[Bored chemist]

But the mechanism available to the BBT (at the start of the universe) to evade the conservation of mass/ energy is not available to your idea today.
So you can't use the BBT to try to save your idea.

[Kryptid]

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?

It doesn't have the means to deliver that energy. Both of us have been agreeing on that this whole time.

Please remember - theory D starts with the same procedure as the bang in the Big bang.

Then it goes in the garbage because it doesn't have a means to deliver energy.

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).

Exactly, that's why it's in the garbage.

So how about finally explaining to us how Theory D gets around this problem?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

But the mechanism available to the BBT (at the start of the universe) to evade the conservation of mass/ energy is not available to your idea today.
So you can't use the BBT to try to save your idea.

Why is it?
Do you have a contract with the BBT that it is available only for you?
If so, please introduce that contract.
If no, I can use it.

It doesn't have the means to deliver that energy. Both of us have been agreeing on that this whole time.

Sorry - you can't just prevent me from using that BBT theory in my modeling.
However, you claim that the BBT took place 13.8 BY ago and after that time we get our wonderful universe.
I claim that if the BBT is real, it took place infinite time ago and after 13.8 (from the bang) we have already got our wonderful universe.
So, the same universe that we see today was there for already infinite time ago.
Based on the BBT, in about several trillions years from now, we won't see any galaxy in the sky.
I claim that even in even after millions of trillions years from now we would see exactly the same view.
Therefore, Let's agree that a similar universe that we see today had already created at the infinity time ago and now my task is to show how that universe can live at the same density and at the same view forever and ever.
Do you agree with that?

[Kryptid]

Sorry - you can't just prevent me from using that BBT theory in my modeling.

I never tried to.

Do you agree with that?

No, you have to show how the energy for your "small bang" was supplied. Otherwise, you are breaking your own rules.

Stop dodging and weaving. Either tell us how Theory D answers the question or admit that it can't already.

[Origin]

Stop dodging and weaving. Either tell us how Theory D answers the question or admit that it can't already.

After 73 pages Dave has yet to admit any part of his WAG-D is wrong, when it clearly is, so I wouldn't hold my breath waiting on him.  He is thoroughly ingrained in his delusion.

[Bored chemist]

So you can't use the BBT to try to save your idea.

Why is it?

Because you put it in the bin.
Do you not remember that?

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?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 16:09:08
Sorry - you can't just prevent me from using that BBT theory in my modeling.

I never tried to.

Thanks.
Do appreciate.

No, you have to show how the energy for your "small bang" was supplied.

Instead of my "small bang" which you don't wish to accept, I'm using now your "Big Bang".
Therefore, I don't need to show how the first energy had been supplied to my theory, as I'm using the same imagination process that you are using in your BBT theory.

Otherwise, you are breaking your own rules.
Stop dodging and weaving. Either tell us how Theory D answers the question or admit that it can't already.

My modeling is all about Infinite steady state Universe.
You have already confirmed that if you would discover that you can't fit our current Universe in only 13.8 BY then the BBT is useless.
Based on our scientists the minimal size of our Universe is bigger by 250 times then the observable universe.
Some scientists even claim that it is actually infinite in its size.
So far you couldn't show how the BBT that at its maximal size can explain an observable universe could also explain an infinite Universe or at least 250 times of observable universe.
Therefore, as you gave me the permition to use the imagination BBT in my theory, I take it with pleasure.
The main issue is that in my modeling that BBT took place at the infinity time ago and after 13.8 BY we get an observable Universe as you claim in that theory.
Now it is my task to show how an observable universe (with a radius size of 46 BLY) would transform into an infinite steady state universe after an infinite time.
As you already gave me the permition to use the BBT, you just can't prevent me to start my modeling with that BBT and that observable Universe at the infinity time ago. Unless you admit that the BBT is nonsense and then no one should use it.

[Bored chemist]

in my modeling that BBT took place

So, you agree it works then.

Quote from: Bored chemist on 25/08/2021 20:49:33
Quote from: Dave Lev on 25/08/2021 17:03:17
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?

[Kryptid]

Therefore, I don't need to show how the first energy had been supplied to my theory, as I'm using the same imagination process that you are using in your BBT theory.

Congratulations, you just put Theory D in the garbage alongside the Big Bang theory.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:01:44
in my modeling that BBT took place

So, you agree it works then.

The BBT as a single package theory can't explain the evolvement of infinite universe in just 13.8 BY.
As you all don't accept the idea of the small bang but fully support your Big Bang, then we have to share efforts and start the story of our universe with your Big Bang.
So, if it makes you all happy, we can agree that once upon a time (back at the infinity) there was a big bang - very big Bang.
That mighty big bang sets the observable size universe in just 13.8 BY.
Then, theory D can take control and transform that observable size universe into our current real infinite SST Universe.

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.

Although the BBT can't be used to explain the current infinite Universe, you all agree that it can set the observable universe size.
Therefore, we can start our story with the BBT and end it with theory D.

Therefore, I don't need to show how the first energy had been supplied to my theory, as I'm using the same imagination process that you are using in your BBT theory.

Congratulations, you just put Theory D in the garbage alongside the Big Bang theory.

Congratulations for you.
Based on your approach, only the BBT can deliver new energy to start our wonderful universe. Now the BBT and theory D can live alongside.
So, from now on, any BBT scientist that wishes to see in his imagination a very big bang with almost unlimited energy while there is nothing else in the entire Universe can continue with that wish.
Now he doesn't need to think how that BBT can explain a real universe which is significantly bigger than the observable size in only 13.8 BY as there is new update for that BBT.
Theory D clearly explains how a universe at observable size can be transformed into an infinite steady state universe after infinite time.
Hence, the BBT and live alongside theory D in peace and harmony.

[Bored chemist]

you all agree that it can set the observable universe size.

No

[Bored chemist]

The BBT as a single package theory can't explain the evolvement of infinite universe in just 13.8 BY.

It does.

Then, theory D can take control and transform that observable size universe into our current real infinite SST Universe.

No. It can not.
It still breaks the conservation laws.
It is impossible.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The BBT as a single package theory can't explain the evolvement of infinite universe in just 13.8 BY.

It does.

So please go ahead and explain how the BBT can set an infinite Universe from nothing in just 13.8 BY?
Please also explain why our scientists claim that the maximal size (radius) of the Universe based on the BBT can only be 46 BYL (observable universe)
 

Then, theory D can take control and transform that observable size universe into our current real infinite SST Universe.

No. It can not.
It still breaks the conservation laws.
It is impossible.

It is impossible only in your imagination.
You still hold the hawking radiation while you claerly know that there is no negative mass/energy in our universe.
Therefore, without negative mass, there is no possibility for a BH to decrease its mass.

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).

Did you try to set a calculation how many years is needed to set those BHs to gain that star mass? Do you think that until today they all had been formed and increase their mass and suddenly from today they all must be evaporated?
Is that real science for you?
If Hawking imagination is correct, then why there are so many BH (at a star mass) in the Milky way?
You and all the other scientists know by 100% that there is no negative mass or negative energy.
Even so, you still hold he Hawking imagination about BH evaporation.
How long are you going to keep that imagination?

Because the BB happened at the start of the universe it is exempt from the conservation of energy.

How do you dare to raise the flag of the conservation of energy for other theories while you all together don't have a basic clue how the energy for the BBT had been created?
Sorry - if you wish to hold the conservation energy - then you first have to explain how it had been created.
If you don't know - then please don't ask about it

I have aleady explained how the creation of new matter/energy really works:

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)

I have proved that Hawking radiation is a pure fiction as there is no negative mass/energy
The key idea in my modeling is that new created particles near the SMBH add new orbital energy.
That new orbital energy is transformed into tidal heat that is needed for the EM radiation
Therefore, the creation of new particles near the event horizon that sets the hot plasma disc (that is called - accretion disc) proves that the new mass/energy creation cycle is 100% correct and it doesn't violet the conservation law.

[Kryptid]

Hence, the BBT and live alongside theory D in peace and harmony.

Yep, they are alongside each other in the garbage, since they both break your rules.

[Bored chemist]

I have proved that Hawking radiation is a pure fiction as there is no negative mass/energy

You have not proved anything.

It is impossible only in your imagination.

Noether's theory is not part of my imagination, is it?
So why tell that lie?

I have aleady explained how the creation of new matter/energy really works:

You posted that faulty list.
I pointed out the problem.

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.

If you were doing science, you would update your list to include the correction.
But you do not, because you are a liar or a troll.

Sorry - if you wish to hold the conservation energy - then you first have to explain how it had been created.

I have lost count of how many times I explained that.

Why do you not listen?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Infinite Universe

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:14:46
The BBT as a single package theory can't explain the evolvement of infinite universe in just 13.8 BY.

It does.

Would you kindly explain how the BBT could set an infinite Universe in only 13.8 BY?
Don't just say "it does" but please explain how it really works in only 13.8 BY from nothing to infinity.
Good Luck.


Noether's theory

Noether's theory is not part of my imagination, is it?
So why tell that lie?

We have already have deeply discussed about Noether's theory but you don't care:
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"
Theory D fully meets that specification, while in the BBT you just try to bypass that limitation.
You clearly claim that in the BBT there is no explanation for the creation of energy. So, the BBT is all about a way of bypassing the Noether's theorem without any real solution about the source for that energy.
Please remember that E=mc^2. Therefore, for each gram of mass you need an enery that is higher by c^2.
Hence, for infinite Universe with infinite mass, you need an energy which is equivalent to that infinite mass multiply by c^2.
Please show the source of that incredible energy in your lovely BBT theory!
Therefore, In the BBT you bypass the Noether's theorem and deliver energy to our early universe, but you have no clue how that energy had been created.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:40:13
Sorry - if you wish to hold the conservation energy - then you first have to explain how it had been created.

I have lost count of how many times I explained that.

You have NEVER EVER explained the source of the energy for the BBT.
You even stated that you don't know how the BBT energy had been created.
So why do you offer an incorrect answer?

However, my modeling lives perfectly next to Noether's theorem and conservation law.
I have already explained it:

The key idea in my modeling is that new created particles near the SMBH add new orbital energy.
That new orbital energy is transformed into tidal heat that is needed for the EM radiation
Therefore, the creation of new particles near the event horizon that sets the hot plasma disc (that is called - accretion disc) proves that the new mass/energy creation cycle is 100% correct and it doesn't violet the conservation law.

Hence, next time that you offer Noether's theorem or conservation law to kill other theory, please remember to set your BBT in a shelter under the table.

Hawking radiation

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 19:40:13
I have proved that Hawking radiation is a pure fiction as there is no negative mass/energy

You have not proved anything.

Yes I did.
Hawking radiation is based on the existence of negative mass/energy.
However, you and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists together know for sure that there is no negative mass/energy in our entire Universe.
Therefore, you all know that Hawking radiation is a pure fiction.
So why do you keep using this fiction as a valid theory?
You also didn't answer my following question:

Did you try to set a calculation how many years is needed to set those BHs to gain that star mass? Do you think that until today they all had been formed and increase their mass and suddenly from today they all must be evaporated?
Is that real science for you?
If Hawking imagination is correct, then why there are so many BH (at a star mass) in the Milky way?

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.
If you were doing science, you would update your list to include the correction.
But you do not, because you are a liar or a troll.

Your 5.5 is based on Hawking radiation.
As this hawking radiation is a pure fiction that can't work without negative mass/energy and as there is no negative mass/energy in our universe, then this 5.5 should be set long time ago deep in the garbage.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

.

Yep, they are alongside each other in the garbage, since they both break your rules.

