[Bored chemist]

ONLY in that condition.
Even so, no one is eating the other one. They just spiral inwards until they merge.

Show the maths for this condition.

[Bored chemist]

My model is 100% correct.

You model can not be right because it breaks the conservation laws.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, I have just solved a sever enigma

Show your maths.
(Or show that the scientists never considered tidal heating before)

[Kryptid]

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.

I know that's what you said. It's still irrelevant to what I said would be actual evidence against the Big Bang. I said that if we discovered that such galaxies weren't, on average, moving away from us (whether it is due to spatial expansion or not), that would be evidence against the Big Bang theory.

Tidal energy isn't for nothing.

So how did "tidal energy" create the very first black hole in the Universe? Don't forget to show your math on how much mass that black hole was allowed to have as well.

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.

So you do not have any evidence that anything is older than 13.8 billion years old then.

I'm still waiting for you to show us a perpetual motion machine.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Can we observe an old star that is located One Million LY away from us?
Please be aware that all the relatively old stars are located between the galaxies.
However, due to the mighty gravity impact of our galaxy as it cross the space, any star that is located in its way is shifted away.
Therefore, all the stars around our galaxy (not just those in the galaxy itself) are still relatively young as they have ejected from the galaxy.
Hence, if you have interest in relatively old stars, please try to focus on those stars that are located above/below the galactic disc at a minimal distance of one million LY.
The further you look between the galaxies, you might find older stars.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

ONLY in that condition.
Even so, no one is eating the other one. They just spiral inwards until they merge.

Show the maths for this condition.

Its better for you to ask Einstien about it as he is the one that expected the activity of the gravity wave.

My model is 100% correct.

You model can not be right because it breaks the conservation laws.

It doesn't
Tidal heat is real and it doesn't break the conservation laws.

Therefore, I have just solved a sever enigma

Show your maths.
(Or show that the scientists never considered tidal heating before)

If you understand the tidal heating then how can you claim for breaking the conservation law?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I know that's what you said. It's still irrelevant to what I said would be actual evidence against the Big Bang. I said that if we discovered that such galaxies weren't, on average, moving away from us (whether it is due to spatial expansion or not), that would be evidence against the Big Bang theory.

As long as my modeling explain the observation - it is OK with me.

So how did "tidal energy" create the very first black hole in the Universe? Don't forget to show your math on how much mass that black hole was allowed to have as well.

The first object is always the most difficult.
Even today we really don't know how the first living ameba had been created in our planet.
However, as our scientists claim that  the Big Bang is feasible, so why a small bang is not feasible?
With regards to the minimal mass of the first BH:
The main request is EM radiation.
The Universe had started to live from the first BH that had enough EM radiation to create new particle pairs.

So you do not have any evidence that anything is older than 13.8 billion years old then.

Yes, older stars exist in our Universe but it's very difficult to find them..
In order to do so, we just need to focus in the aria between galaxies.

I'm still waiting for you to show us a perpetual motion machine.

My modeling isn't base on perpetual motion, but on perpetual creation cycle.
Please be aware that any new star that had been created at the Bulge around the SMBH has a limited time living in the galaxy.
Sooner or later it would be ejected from the galaxy.
Hence, its tidal heat contribution time to the SMBH is limited.
However, at any given moment new stars are formed near the SMBH and they keep the perpetual creation system in the galaxy.

[Bored chemist]

Tidal heat is real and it doesn't break the conservation laws.

Exactly.
It obeys the laws and thus, after a while, it runs out. (Otherwise you have a perpetual motion machine)
And that's what kills your model.

[Bored chemist]

Its better for you to ask Einstien about it as he is the one that expected the activity of the gravity wave.

Einstein is not posting antiscientific nonsense in this thread; you are.
Please show that maths that explains why everything falls up.

As long as my modeling explain the observation - it is OK with me.

It can't explain anything, because it's impossible.

[Kryptid]

However, as our scientists claim that  the Big Bang is feasible, so why a small bang is not feasible?

You are the one who claimed that the Big Bang is not feasible. You are the one saying that scientists are wrong. So explain how a small bang is feasible.

With regards to the minimal mass of the first BH:
The main request is EM radiation.
The Universe had started to live from the first BH that had enough EM radiation to create new particle pairs.

Where's the math? Where's the math, Dave? You were supposed to supply calculations that support your assertion that your "small bang" is feasible but not a "big bang". Until you supply those calculations, your claims are empty.

Yes, older stars exist in our Universe but it's very difficult to find them..

Don't just make the claim, support it with observational evidence.

My modeling isn't base on perpetual motion

You claim that gravity is a source of unlimited energy. If that is true, then that should allow us to build a perpetual motion machine using the Earth's gravity as an energy source. That is the perpetual motion machine I am speaking of. Why haven't you built one yet and become famous?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:34:21
Tidal heat is real and it doesn't break the conservation laws.

Exactly.
It obeys the laws and thus, after a while, it runs out.

Yes, you are absolutely correct.

