[Kryptid]

I didn't claim that a random bang isn't feasible.

What you claimed was that a bang without a source of energy isn't feasible. So what's the source of energy for your tiny black hole?

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.

First of all, there is no such thing as "almost infinite". Either something is infinite, or it isn't. Secondly, you never supplied any evidence to support this assertion. That's all it is, an assertion. Until you can supply evidence that a small bang is allowed but not a big bang, you are merely stating an opinion. Opinions devoid of evidence aren't worth much in science.

Therefore, why I can't use the same ideas that you have for getting the big bang also for my small bang?

Because the Big Bang theory doesn't explain where the Universe's energy first came from. You have constantly used that fact as evidence that the Big Bang theory is wrong. Do you not remember that? So in order for your reasoning to be self-consistent, that means you have three options: (1) explain how your model produced the very first energy in the Universe, (2) admit that your model can't explain it and thus "put it in the garbage" like you have done with the Big Bang theory, or (3) admit that neither the Big Bang theory nor your model needs to explain how the very first energy in the Universe got there.

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?

Dave, you think our scientists are wrong. Why would you want to use an idea that you think is wrong for your model?

Where is the Math for the Ultra Big Bang?
Why I can't use your math also for my small bang?

The Big Bang theory doesn't have any math for how much energy was allowed to exist during the first moments of the Universe. You can't use non-existent math, now can you?

Until you supply your calculation for the Big Bang and explain why only you can use those calculations, your claims are empty.

I'm not the one claiming that a theory has to be able to explain where the energy came from, so it's not my problem. You, on the other hand, claim that a theory must be able to do that. So it is your problem.

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

So you admit that you have zero evidence that there are stars out there older than 13.8 billion years old. Good to know.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I'm not the one claiming that a theory has to be able to explain where the energy came from, so it's not my problem. You, on the other hand, claim that a theory must be able to do that. So it is your problem.

OK
Let's agree that I won't ask you about the source of energy for the BBT and you won't ask me for the source of my modeling.
Agree?

So you admit that you have zero evidence that there are stars out there older than 13.8 billion years old. Good to know.

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

Yes, I can tell you exactly where you should look.
Please try to focus on the aria which is about 1M LY +/- 250K LY above/below the galactic disc (assuming that there are no other galaxies over there).

I have lost count of the number of times I explained why you can't; it's to do with symmetry.

How do you know for sure that the idea of symmetry/asymmetry isn't just an opinion?
Please see the message from Kryptid

Opinions devoid of evidence aren't worth much in science.

So, can you please prove that your idea is not just an opinion?

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."

How do you know that your opinion for symmetry/asymmetry doesn't mean that 2+2=5

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

No
I do understand.
Einstein describes a universe without a big bang
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/einsteins-lost-theory-describes-a-universe-without-a-big-bang
It is stated clearly that "Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
Therefore, my modeling is based on Einstein Vision.

every time that happens the BH loses mass.
In the end, it vanishes altogether.

How long are you going to use that nonsense from Mr. Hawking which is based on negative mass.
Sorry to tell you again and again that there is no negative mass in our Universe.
So please don't even dare to say it again without a solid prove/observation for negative mass.

[Kryptid]

Let's agree that I won't ask you about the source of energy for the BBT and you won't ask me for the source of my modeling.

So you admit when you said this...

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.

...you were wrong?

[Bored chemist]

Yes, I can tell you exactly where you should look.
Please try to focus on the aria which is about 1M LY +/- 250K LY above/below the galactic disc

How did you come to the conclusion that the astronomers had not looked there?

[Bored chemist]

OK
Let's agree that I won't ask you about the source of energy for the BBT and you won't ask me for the source of my modeling.
Agree?

No.
You  keep ignoring the fact that they are different.
I do not think you have been paying attention- or maybe you do not understand.
Can you tell us the big difference between your SST idea  and the BBT?

[Bored chemist]

How do you know that your opinion for symmetry/asymmetry doesn't mean that 2+2=5

Because I understand it.

[Bored chemist]

How do you know for sure that the idea of symmetry/asymmetry isn't just an opinion?

Because it is a mathematical proof.

[Bored chemist]

So, can you please prove that your idea is not just an opinion?

Yes, of course I can. What a stupid question.
It was proven by Emmy Noether about a hundred years ago.
Why do you ask?
Do you not understand that a mathematical proof is absolute?
It's true, so it is always true.

"Einstein in this paper

And, in subsequent papers he said he had been wrong.

