[Bored chemist]

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.

Inflation

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.

That's a lie.

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.

Without negative mass Hawking radiation doesn't work.
But Hawking radiation is the mechanism you are using for the production of mass by a BH.
So, you are saying your mechanism can't work.

You are right; it can't.

The only way the ejection of matter from a BH can happen is for an equal amount of negative mass to fall into the BH.
Otherwise, the process breaks the laws of physics.

If you say Hawking radiation isn't real, then you have no mechanism for your idea rot create a universe.
Idea D must follow Hawking radiation into the bin.

[Bored chemist]

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.

That's not the problem; even if we accept that the BH somehow pops up out of nowhere, it will not make a universe.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:50:44
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.

That's a lie.

Why do you call it lie?
Do you claim that you have an evidence for the existence of negative mass/energy.
If so please introduce that evidence.
If you have no evidence for that existence then why do you claim that it is a lie?

Without negative mass Hawking radiation doesn't work.

That is correct.
Therefore, Hawking radiation is just a fiction,

But Hawking radiation is the mechanism you are using for the production of mass by a BH.
So, you are saying your mechanism can't work.

NO, NO .... NO
The pair particle creation near the event horizon of the SMBH is due to the EM radiation.
So, both particles have positive mass but negative charged with regards to each other.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that simple explanation?

The only way the ejection of matter from a BH can happen is for an equal amount of negative mass to fall into the BH.
Otherwise, the process breaks the laws of physics.

This is nonsense as Hawking radiation is just a fiction.
Please try to erase that nonsense from your memory.

If you say Hawking radiation isn't real, then you have no mechanism for your idea rot create a universe.

Yes, I have a very simple and real mechanism.
It is all about EM radiation!

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.

That's not the problem; even if we accept that the BH somehow pops up out of nowhere, it will not make a universe.

Many thanks for your good willing to consider the possibility that the BH could pop up due to the energy on the space.
Once you accept the idea of the first BH with its ability to have EM radiation you also need to accept the mechanism how new particles are added to our Universe.
After crossing those two main issues, Theory D takes control and transforms the empty space after infinite time to our wonderful infinite SST universe.
So simple and clear.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:50:44
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.

Inflation

Do you really belive that in one word you can transform a theory for finite universe to infinite universe?
If so, please set the calculation for the requested rapid expansion that is needed for infinite energy (which must be supplied to the infinite Universe) in order to overcome the problem of locked in a SS..SMBH just after the big bang:

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.

[The Spoon]

If so, please set the calculation for the requested rapid expansion that is needed for infinite energy (which must be supplied to the infinite Universe) in order to overcome the problem of locked in a SS..SMBH just after the big bang:

Why should you expect people to do calculations, when you refused to show your maths when asked, but instead just used avoidance tactics?

[Kryptid]

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.

Even if that energy is there, we've never seen the energy in empty space turn into a black hole. So such a process isn't based on a "real observation" and thus you are still breaking your own rules.

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.

Not really. I don't have to defend a theory that is in the garbage.

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.

It's your own rule that science must be based on "real observations". We have never seen the energy in empty space turn into a black hole, so such a process breaks your rule.

So, it's not about my rules but it's all about your rules.

Whether or not you are breaking "my" rules is irrelevant to the fact that you are breaking your own rules. That puts Theory D in the garbage, as per your own requirement.

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.

But you can't use that energy to create a black hole because it isn't based on a "real observation".

If you insist to reject my rules then you can't prevent me from using your rules/theory.

It's not that I'm rejecting your rules, it's that I'm pointing out that you are breaking them.

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.

Use either one you want to, as both break your rules.

[Bored chemist]

Please try to erase that nonsense from your memory.

If I erase Hawking radiation from my memory, I no longer understand the mechanism by which BH produce particles.
How do you think that particle production happens?
(In your explanation, be sure to explain how mass is conserved- as the laws of physics require.)

[Bored chemist]

Do you really belive that in one word you can transform a theory for finite universe to infinite universe?

Yes, as long as the person who reads it understands it.
Is that a problem?

[Bored chemist]

Many thanks for your good willing to consider the possibility that the BH could pop up due to the energy on the space.

I will consider it.
I will also point out that it is impossible.
But, I will consider it for long enough to show that, even if it was possible, it wouldn't help.

Even if the BH popped up, the conservation laws stop it producing any more mass.

Once you accept the idea of the first BH with its ability to have EM radiation you also need to accept the mechanism how new particles are added to our Universe.

Well, yes; but those particles and radiation are produced at the expense of the mass of the BH.
The mass remains constant. (because of the conservation laws).
So you can only produce a very small universe.
You can't produce the universe we live in.


Do you understand how that is a problem for your idea?