And that's what kills your model.

No, as new particale pairs and new stars are created constantly around the SMBH and they replace those objects that had been ejected from its orbital system due to tidal heat activity

Einstein is not posting antiscientific nonsense in this thread; you are.

Einstein had clearly claimed that the BBT is WRONG!!!
He fully supported the idea that new matter is constantly created in our universe.
Unfortunately, he left us before getting the most advanced updated observations on our Universe.
Therefore, he and Fred Hoyle have failed to explain how their steady state universe really works.
I just highlight the missing segments in their theory.
You and all the other 100,000 reject Einstein ideas while my modeling is based on his vision!
Therefore, my modeling should be called "Einstein modeling for infinite steady state universe."

You are the one who claimed that the Big Bang is not feasible. You are the one saying that scientists are wrong. So explain how a small bang is feasible.

I didn't claim that a random bang isn't feasible.
I have claimed that it is not feasible to gain almost infinite energy that is needed for our universe (at any size -even if it is infinite) in a single bang.
Therefore, why I can't use the same ideas that you have for getting the big bang also for my small bang?
Do you feel that only our scientists are allowed to set an Ultra big bang while no one else can use those ideas even for a tinny bang?

Where's the math? Where's the math, Dave? You were supposed to supply calculations that support your assertion that your "small bang" is feasible but not a "big bang". Until you supply those calculations, your claims are empty.

Where is the Math for the Ultra Big Bang?
Why I can't use your math also for my small bang?
Until you supply your calculation for the Big Bang and explain why only you can use those calculations, your claims are empty.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 04:57:02
Yes, older stars exist in our Universe but it's very difficult to find them.

Don't just make the claim, support it with observational evidence.

Sorry, I have no advanced observation tools.
I can only offer our scientists where they should look in order to find those old stars.

You claim that gravity is a source of unlimited energy.

I have stated that gravity could transform the orbital movement into Tidal heat/energy. However, that activity forces the orbital object to spiral outwards.
Therefore, at some point of time the orbital object must be ejected out to space.
At that moment the tidal energy transformation is ended.
Therefore, Tidal energy can only exist as long as the orbital system works.

If that is true, then that should allow us to build a perpetual motion machine using the Earth's gravity as an energy source.

I have never claimed for perpetual motion as there is no perpetual orbital system.

It can't explain anything, because it's impossible.

Please show me one real key obstacle that my modeling (let's call it from now "Einstein modeling") can't pass.

[Bored chemist]

He fully supported the idea that new matter is constantly created in our universe.

Until he realised his error.
After that he called it “the greatest blunder of my life”.

We have already explained to you that Einstein rejected the sort of idea you are putting forward.
You should do the same.

[Bored chemist]

Where is the Math for the Ultra Big Bang?

An important part of it is here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
and I have repeatedly explained why you can only use it once.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, he and Fred Hoyle have failed to explain how their steady state universe really works.

I met Sir Fred Hoyle once, and he didn't seem convincing.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, I have no advanced observation tools.

Then you should not make claims which you know that you can not prove.

[Bored chemist]

No, as new particale pairs and new stars are created constantly around the SMBH and they replace those objects that had been ejected from its orbital system due to tidal heat activity

That's a breach of the conservation laws.
It will continue to be one, no matter how often you repeat it.
You have been told that.
So repeating it again just makes you look silly.
Why do you want to look like a fool?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

He fully supported the idea that new matter is constantly created in our universe.

Until he realised his error.
After that he called it “the greatest blunder of my life”.

Sorry, you twist the reality.
Einstein called the cosmological constant as the “the greatest blunder of my life”..
He did so when he realized that other scientists are using this constant to justify the BBT.
Therefore, Einstein was always against the BBT and when he was quite old he clearly explained that he fully supports the theory of a steady state universe.
So please, you can't twist Einstein message.
You can't claim that Einstein formula was correct but his message that the cosmological constant is “the greatest blunder of my life” is incorrect.
We had long discussion on that issue.
I have told you before and I tell you again - as Einstein told you that the cosmological constant is “the greatest blunder of his life” then it is forbidden to add the constant to his formula.
If you do so, then you can't call his formula as Einstein formula.
Therefore, as the BBT is based on the cosmological constant, which Einstein had stated that it was his biggest mistake - then you have two options:
1. Accept Einstein statement and set your BBT in the garbage.
2. Claim that Einstein is a crazy man. In this case you can manipulate his formula as you wish but you can't call it "Einstein formula" any more.
You can call it BC formula or K.BC formula but please don't call it Einstein formula as it misleading information.
Any scientists that is using today the cosmological constant in Einstein formula in order to justify the BBT and still call it Einstein formula is just twisting the true!!!

We have already explained to you that Einstein rejected the sort of idea you are putting forward.
You should do the same

My modeling is based on Einstein modeling.
You even tried to explain me why we can't trust Einstein.
So, how can you claim that Einstein had rejected his own ideas in his modeling?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:11:20
Where is the Math for the Ultra Big Bang?
An important part of it is here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
and I have repeatedly explained why you can only use it once.

