[Bored chemist]

Yes I did.
I would do it again for you.

You do not seem to have been paying attention.
I don't care what "magical" mechanism you try to come up with.
Viewed from from the outside, you are still breaking the law.

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.

[Bored chemist]

So, is it clear to you by now?

It's clear that you keep writing those words.
But the laws of physics say you are wrong.
So, you should try better words.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Yes. So far so good.

But the conservation law proves that it can't increase.

You have a sever error.
The conservation law doesn't prevent from the Universe to increase its total mass as it doesn't cover the unique impact of the creation cycle.
So, please look at the following cycle and let me know where the problem is according your understanding:
1. Several millions (or even Billions) of stars are orbiting around our SMBH. They transfer tidal heat energy to that SMBH.
Correct or incorrect?
2. Due to that heat transformation orbital stars are losing some orbital energy and therefore they have to spiral outwards.
Correct or Incorrect?
3. The SMBH is using that tidal heat energy to increase its EM radiation
Correct or Incorrect?
4. The EM radiation generates new particle pairs.
Correct or Incorrect?
5. As one particle from the pair falls into the SMBH, the other one is ejected outwards into the inner side of the accretion disc.
Correct or Incorrect?
6. The falling particles increase the mass of the SMBH.
Correct or Incorrect?
7. The other one will be ejected later on from the outer side of the accretion disc into the Bulge as a UFO.
Correct or Incorrect?
8. It would join one of the G gas clouds and be used as a new matter for a new born star.
Correct or Incorrect?
9. That star would transfer tidal heat to the SMBH and be forced to spiral outwards - as all the other stars. (Jump to step three)
Correct or Incorrect?

[Bored chemist]

5. As one particle from the pair falls into the SMBH, the other one is ejected outwards into the inner side of the accretion disc.
Correct or Incorrect?
6. The falling particles increase the mass of the SMBH.
Correct or Incorrect?

You missed
5.5
The particle which falls in has negative mass so it reduces the mass of the black hole.
This compensates exactly for the mass of the particle ejected.

And that's why, from a distance, my ship's orbit remains the same.
After a while, the mass of the BH falls to (practically) zero.
At that point, the BH has been converted into other stuff- photons and such.
This is the evaporation of the BH. It is well understood, but not by you.

Obviously, at that point there's no BH so the process stops.

You have a sever error.

You have a "not paying attention error"  because I have pointed this out before.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You missed
5.5
The particle which falls in has negative mass so it reduces the mass of the black hole.
This compensates exactly for the mass of the particle ejected.

Dear BC
How can I help you to clear your mind from the Hawking imagination?
You call him professor, but his theory of negative mass has never been proved.
There is no negative mass in our Universe.
So please - I really advice you not to believe to any person that is called professor.
Negative mass is unrealistic. Therefore Hawking radiation is also unrealistic
Particle pair MUST have positive mass/energy but with negative charged to each other.
There is no other sort of new particle pair..
Please wake up.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

And that's why, from a distance, my ship's orbit remains the same.
After a while, the mass of the BH falls to (practically) zero.
At that point, the BH has been converted into other stuff- photons and such.
This is the evaporation of the BH. It is well understood, but not by you.
Obviously, at that point there's no BH so the process stops.

Do you know that just at the center of our galaxy there are more than 10,000 BHs?
If the imagination about: "the mass of the BH falls to (practically) zero." was correct, then it is not expected to see so many of them at the center of our galaxy.
However, as expected, you don't let the observation to tell you that Hawking imagination is just unrealistic.

[The Spoon]

Do you know that just at the center of our galaxy there are more than 10,000 BHs?

Have you evidence of this extraordinary claim?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you know that just at the center of our galaxy there are more than 10,000 BHs?

Have you evidence of this extraordinary claim?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/galaxy-centre-black-holes-1.4603464
"Centre of Milky Way home to 10,000 black holes,"

[The Spoon]

Do you know that just at the center of our galaxy there are more than 10,000 BHs?

Have you evidence of this extraordinary claim?

https://www.cbc.ca/news/science/galaxy-centre-black-holes-1.4603464
"Centre of Milky Way home to 10,000 black holes,"

The study suggests. Lots of maybe and might be.

[Bored chemist]

Lots of BH near the big BH in the middle isn't that big a shock; they may be falling in.