Theory D is all about evolvement of the Universe from a single BH or if you wish - from the observable universe.
As you all insist that ONLY the BBT can transform free of charge new energy to our early universe (without any explanation how that energy had been created), then you can't prevent me from using this idea also in my theory.
You have already confirmed that I can use this idea of new energy delivery (based on the BBT) and how the observable universe had been created.
Therefore, I can take that observable universe and show how it can be transformed into infinite universe after infinite time by theory D.
So, please show me which kind of my rules they break.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Rapid expansion after the Big Bang

Hence, for infinite Universe with infinite mass, you need an energy which is equivalent to that infinite mass multiply by c^2.
Please show the source of that incredible energy in your lovely BBT theory!

Please also remember that our scientists claimed that theoretically, the BBT could end its life as a SS...SMBH at the same moment of the bang. However, due to the idea of rapid expansion after the bang, it could overcome that difficulty.
That concept could work as long as the energy is finite.
Finite energy means finite Universe.
However, now we discuss on infinite Universe.
Hence, in infinite universe there must be infinite galaxies with infinite stars.
Infinite stars means infinite energy which is equal to infinite stars multiply by c^2.
Please calculate the requested rapid expansion that is needed for that energy to escape from the SS..SMBH after the bang.
I assume that the minimal rapid expansion that is needed for the BBT must be infinite mass * c^2, but I would like to see your calculation.

[Kryptid]

As you all insist that ONLY the BBT can transform free of charge new energy to our early universe (without any explanation how that energy had been created), then you can't prevent me from using this idea also in my theory.
You have already confirmed that I can use this idea of new energy delivery (based on the BBT) and how the observable universe had been created.

Sure, but it breaks your rules.

So, please show me which kind of my rules they break.

For one, your rule that a theory of the Universe has to be able to explain its source of energy:

It is not good enough to explain how the Universe had been evolved from that energy that the universe got free of charge.
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.

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

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

Secondly, that such a theory has to be based on real observations:

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.

An "imaginary process", like the one you stated Theory D uses, breaks those rules.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

For one, your rule that a theory of the Universe has to be able to explain its source of energy:

You are absolutely correct.
Based on theory D there is no need for any external energy to start our universe as it is stated that even in an empty space there is full of energy or actually that "according to quantum field theory every cubic centimeter of empty space should have more mass-energy than all the mass-energy in the entire observable universe"
http://www.markmahin.com/vacuum.html
Quantum field theory allows us to calculate how much energy there should be in the vacuum of space because of these virtual particles. The problem is that when scientists do the calculations, they get a number that is ridiculously wrong. According to this page of a UCLA astronomer, quantum field theory gives a prediction that every cubic centimeter of the vacuum should have an energy density of 10^91 grams.  This number is 10 followed by 90 zeroes. That is an amount trillions of times greater than the mass of the entire observable universe, which is estimated to be only about 10^56 grams.
This means that according to quantum field theory every cubic centimeter of empty space should have more mass-energy than all the mass-energy in the entire observable universe."
Therefore, theory D doesn't need at all to start with the BBT.

Actually, even for the BBT there is more than enough energy in the empty space.
Therefore, the BBT could get its entire energy from that source.
However, in your theory you have decided not to use that available energy in the empty space and import new energy to your early universe without a clue about how that energy had been created - But this is your problem.

An "imaginary process", like the one you stated Theory D uses, breaks those rules.

Unfortunately, you have decided that according to your rules this energy in the empty space isn't good enough to set even a tinny BH.
Therefore, in order to bypass your rules, I had been forced to use your imaginary rule/process that is called BBT.
So, it's not about my rules but it's all about your rules.
Hence, if you accept my rule - then there is no need for the BBT as there is more than enough energy in the empty space.
If you insist to reject my rules then you can't prevent me from using your rules/theory.
So, please take a decision.
Use my rules about the energy in the empty space or let me use your rules in the form of BBT imagination.
You can't just close the two rules' doors for me.