I couldn't find in this theorem even one word about the Big Bang.
So, why do you use that theorem to support the BBT?
If the idea is that only our scientists have a special way/math to bypass that theorem, then please show that way/math
If they can use it – I also want to use it.

 

I met Sir Fred Hoyle once, and he didn't seem convincing.

First I'm absolutely impressed that you have met Sir Fred Hoyle.
I have high appreciation for his knowledge and wisdom.
However, even if he didn't seem to you that he was convincing, for me Einstein is good enough for the Steady state theory.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:11:20
Sorry, I have no advanced observation tools.
Then you should not make claims which you know that you can not prove.

I can only offer the science community the ultimate way to find those old stars.
Now it is not in my hand.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:11:20
No, as new particale pairs and new stars are created constantly around the SMBH and they replace those objects that had been ejected from its orbital system due to tidal heat activity

That's a breach of the conservation laws.

You have fully confirmed that tidal heat is real.
You also confirmed that due to tidal heat orbital system are drifting outwards.
Therefore, you should know that due to that tidal heat EM energy is created and therefore, new particle pairs are created near the SMBH. That activity keeps the productions of new stars that contribute new tidal heat to the SMBH.
It will continue to do so, no matter how often you reject it.
This is the reality.
However, if you still don't happy with that, then I can always use the dark matter/energy ideas.
Please don't forget that our scientists claim that around the SMBH there is dark matter.
Our scientists can fit for every galaxy exactly the requested matter that is needed to hold the stars around the SMBH and it is there forever and ever.
They don't need to prove that it is there. We all must agree that it is there to help our scientists to explain how it could be that all stars orbit at any radius at almost the same velocity.
Therefore, they have even developed several complex formulas for the dark matter in order to help them in their theories.
So if they can use the dark matter (although they have never observed any dark matter over there) in order to close the gap between their misunderstanding (of how spiral galaxy really works) to the science laws, then why it is forbidden for me to use the same ideas of dark matter and dark energy to close the gap for your understanding about the source of energy for the SMBH?
If dark matter could convince you that stars could orbit around the SMBH at the same velocity at any radius without any need to see it, then I hope that you would also agree that the same dark matter could be used to contribute energy to the SMBH.
You have stated that mater = Energy.
So, why dark matter around the SMBH can't be used as a source of energy?
If our scientists get any requested matter and any energy for free (all they need is to call it - dark), then why it is forbidden for me to use those brilliant ideas for my modeling?
Please remember - one law for any modeling.
Free Big bang for the BBT - means free small bang for my modeling
Free dark mater/energy for the BBT - means free matter/energy for my modeling.
If you wish to cancel the dark mater/energy in my modeling - them please do it first in your modeling.
As I have stated, I don't need any help from any sort of dark matter or dark energy.

So repeating it again just makes you look silly.
Why do you want to look like a fool?

I have proved that Tidal heat is good enough.
However, just in case that you still worry about my modeling, then please let's use dark matter/energy (or powder) to bypass that obstacle.

[Bored chemist]

I have proved that Tidal heat is good enough.

Until it runs out.

[Bored chemist]

Einstein called the cosmological constant as the “the greatest blunder of my life”..
He did so when he realized that other scientists are using this constant to justify the BBT.

You have that the wrong way round.
You don't need the cosmological constant if you have a BBT.

"Einstein originally introduced the concept in 1917[2] to counterbalance the effects of gravity and achieve a static universe, a notion which was the accepted view at the time. Einstein abandoned the concept in 1931 after Hubble's confirmation of the expanding universe.[3] "
from
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

It's not that I twist stuff; the problem is you don't understand it.

Einstein is good enough for the Steady state theory.

See above.
Einstein didn't support the SST once he saw the evidence from Hubble.

I couldn't find in this theorem even one word about the Big Bang.

Of course not; why did you even look?.
It was written and proved a long time before the BBT was introduced.
But the maths in that theorem is the maths which allows a BBT but forbids a SST.
And that's what you asked for.

If they can use it – I also want to use it.

I have lost count of the number of times I explained why you can't; it's to do with symmetry.
It's as if you were saying " I have seen the maths to show that 2+2 =4; I want to use it to show that 2+2 =5."
Do you not see how that is silly?

I can only offer the science community the ultimate way to find those old stars.

OK, the ultimate way would be to give them  the coordinates.
Which way should they point the telescope?

Or were you lying about telling them  that?

therefore, new particle pairs are created near the SMBH. That activity keeps the productions of new stars that contribute new tidal heat to the SMBH.

every time that happens the BH loses mass.
In the end, it vanishes altogether.
The mass of the particles produced is the same as the mass of the BH that vanished.
This is called the conservation of mass.
It has been known for centuries, and was mathematically proven.
But you keep trying to pretend it's not true.

Why do you do that?

[Bored chemist]

Please remember - one law for any modeling.

Yes.
This one
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem