[Bored chemist]

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

Yes there is.
You keep ignoring mass conservation.

[Kryptid]

Therefore, this energy in space could set a tinny BH at some point of time.

How did the energy in space turn into that tiny black hole?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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?

Would you kindly introduce your ample proof?
I would like to remind you that even if 100,000 scientists believe in some idea, it doesn't necessarily means that this idea is correct.
So please set the evidences and proves for you imagination that the Universe was not there forever.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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

Yes there is.
You keep ignoring mass conservation.

I have told you again and again that the creation of energy is due to tidal heat transformation.
Why it is so difficult for you to understand it?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Therefore, this energy in space could set a tinny BH at some point of time.

How did the energy in space turn into that tiny black hole?

Do you agree that even in empty space/universe there is energy?
Do you agree that something can come out of nothing?
If so you should agree that at some point of time something had been created in the empty universe.
That first something might be only some sort of particle pair.
However, the time is infinite.
So, we do not discuss on a single activity or a single bang. There could be millions or even billions of bangs (very tinny bangs).
Please be aware that we do not need a BH with Star mass. We only need a Tinny BH with the ability to generate EM radiation. I call this tinny BH as the first "LIVING BH"
As I have already told you, my modeling is based on Darwin approach.
Darwin didn't explain how the first living ameba had been created.
Even today we didn't solve this enigma, but we all agree that his theory is correct.
In the same way, it is very difficult to understand how the first living BH had been created.
However, once it is there - we get our wonderful universe.

I perfectly understand why you focus on that specific issue as it is the most difficult process in my whole modeling.
Therefore, I ask you to accept the idea of creating the first living BH as you accept the creation of the first Ameba.
Let's move on.

[Kryptid]

Do you agree that even in empty space/universe there is energy?

That's debatable, but seeing the vacuum as being filled with energy fluctuations (with the net energy being at or near zero) is an acceptable interpretation of quantum mechanics.

Do you agree that something can come out of nothing?

We've never seen something come out of nothing, so no.

If so you should agree that at some point of time something had been created in the empty universe.

No, I don't agree. Not until you can supply a mechanism by which "something can come out of nothing".

Therefore, I ask you to accept the idea of creating the first living BH

Absolutely not. You know why? Because 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.

and this:

Even if you don't like my modeling, a theory without valid source of energy is just useless theory.

and this:

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

Since you can't explain how that first black hole formed from the energy in space, your own words have come back to bite you in the butt. Your statement of, "In any real theory it is our OBLIGATION to offer real solution how the energy had been evolved" is the noose by which Theory D has been hanged. You said it yourself. It is your obligation to show how that black hole evolved from the vacuum energy in space. If you can't explain how that happened, then you don't have a "valid source of energy" and thus Theory D is a "useless theory". Those are your own words, not mine, yours.

Since you can't supply an answer to that question, Theory D goes in the garbage right beside the Big Bang theory, wouldn't you say?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

from: Dave Lev on Today at 04:32:52
Do you agree that even in empty space/universe there is energy?

That's debatable, but seeing the vacuum as being filled with energy fluctuations (with the net energy being at or near zero) is an acceptable interpretation of quantum mechanics

Thanks
So we all agree that there is some energy even in empty space:
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
according to quantum mechanics, empty space is not really empty. It is instead a seething froth of very short-lived particles called virtual particles. A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later. Scientist think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
Therefore, it is not an issue of creating something out of nothing but actually something out of something.
It is stated: "Scientist think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered."
Each time those virtual particles pop up it's a tinny bang.
After billion over billions tinny bangs there is a chance for something to survive.
That something could be the based for the first living BH.

Since you can't supply an answer to that question, Theory D goes in the garbage right beside the Big Bang theory, wouldn't you say?

Can we supply the answer how the first Ameba had been created?
As the answer is no, then do you mean that Darwin theory is incorrect and should be set in the garbage?
Sorry - if you accept Darwin theory, you should accept my modeling.
In both modeling we discuss about the evolvement of everything from a tinny something.
The Big Bang is totally different.
It starts with everything (all the energy). This isn't realistic.

[Kryptid]

After billion over billions tinny bangs there is a chance for something to survive.

Show how.

Can we supply the answer how the first Ameba had been created?
As the answer is no, then do you mean that Darwin theory is incorrect and should be set in the garbage?
Sorry - if you accept Darwin theory, you should accept my modeling.

Don't look at me, you're the one who said that a theory has to explain how the energy is supplied.

In both modeling we discuss about the evolvement of everything from a tinny something.