How long are you going to use that nonsense from Mr. Hawking

That "nonsense" from Prof Hawking is the reason why you can claim that BH emit anything.
Feel free to say he is wrong.
But if he is wrong, then you no longer have any mechanism for saying that BH create particles.
So your idea falls into the bucket labelled "stupid".

Your choice; he's right, or he's wrong.
Either way, you are wrong.

[Bored chemist]

It is stated clearly that "Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
Therefore, my modeling is based on Einstein Vision.

[Bored chemist]

It is stated clearly that "Einstein in this paper wanted to use this energy to create new particles as time goes on."
Therefore, my modeling is based on Einstein Vision.

Why do you not understand a simple idea?
EINSTEN CHANGED HIS MIND WHEN PRESENTED WITH NEW DATA  (BY HUBBLE).
Why can't you?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

 

So, can you please prove that your idea is not just an opinion?

Yes, of course I can. What a stupid question.
It was proven by Emmy Noether about a hundred years ago.
Why do you ask?
Do you not understand that a mathematical proof is absolute?
It's true, so it is always true.

How long are you going to twist the reality about Emmy Noether.
It is stated clearly:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
"Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law.[1]"
Hence, based on Noether theorem there is no way to get the requested energy for the BBT.
However, she had stated that her theorem works at every differentiable symmetry.
Therefore in order to bypass that theorem you highlight the symmetry issue.
Hence, Emmy doesn't prove your imagination - you just think that you have found a way to bypass her theorem.
It is very clear that you can't use her math as a valid source for energy.
So please don't tell us again that Emmy offered you the math for the BBT source of energy.

Let's agree that I won't ask you about the source of energy for the BBT and you won't ask me for the source of my modeling.

So you admit when you said this...

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.

...you were wrong?

Well, I was willing to ignore the source of energy to your BBT modeling , if you are ready to ignore also the source of my modeling.
It seems that you don't agree with that.
Therefore, let me tell you that the idea of getting all the energy for the BBT in an instant single bang is absolutely unrealistic.
Based on my simple calculation just in the visible Universe there should be energy that is equal to at least 10^30 stars.
Please be aware that:
E=mc^2
Therefore the energy in any gram in those stars must be multiply by c^2.
Hence, the energy just in the visible universe is
10^30 * c^2.
If you add to that the minimal size of the universe which its radius should be 250 times bigger than the observable Universe (which is bigger by 3 than the visible universe) you get absolutely high number.
Sorry - with all the sympathy - there is no way to get so high energy in a single bang without offering real source for that Energy even if you try to twist the math by that idea of symmetry.
Therefore, if there was a bang, that bang might generate quite small energy that could fit in a single tinny BH.
Hence the chance to get in a bang an energy for a single BH is at least higher by 10^30 than the chance to get the energy for just the visible universe

[Bored chemist]

Noether's theorem or Noether's first theorem states that every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law.

The start of time is not differentiable.

So that's the point at which the conservation laws do not apply.

I'm not twisting anything: it is just that you refuse to understand.
The theorem doesn't tell you where the energy comes from; it tells you that it is possible for the energy to arrive.

It also says why your idea is wrong.

Hence the chance to get in a bang an energy for a single BH is at least higher by 10^30 than the chance to get the energy for just the visible universe

What we actually have- as shown by experiment, observation and common sense is a universe with the mass of the universe.
That mass must have come from somewhere.
The BB offers a mechanism to bypass the conservation laws.
Your idea does not.

And the idea that isn't impossible is the idea we should keep.
 

[Kryptid]

Well, I was willing to ignore the source of energy to your BBT modeling , if you are ready to ignore also the source of my modeling.
It seems that you don't agree with that.

I was fine with ignoring it too, if you were finally willing to admit that you were wrong when you said that a theory about the evolution of the Universe has to explain how the initial energy came to be.

Therefore, let me tell you that the idea of getting all the energy for the BBT in an instant single bang is absolutely unrealistic.

Ignoring the fact that the Big Bang didn't create that energy in the first place... how do you know it's unrealistic?

Sorry - with all the sympathy - there is no way to get so high energy in a single bang without offering real source for that Energy even if you try to twist the math by that idea of symmetry.

How do you know? Don't give us your opinion or intuition, give us actual evidence that you are correct.

Therefore, if there was a bang, that bang might generate quite small energy that could fit in a single tinny BH.

See, this is why I have continually asked you for the math. In order for you to justify the creation of a tiny black hole but not the entire Universe, you have to be able to show us the math that agrees with you. Your use of the word "might" makes it sound like you are guessing and have not actually done any math.

Hence the chance to get in a bang an energy for a single BH is at least higher by 10^30 than the chance to get the energy for just the visible universe

That's not how probability works...

