat any S star or G gas cloud.

We have pictures of it happening.
We have the LIGO recordings of the gravity waves which prove it.

Universe might be 46.5 BLY.
It can't be bigger.
Therefore, if the Universe is bigger the BBT is useless.

And, once again, you fail to understand the issues, but think you are the clever one.

Quote from: Kryptid on Today at 14:46:53
(2) The discovery of objects that are too old to be accounted for by the Big Bang theory. Black dwarf stars, blue dwarf stars and iron stars are a few examples.
Perfect fit with my modeling as the real age of the Universe is infinite.

You didn't understand this did you?

If the universe was much older than about 14 GY then we would see iron stars and blue dwarf stars.
But we do not see them.
So we know the universe is not very old.

And yet you are so stupid you think that proves your idea.
LOL

Based on my modeling the VISIBLE Universe is Significantly larger!!!

But we know your model is wrong.
More importantly, you having a model  which says the moon is made of cheese is not evidence that the moon is made of cheese, is it?
You really must struggle in your day-to-day life with your failure to understand cause and effect.

Do you thing that this matter creation fits better the observation?

No, because it is impossible.

What ratios of hydrogen to deuterium, helium and lithium does your model predict?

[Kryptid]

OK
m = particle mass
E=Particle energy = mc^2
The requested energy for two particles (pair) = 2E = 2mc^2

Now show me the calculations that support your assertion that the amount of energy you are allowed to get for nothing is only that of a "tiny black hole". What is the exact mass of this black hole?

Perfect fit with my modeling, as galaxies are moving randomly in all directions.

Well, that's not what the data says. The data says that galaxies further from us have a net redshift.

Perfect fit with my modeling as the real age of the Universe is infinite.

So what object(s) have we discovered that are confirmed to be older than 13.8 billion years old?

Based on my modeling the VISIBLE Universe is Significantly larger!!!

When was it ever measured to be larger than what scientists currently think it is?

Do you thing that this kind of matter creation fits better the observation?

No.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:27:40
Perfect fit with my modeling, as galaxies are moving randomly in all directions.

Well, that's not what the data says. The data says that galaxies further from us have a net redshift.

I have explained it in the past and I will do it again:
Based on my modeling, there is no need to set any space Expansion. We actually see the far end galaxies as they are moving away from us at almost the speed of light while there is no change in the space.
So how it really works:
The first BH would generate new stars and new BH around it.
Over time all the new stars BH's…would be ejected outwards from the galaxy.
Our milky way acts as one of the biggest stars sprinkler in the Universe. Therefore our scientists claim that there are more stars outside the galaxy than in the all the galaxies.
Ejection Velocity (Ve) – The average velocity of the ejected Stars/BHs from the Galaxy.
When the first galaxy in the Universe (let's call it - first generation) would become massive enough to create new BH it would start to eject its BH children outwards randomly at different direction. Each one would be ejected at Ve velocity.
Over time those Baby BHs (second generation) would be massive enough to generate their own baby BHs (third generation).
Maturity Time (Tm) - The time that it takes to a new born BH till it starts to generate its own baby BHs.
In order to understand the redshift, let's assume that all the new babies are drifting away at the same line direction.
So, the second generations of BHs are drifting away from the first BH at Ve. The third next generation will drift away from the first BH at 2Ve. After n generations, the relative velocity between the first generation to the n generation would be Ve* (n-1).
Based on my calculation:
Let's assume that Ve is equal to the orbital velocity of our Sun around the Galaxy = 220 Km/s or 0.073% of the speed of light. Therefore, after 1371 generations, the last one will move at a speed which is almost the speed of light (relatively to the first generation).
There is a clear observation for the ejection process. We see that Triangulum (relatively small spiral galaxy – 40 Billion stars)  is directly drifting away from it mother Andromeda (A supper massive spiral galaxy with about one Million Billion stars)
As they are drifting away from each other, they set hydrogen "bridge" between them:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/120611193632.htm
"The new observations confirm a disputed 2004 discovery of hydrogen gas streaming between the giant Andromeda Galaxy, also known as M31, and the Triangulum Galaxy, or M33."
This Hydrogen bridge is like an Umbilical cord which connects the mother galaxy – Andromeda' to her Embryo – Triangulum.
So, we have clear OBSERVATION that Triangulum was very in the past very close to Andromeda.
If we would set those galaxies (at their current size) so close together, their gravity force them to collide with each other.
Therefore, the only possibility for Triangulum to be today relatively so massive and in the past to be near Andromeda is just if is gain mass as it drifts outwards.
Therefore, Andromeda must be the mother of Triangulum.
Once we accept this observation, we understand how the whole universe really works.

[Bored chemist]

Over time all the new stars BH's…would be ejected outwards from the galaxy.

Things still do not fall up.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Over time all the new stars BH's…would be ejected outwards from the galaxy.

Things still do not fall up.

It seems that you and all our scientists are missing some significant information about orbital system and how they really work, although you have full data on billions systems.
So, let me explain it to you:
1. Orbital objects NEVER fall in (unless in a very rare and specific conditions- as Very close objects as phobos and two nearby similar size BHs as we observe in Ligo).
2. Tidal force/heat exists at any orbital system. Therefore all the planets and moons are spiraling/drifting outwards due to the impact of that tidal force. That answers the following question:

Now show me the calculations that support your assertion that the amount of energy you are allowed to get for nothing is only that of a "tiny black hole". What is the exact mass of this black hole?

Tidal energy isn't for nothing. it is real, but it forces the orbital object to drift outwards. However, as new matter is created at the accretion disc, that creation of matter would work forever and ever. 
3. Our scientists don't have a basic clue why the Upper layer of Jupiter atmosphere is dramatically hotter (the temp is over than 700 c) than the lower level of atmosphere (less than 300c). The answer for that is due to tidal heat from all the moons around it. Therefore, all the moons are drifting/spiraling outwards
Therefore, I have just solved a sever enigma for our puzzled scientists.
4. If the BBT was correct, then we probably won't get even one orbital system in the whole universe.
5. In order for orbital system to work matter must come from inside and drifts outside.
Therefore, all the stars that had been created by the matter which had been ejected from the accretion disc of the galaxy are drifting outwards over time.
That answers the following question:

So what object(s) have we discovered that are confirmed to be older than 13.8 billion years old?

All the stars in the galaxy are quite young. I assume that the age of the MW by itself is over than trillion years. However, the time that it takes for a star from its creation at the G gas cloud till it is ejected outwards might be less than 13.8 Billion years.
Hence, if you wish to see very old stars, it's better for you to look outside the galaxy.
6. When our scientists observe a massive star that orbits around a BH they think that the BH eats the matter in that star. This is a fatal mistake. The massive star is actually gets new matter that had just been created by the BH and therefore it is so massive.
Please Remember - when you see a massive/fat person it is good indication that he eats and nobody really eats his body.

Some other issues:

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:57:10
Therefore, the SMBH would NEVER EVER eat any S star or G gas cloud.

We have pictures of it happening.
We have the LIGO recordings of the gravity waves which prove it.

No, that picture is all about BH/neutron star with similar mass. So, the gravity wave works ONLY in that condition.
Even so, no one is eating the other one. They just spiral inwards until they merge.

Except, for Hawking radiation to work, the one which falls in has negative mass.
Which is why
(1) mass is conserved and
(2) the BH evaporates.

The Hawking radiation is incorrect as there is no negative mass. Its time for you to understand it. BH never evaporated. Therefore there are so many of them and they are increasing their mass over time.

If the universe was much older than about 14 GY then we would see iron stars and blue dwarf stars.
But we do not see them.
So we know the universe is not very old.

As I have already explain, the age of the stars in the galaxy do not specify the age of the galaxy.

But we know your model is wrong.

My model is 100% correct.
Sooner or later students will have to learn that model in the University as it is the only ultimate model for our universe..

[Bored chemist]

. Orbital objects NEVER fall in

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meteor_shower
 "Very intense or unusual meteor showers are known as meteor outbursts and meteor storms, which produce at least 1,000 meteors an hour, most notably from the Leonids"

[Bored chemist]

As I have already explain, the age of the stars in the galaxy do not specify the age of the galaxy.

No, but the stars in the universe specify the age of the universe.
And we don't see any older than 14GY.