What was the mechanism by which that "tiny something" came to be? Without an answer, you don't have a valid energy source and your own words have put Theory D in the garbage.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:08:50
Can we supply the answer how the first Ameba had been created?
As the answer is no, then do you mean that Darwin theory is incorrect and should be set in the garbage?
Sorry - if you accept Darwin theory, you should accept my modeling.

Don't look at me, you're the one who said that a theory has to explain how the energy is supplied.

Any real theory can only offer 99.99......99% of what we see.
Darwin could only explain 99.99.....99% of the living structures in our planet.
However, he and all the other 100,000 scientists couldn't explain the creation of the first Ameba.
So, do you accept Darwin modeling or do you reject it as we have no real answer for that first ameba?
In theory D I can explain the evolvement of variety of stars/BHs/ Galaxies from the first tinny living BH as Darwin had explained the evolvement of variety of life from the first living ameba.
I can only explain the evolvement of 99.99....99% of the matter in the entire infinite Universe.
The first living tinny BH is a different story.
If all our scientists together in the last 200 years couldn't solve the mystery of the first ameba - then please don't ask me to solve the mystery of the first tinny BH.
If you accept Darwin modeling, then you also must accept my modeling.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:08:50
After billion over billions tinny bangs there is a chance for something to survive.

Show how.

Do you agree that:

http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
according to quantum mechanics, empty space is not really empty. It is instead a seething froth of very short-lived particles called virtual particles. A virtual particle with mass is a particle that pops into existence and then pops out of existence a tiny fraction of a second later. Scientist think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered. For example, they think that the vacuum includes incredibly short-lived virtual electrons, and incredibly short-lived virtual quarks (because both electrons and quarks are known types of subatomic particles).
Therefore, it is not an issue of creating something out of nothing but actually something out of something.
It is stated: "Scientist think that the vacuum is filled with virtual particles corresponding to every type of actual subatomic particle that has been discovered."

Yes or No?
Do you agree that new particle could pop up in the empty Universe.
Actually, if I recall it correctly, based on the BBT (after the Big Bang moment) you claim that new particle pair could pop up.
I would like to remind you that before the BB you took the freedom to twist the science law.
However, after the bang, there is no way to twist the science law.
Therefore, why are you so sure that after the bang new real particle could pop up, while there is no possibility for particles to pop up in the infinite universe (as you confirm that it must have some sort of energy)
Hence, as you confirm that the entire  particles and objects in our universe could pop up and created from the Big Bang energy, you should agree that some tiny particles/objects could pop up at the energetic empty space (as there is always some energy in the empty space).

What was the mechanism by which that "tiny something" came to be? Without an answer, you don't have a valid energy source and your own words have put Theory D in the garbage.

The same mechanism that converts the imaginary BBT energy to the entire matter in the Universe should also apply in theory D.
However, instead of getting the whole matter in the entire Universe from that entire BBT energy, just tinny BH from the entire space energy is good enough.

[Bored chemist]

So, do you accept Darwin modeling or do you reject it as we have no real answer for that first ameba?

I am pleased to see that you have caught up with the rest of us, and now understand that a theory doesn't have to explain every single aspect of a situation.

The law of conservation of mass means that no process can produce mass.
At the end of any event, the total mass of all the components is the same as it was before the event.

Do you realise that your idea breaks that rule?

If we accept, for a moment, your idea that the universe started with just 1 black hole, le us consider what that would mean.

Imagine I went back in time in a space/time ship of some sort and I put my ship in orbit round that BH- a very long way out so I don't affect it.

I can watch the universe getting made (we will assume I live practically forever).

If your model is correct, I will see the BH spit out matter and that matter will form stars etc


One thing I can do while I watch is time the orbital period of my ship round the new universe.
From that orbital period, I can calculate the mass of the Universe.

In your model that orbital period will change as the BH increases the mass of the universe.

This gives me a way in which I can "weigh" the universe.
And, according to you, that weight will increase.

But the conservation law proves that it can't increase.
So we know your model is wrong.

That's the important bit; your model is wrong, no matter what mechanism you put forward for the process where BH make stars.

Even if you were right about things falling up (and, just as a reminder, they don't), it wouldn't help.

Because your idea is still impossible.

[Kryptid]

please don't ask me to solve the mystery of the first tinny BH.

I don't have to. You told yourself that you have to solve it:

Even if you don't like my modeling, a theory without valid source of energy is just useless theory.

Do you agree that new particle could pop up in the empty Universe.

Yes, but they are virtual particles. Virtual particles disappear back into the vacuum as quickly as they appear.