After crossing those two main issues, Theory D ...

But it can not cross either of those issues.
They are both impossible.
That is why we know you are wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Even if that energy is there, we've never seen the energy in empty space turn into a black hole. So such a process isn't based on a "real observation" and thus you are still breaking your own rules.

Do you really believe that we can observe a tinny BH from a distance of one MLY or even 1000 LY away from us?
So, if it is so difficult to observe that BH, how do we know for sure that this kind of process doesn't exsist.

But you can't use that energy to create a black hole because it isn't based on a "real observation".

Do you confirm that we have NEVER EVER observe any star as it falls into the SMBH?
Even so, you all are sure by 100% that stars must fall into the accretion disc.
Therefore, if you accept the idea that stars could fall into the accretion disc without any observation to support that imagination, then you also need to accept my idea that the energy in the empty space (which is so high based on our scientists) could potentially be transformed into a BH or even tinny BH.
If you insist to base your understanding on real observation - then lets agree that as you have never observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH, Nothing really falls in.
You can't just tell me that in my theory I need to supply observation, but in your theory you don't need to supply any observation.

It's not that I'm rejecting your rules, it's that I'm pointing out that you are breaking them.

I'm not breaking any rule in my theory.
It is only you that are using different rules when it comes to my theory.
Sorry - you must use one rule to any theory.
If observation is important - then please set the idea of falling stars into the accretion disc in the garbage before you ask me to set my theory in the same garbage.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 10:03:13
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.

Use either one you want to, as both break your rules.

Sorry, I can use any idea for the first BH creation.
If you can claim that there was a big bang without any observation for that bang, I can also claim that there was a small bang without any observation for that bang.
If you show the observation for your big bang, then let me look for my observation.
Again - one rule to any theory.
This is the real rule.
You must evaluate my theory based on the same rules that you evaluate your own theory.
One we agree with that, let's verify which theory really breaks the rules.

[Bored chemist]

how do we know for sure that this kind of process doesn't exsist.

The laws of physics.
Specifically, the conservation of mass/ energy.

[Bored chemist]

If observation is important - then please set the idea of falling stars into the accretion disc in the garbage before you ask me to set my theory in the same garbage.

Why?
We have evidence for that sort of thing.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, I can use any idea for the first BH creation.

So can the BBT.
So you can't say the BBT is impossible.

[Kryptid]

Do you really believe that we can observe a tinny BH from a distance of one MLY or even 1000 LY away from us?
So, if it is so difficult to observe that BH, how do we know for sure that this kind of process doesn't exsist.

It's not my fault that you require an observation in order for it to be considered science:

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.

You said it yourself. If you can't back it up with a "real observation", then it is "unproved imagination". There's your quote right there in front of you. You can't deny it. It's right there for all to see.

If you insist to base your understanding on real observation - then lets agree that as you have never observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH, Nothing really falls in.

Okay then, I agree. We have never seen matter fall into a SMBH.

You can't just tell me that in my theory I need to supply observation

You're right, I don't need to tell you. You told yourself that you need to:

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.

but in your theory you don't need to supply any observation.

I don't need to supply an observation for a theory that I'm not defending. You seem to keep forgetting that we put the Big Bang theory in the garbage.

I'm not breaking any rule in my theory.

Sure you are. I've even provided the relevant quotes to back it up. You insisted that something not based on "real observations" is "unproved imagination". If you deny that you said such a thing, we will know that you are lying because we can read your quote right there on the screen.

If observation is important - then please set the idea of falling stars into the accretion disc in the garbage before you ask me to set my theory in the same garbage.

Okay, it's in the garbage. So Theory D can go in the garbage now too.

Sorry, I can use any idea for the first BH creation.

You most certainly can, but that doesn't mean it's correct. The fact that you intentionally put an imaginary process in it shows that it probably isn't correct.

You must evaluate my theory based on the same rules that you evaluate your own theory.
One we agree with that, let's verify which theory really breaks the rules.

Okay, we'll use your rules. The Big Bang theory breaks your rules because we don't have any "real observation" for how it got its energy. So the Big Bang theory goes in the garbage. Theory D breaks your rules because we don't have any "real observation" for how it got its energy. So Theory D goes in the garbage too.

[Bored chemist]

If you insist to base your understanding on real observation - then lets agree that as you have never observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH, Nothing really falls in.

Reality calling Dave.
Yes we have.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20200902

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Okay then, I agree. We have never seen matter fall into a SMBH.

Thanks
Do appreciate your honest and clear answer!

If you insist to base your understanding on real observation - then lets agree that as you have never observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH, Nothing really falls in.