For the sake of argument, let's say that we are putting the Big Bang theory in the trash. Welp, there it goes! It's in the trash now! Now please explain how you are going to rescue your own model from the trash as well by telling us how that first black hole came into existence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The start of time is not differentiable.

So that's the point at which the conservation laws do not apply.

I'm not twisting anything:

Sorry, you are twisting the law of science including the time and space
You have offered that that Noether's theorem as some sort of a prove for the energy that the BBT got while that theorem clearly specify that it is impossible to inject new energy.
Therefore,in order to qualify the disqualify, you came with a brilliant idea that "The start of time is not differentiable"
If that is correct – then please prove it, not just by bypassing the theorem but by real observation or evidence.
It is really amazing that you twist the time in order to justify the BBT, while you claim that the math in this theorem supports the BBT.
How can you twist so badly the true?
Technically, based on this approach we can bypass any science law and justify any idea
Sorry – this isn't science, it's a science fiction.
Somehow our scientists are using this approach to close the gap for any problem that they have with the BBT.
 They do not understand how spiral galaxy works – So they add an imagination of dark matter.
They don't know why the expansion is accelerating – so they add dark energy
They don't know how the universe can bypass Noether's theorem so they invent the idea that " the time was not differentiable"
This is unrealistic.
They have to prove  those ideas ONLY by real observations and verifications.
So, please go ahead and show the prove that 13.8 BLY ago  " the time was not differentiable" by real evidence (not just by the same idea of twisting Noether's theorem)
 

What we actually have- as shown by experiment, observation and common sense is a universe with the mass of the universe.

Is it real?
What kind of experiment you have used to prove this imagination.
Where is the math that should support this imagination?

That mass must have come from somewhere.

That is correct
But it can't come in just a single bang.
It is absolutely not realistic.
You and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists know that.
Therefore you try to find a way to bypass the science law.

The BB offers a mechanism to bypass the conservation laws.
Your idea does not.

There is no way to bypass the science law.
Tidal heat represents real science.
Claiming that "The start of time is not differentiable" is imagination.
Any modeling must be based on real science.
My modeling is based on real science.
No need to twist the time, no need to invent dark matter or dark energy.
What we see is what we have.
Therefore, the BBT which can exist only by twisting the true and bypassing the science law should be set deep in the garbage for good!

[Bored chemist]

There is no way to bypass the science law.

Then stop trying.

Is it real?

Yes.
The universe is real.
And the universe has the mass of the universe.

[Bored chemist]

You have offered that that Noether's theorem as some sort of a prove for the energy that the BBT got while that theorem clearly specify that it is impossible to inject new energy.

No.
It says

every differentiable symmetry of the action of a physical system with conservative forces has a corresponding conservation law.

But, at the start of the universe the physical laws are not differentiable, so the theorem does not apply.

I keep explaining this.
Why do you not understand it?

[Bored chemist]

Claiming that "The start of time is not differentiable" is imagination.

No. it is a matter of looking at what the words mean.

[Bored chemist]

But it can't come in just a single bang.

That is the ONLY way it can come.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

For the sake of argument, let's say that we are putting the Big Bang theory in the trash. Welp, there it goes! It's in the trash now! Now please explain how you are going to rescue your own model from the trash as well by telling us how that first black hole came into existence.

Yes, even in empty space there is energy:
"According to quantum theory, in a vacuum wave-like fields are constantly fluctuating, producing particles and their antimatter equivalents that fizzle in and out of existence. So even in the depths of interstellar space, there is plenty going on in what we call zilch."
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22730370-800-can-we-get-energy-from-nothing/
Therefore, this energy in space could set a tinny BH at some point of time.
Hence, based on real science law we can get something out of nothing
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20627596-300-quantum-wonders-something-for-nothing
But it must be only something and not everything.
Therefore, the idea of getting everything in a BIG BANG is not realistic.
However, to get something as tinny BH is realistic and fully obeys with the science law.

The universe is real.
And the universe has the mass of the universe.

Sure
But not due to the BBT imagination.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:44:06
There is no way to bypass the science law.
Then stop trying.

In my modeling there is no need to bypass any science law.

But, at the start of the universe the physical laws are not differentiable, so the theorem does not apply.

The Universe never started as it was there forever and ever and ever.
Therefore, the physical laws always worked - With or without mass/stars/galaxies

But it can't come in just a single bang.

That is the ONLY way it can come.

Therefore, the BBT is useless.

[Bored chemist]

The Universe never started as it was there forever and ever and ever.

There is ample proof that that contention is impossible.
Why post it on a science site?