Actually, if I recall it correctly, based on the BBT (after the Big Bang moment) you claim that new particle pair could pop up.
I would like to remind you that before the BB you took the freedom to twist the science law.
However, after the bang, there is no way to twist the science law.
Therefore, why are you so sure that after the bang new real particle could pop up, while there is no possibility for particles to pop up in the infinite universe (as you confirm that it must have some sort of energy)
Hence, as you confirm that the entire  particles and objects in our universe could pop up and created from the Big Bang energy, you should agree that some tiny particles/objects could pop up at the energetic empty space (as there is always some energy in the empty space).

The Big Bang theory is in the garbage, remember? Are you rooting through the garbage in an attempt to save Theory D? That looks rather desperate.

The same mechanism that converts the imaginary BBT energy to the entire matter in the Universe should also apply in theory D.

You mean the Big Bang theory that is in the garbage right now? The Big Bang theory doesn't have a mechanism to convert vacuum energy into a black hole anyway, so you won't find any help there.

However, instead of getting the whole matter in the entire Universe from that entire BBT energy, just tinny BH from the entire space energy is good enough.

And it's time for you to finally show how that tiny black hole formed from vacuum energy. It's one of the requirements that you have given yourself, otherwise you have a "useless theory". Here are some more quotes from you:

So please
Would you kindly use real observations and real evidences for our Universe theory instead of imagination ideas as the BBT?

If you know science as you claim, you should backup your understanding by real observation & article.
If you can't do it, then we all should agree that this is unproved imagination.

So please - when you raise the flag of science, you need to backup your understanding on real verification/observation.

Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more.

So another requirement you have given for Theory D is "real observations and real evidences". Do you have any real observation for vacuum energy turning into a black hole? If not, then you are violating your own requirement and Theory D goes in the garbage. To use your own words against you, "Prove it by real observation or don't raise the science flag any more."

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You mean the Big Bang theory that is in the garbage right now? The Big Bang theory doesn't have a mechanism to convert vacuum energy into a black hole anyway, so you won't find any help there.

Dear Kyptid
Do you claim that the BBT is incorrect?
If you believe that it is correct, then from your point of view any argument in that BBT theory should be correct.
In this case, you can't prevent from me to use any argument that you have used in your BBT theory.
Our scientists claim that 13.8 BY ago there was a bang.
Do you agree with that or not?
If you agree, then I can claim that this bang took place 100 By ago or infinite time ago.
Do you agree that this bang could easily carry an energy for at least a BH or even a SMBH?
Do you agree that our scientists claim that only due to the rapid expansion that bang didn't end as a SMBH.
In other words, without that rapid expansion, your bang has to end as just a BH/SMBH.
You claim that there was a bang - I also claim that there was a bang but at different time.
You claim that it carried energy - then I can use that energy.
You claim that without the rapid expansion it should end as a BH and I use that argument.
Then, I can use your own BBT to prove that at some point of time that was a bang (not big bang) that had been set the first BH in the Universe.
Sorry - You can't just claim that the BBT arguments work only for you.
I can use any argument in that theory if I wish and still claim that as a full package that BBT theory is incorrect.
Once you set the arguments for the BBT they are all free to be used by any person in the Universe.
So I can claim that the idea of rapid expansion just after the bang is incorrect.
That would lead the bang to set a BH/SMBH as our scientists claim.

My modeling can start from that point and you have no way to prevent it from me - unless you confirm that the BBT is totally incorrect and there was never any sort of bang!!!

[Kryptid]

The Big Bang theory can't create energy. That's why you wanted to put it in the garbage in the first place, remember? If it can't create energy, then obviously there is nothing there for you to copy to use for Theory D.

Are you finally ready to admit that you don't know how that first black hole formed?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The Big Bang theory can't create energy. That's why you wanted to put it in the garbage in the first place, remember? If it can't create energy, then obviously there is nothing there for you to copy to use for Theory D.

Are you finally ready to admit that you don't know how that first black hole formed?

Well, I still think that there is no need for the Big Bang to carry new energy to our early universe.
However, I have no intention to argue with you about that issue.
I can use your own BBT theory for that activity and you can't prevent me for doing so.
Therefore, I hope that by now we all agree that creating a BH or a SMBH at some point of time in the early universe is feasible.
Once we agree with that we can move on with our discussion.

[Kryptid]

Therefore, I hope that by now we all agree that creating a BH or a SMBH at some point of time in the early universe is feasible.