Reality calling Dave.
Yes we have.
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20200902

NO, we don't have!!!
How long can you go with this imagination?
Ligo isn't about an indication of a falling matter into the SMBH' accretion disc.
Please read again the above answer from Kryptid.
It is all about a binary black hole merger:
https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20200902
"A binary black hole merger likely produced gravitational waves equal to the energy of eight suns."
Why is it so difficult for you to see the difference?
In the article it is also stated:
"From what the researchers can tell, GW190521 was generated by a source that is roughly 5 gigaparsecs away, when the universe was about half its age, making it one of the most distant gravitational-wave sources detected so far."
So, it is located at a very long distance from us.
Therefore, it is stated:
"As for what produced this signal, based on a powerful suite of state-of-the-art computational and modeling tools, scientists think that GW190521 was most likely generated by a binary black hole merger with unusual properties."
Hence, our scientists think that GW190521 was most likely generated by a binary black hole merger.
Therefore, they can't see this BH, they just get this gravity wave/bang and they think that it is due to a merger of a BH.
Hence, it is clearly not about the accretion disc of a SMBH which our scientists can observe even at a distance of 1BLY away (as in the example of M87). It is also clear that it didn't take place in any galaxy as we can observe galaxies at almost 13.4 BLY away.
So, it is very clear that it took place somewhere in the empty space and it is not about an accretion disc of any SMBH.

However, why those scientists THINK that it is all about BH merger?
Why that gravity wave is not about a bang that generates a BH as I expect in my modeling?
If they just THINK that it is about BH merger while they couldn't see any BH before that bang, then why we can't think that it is all about a creation of a BH from the energy in the empty space?
If that is correct, then this Ligo is a golden observation/evidence for my modeling of creation BH from the space energy.

Okay, we'll use your rules. The Big Bang theory breaks your rules because we don't have any "real observation" for how it got its energy. So the Big Bang theory goes in the garbage. Theory D breaks your rules because we don't have any "real observation" for how it got its energy. So Theory D goes in the garbage too.

Well, I agree with you that there is no observation for the Big bang and it should go to the garbage.
However, if the above Ligo is an indication for the creation of a BH in the empty space, then this is a golden observation for my modeling.
Therefore, there is good chance that we have found the observation for my modeling.

In any case, let's make it clear with regards to the Rules.
Please ignore my rules or your Rules.
There must be the same Rules to any theory.
So, if you wish to adopt my request/ rule - then it must work on any theory.
Therefore, I have high appreciation for your answer as you have decided to adopt my rule about the observation for both theories.
Hence, you have agreed to set the BBT and my modeling in the garbage without a valid observation.
However, I hope that based on the above Ligo, you are willing to accept the possibility that this Ligo observation is a key evidence that fully supports my modeling.

[Kryptid]

However, if the above Ligo is an indication for the creation of a BH in the empty space

It isn't.

However, I hope that based on the above Ligo, you are willing to accept the possibility that this Ligo observation is a key evidence that fully supports my modeling.

Nope. What LIGO has observed are gravitational waves emitted by the merger of two previously-existing black holes (or a black hole and a neutron star). They are not from the spontaneous appearance of a black hole from empty space devoid of previous matter.

Therefore, there is good chance that we have found the observation for my modeling.

Sorry, but a "good chance" isn't good enough, according to your rules. Take a look at another one of your quotes from the past:

Science can't be base on "pretty sure" or expectation!
You need to prove your expectation.
Without it - any expectation is just imagination!

So "pretty sure", "a good chance", "probably" or anything else less than proof would break this rule of yours. You have to prove that this gravitational wave came from the spontaneous formation of a black hole in empty space. If you can't do that, then your own rule calls it "imagination".

[Bored chemist]

Ligo isn't about an indication of a falling matter into the SMBH' accretion disc.

You didn't say anything about the accretion disk.
You said this.

then lets agree that as you have never observe any matter as it falls into the SMBH, Nothing really falls in.

and that's wrong, because we saw an entire BH fall into a BH.

So we know that things fall in.

So, according to you, we know that there's an accretion disk and we know things fall in but somehow they manage to miss the disk on the way.

That's clearly stupid.

[Bored chemist]

here is no observation for the Big bang

There are countless observations of it.
The two biggest groups are the Hubble constant and the CMBR.

There are others such as the lack of blue dwarf stars.

So, you have been caught out lying.

[Bored chemist]

if the above Ligo is an indication for the creation of a BH in the empty space

It isn't.
The frequency vs time graph is wrong for that interpretation to be possible.

[Bored chemist]

There must be the same Rules to any theory.

OK, lets go with one of the few rules in physics which can be proven to be true; the conservation of mass. energy.

Your idea breaks that rule.
So your idea is wrong.
You were wrong 30 pages ago and nothing has changed.