[Kryptid]

Make sure you answer this question, Dave:

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

If you can't tell us how that first black hole was formed, then you don't have a "full solution for the evolvement of the Universe". If you don't have that full solution based on real science, well, here is what you have already said that we should do with such a theory:

Well, any theory that doesn't give full solution (which is based on real science) for the evolvement of the Universe should be set in the garbage.

[Bored chemist]

If the imagination about: "the mass of the BH falls to (practically) zero." was correct, then it is not expected to see so many of them at the center of our galaxy.
However, as expected, you don't let the observation to tell you that Hawking imagination is just unrealistic.

The process is very slow.
"A black hole of one solar mass (M☉ = 2.0×10³⁰ kg) takes more than 10⁶⁷ years to evaporate—much longer than the current age of the universe at 14×10⁹ years."
So there is no contradiction.
(and it won't even start until the universe is a lot colder).


However, your idea definitely contradicts the conservation laws.
So we know it is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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

Dear Kryptid
Do you confirm that the  Big Bang theory can't explained the mechanism for the creation of energy?
Yes or no please.

If you can't tell us how that first black hole was formed, then you don't have a "full solution for the evolvement of the Universe". If you don't have that full solution based on real science, well, here is what you have already said that we should do with such a theory:

Sorry - the BBT is your theory.
So please take a decision.
Do you think that the BBT can explain the mechanism for the creation of energy?
If No - Let's agree that we should set the BBT in the garbage for good.
If yes - Then why do you ask me to offer that explanation? It is your theory and you task.
Just to remind you that you gave me a confirmation to use any element from the Big Bang:

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

Hence, if you think that BBT can explain the mechanism for the creation of energy, then I can use this segment in my theory (even if I think that the BBT is useless theory in its full package).

[Bored chemist]

if you think that BBT can explain the mechanism for the creation of energy, then I can use this segment in my theory

No, you can not.
As I keep pointing out...
Because the BB happened at the start of the universe it is exempt from the conservation of energy.
But your idea is ongoing so it has to comply with the conservation laws.
But it does not.
So we know it is wrong.

[Origin]

Do you think that the BBT can explain the mechanism for the creation of energy?

Of course not, the BBT is not about the creation of energy, whatever that is supposed to mean.

If No - Let's agree that we should set the BBT in the garbage for good.

That is an extremely ignorant thing to say.  The BBT does not address electromagnetism either, is that another reason that you think it should be discarded?
You sound like the fundamentalist who think that evolution should be discarded because it doesn't address abiogenesis.

The BBT is a robust theory that has given us huge insights to the formation of the universe we see today.  The fact that you don't understand the theory or science in general is your deficiency, it has nothing to do with the theory itself.

[Kryptid]

Do you confirm that the  Big Bang theory can't explained the mechanism for the creation of energy?

Nope, it can't explain it.

Do you think that the BBT can explain the mechanism for the creation of energy?

Nope.

If No - Let's agree that we should set the BBT in the garbage for good.

It's been in the garbage for quite a few posts now.

Hence, if you think that BBT can explain the mechanism for the creation of energy, then I can use this segment in my theory (even if I think that the BBT is useless theory in its full package).

It can't. So how are you going to save Theory D from the garbage?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It can't. So how are you going to save Theory D from the garbage?

Very simple
If you believe that BBT is correct, and you even claim that:
"Feel free to use any elements from the Big Bang theory that you want to, I don't care."
So, why I can't use it for the creation of the first BH (or SMBH if you wish)?

[Kryptid]

So, why I can't use it for the creation of the first BH (or SMBH if you wish)?

Um... because it doesn't have the means needed to create the energy for such a black hole?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Um... because it doesn't have the means needed to create the energy for such a black hole?

We all know by now that the BBT doesn't have the means needed to create any energy.
It's all about delivery.
Therefore, as we only discuss about delivery, then why are you so sure that the BBT has the means to deliver the energy for the entire Universe but it can't do so for one single BH?
Please remember - theory D starts with the same procedure as the bang in the Big bang.

Unless, you all know that the Big Bang is just big imagination and therefore, you also know that as unrealistic theory no one can really use that concept (not even the BBT itself).

[Bored chemist]

If you believe that BBT is correct,

If I believe the BBT is right I don't need to save your idea.
If I don't believe the BBT then I can't save your idea.

So there is no scenario in which your idea is useful.

Why do you not see this?