Feel free to use any elements from the Big Bang theory that you want to, I don't care. Either way, you're still going to have to explain how the first black hole formed. If you can't do that, then Theory D goes in the garbage as per your own requirements for a good science theory.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Therefore, I hope that by now we all agree that creating a BH or a SMBH at some point of time in the early universe is feasible.

Feel free to use any elements from the Big Bang theory that you want to, I don't care.

Thanks
Based on the BBT it is stated clearly that the bang could end as a BH:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html
Sometimes people find it hard to understand why the Big Bang is not a black hole.  After all, the density of matter in the first fraction of a second was much higher than that found in any star, and dense matter is supposed to curve spacetime strongly.  At sufficient density there must be matter contained within a region smaller than the Schwarzschild radius for its mass.  Nevertheless, the Big Bang manages to avoid being trapped inside a black hole of its own making and paradoxically the space near the singularity is actually flat rather than curving tightly.  How can this be?
The short answer is that the Big Bang gets away with it because it is expanding rapidly near the beginning and the rate of expansion is slowing down."
So if there was a bang it actually had to set a BH. However, the idea of "expanding rapidly" helped the BBT to get out from that BH situation.
Therefore, our scientists do understand that without that "expanding rapidly" the BBT MUST end as a BH.
As you give me the permission to use the theories of the BBT, I can claim that there is a possibility that this "expanding rapidly" was not expanding at enough rapidly.
Therefore, the BBT could end it life as BH - at the same moment that it stated.

Hence - do we all agree that there is a possibility for the BBT to end its life as a BH?
If so, let's move on.

[Bored chemist]

You still have to address the fact that your idea breaks the mass conservation law.

Kryptid keeps pointing out that you have no plausible idea how you might get the BH.
I'm pointing out that, even if you have a BH  your idea does not work.

You have already lost the argument in your first page.
Why are you still here?

[Kryptid]

Thanks
Based on the BBT it is stated clearly that the bang could end as a BH:
https://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/BlackHoles/universe.html
Sometimes people find it hard to understand why the Big Bang is not a black hole.  After all, the density of matter in the first fraction of a second was much higher than that found in any star, and dense matter is supposed to curve spacetime strongly.  At sufficient density there must be matter contained within a region smaller than the Schwarzschild radius for its mass.  Nevertheless, the Big Bang manages to avoid being trapped inside a black hole of its own making and paradoxically the space near the singularity is actually flat rather than curving tightly.  How can this be?
The short answer is that the Big Bang gets away with it because it is expanding rapidly near the beginning and the rate of expansion is slowing down."
So if there was a bang it actually had to set a BH. However, the idea of "expanding rapidly" helped the BBT to get out from that BH situation.
Therefore, our scientists do understand that without that "expanding rapidly" the BBT MUST end as a BH.
As you give me the permission to use the theories of the BBT, I can claim that there is a possibility that this "expanding rapidly" was not expanding at enough rapidly.
Therefore, the BBT could end it life as BH - at the same moment that it stated.

None of that explains how vacuum energy turned into a bang in the first place.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

None of that explains how vacuum energy turned into a bang in the first place.

I don't wish to argue about the vacuum energy.
Therefore, I hope that the BBT is good enough for you to deliver the first BH or SMBH.

You still have to address the fact that your idea breaks the mass conservation law.

Yes I did.
I would do it again for you.
Several millions (or even Billions) of stars are orbiting around our SMBH.
They transfer tidal heat energy to that SMBH.
However, due to that heat transformation they are losing some orbital energy and therefore they have to spiral outwards.
The SMBH is using that heat energy to increase its EM radiation.
The EM radiation generates new particle pairs.
As one particle from the pair falls into the SMBH, the other one is ejected outwards into the inner side of the accretion disc.
The falling particles increase the mass of the SMBH.
The other one will be ejected later on from the outer side of the accretion disc into the Bulge as a UFO.
It would join one of the G gas clouds and be used as a new matter for a new born star.
That star would transfer tidal heat to the SMBH and be forced to spiral outwards - as all the other stars.

Therefore, this mechanism would continue forever and ever while new born stars transfer their orbital momentum/movement/energy to tidal heat energy in order for the SMBH to generate new particle pair near its event horizon.
Hence, all the billions stars in the spiral galaxy are spiraling outwards.
No one falls in.
Never and ever.

So, is it clear to you by now?

[Kryptid]

I don't wish to argue about the vacuum energy.

Then you admit that you don't know how that vacuum energy turned into the first black hole?

Therefore, I hope that the BBT is good enough for you to deliver the first BH or SMBH.

I wasn't aware that the Big Bang theory explained the mechanism for the creation of energy. Can you explain it to me?