[Bored chemist]

why we can't think that it is all about a creation of a BH from the energy in the empty space?

First, it looks like the merger of two BH.
Second, there is no possible mechanism for what you propose, because it would break the laws of physics.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Thanks
I agree

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".

I also agree.
So, from now on we would focus only on real observation and real science of law (for any theory)

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 18:04:42
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.

NO, NO NO!!!
It is very clear that you have totally got lost.
You really don't understand what do we really observe.
There are three kinds of observations that show spirals/falls in activities:
1. Ligo - In Ligo we observe twin BH's/Neutron stars that have a similar mass (more or less) that falls inwards and merge.
2. Phobos - A relatively small orbital object that orbits very close to the main mass at circular orbit with very low eccentricity. It is expected that Phobos would fall in.
3. Satellite around the earth - This satellite has a circular orbit shape and should fall in mainly due to atmosphere friction.
That's all!
In all the other observations we clearly see that the orbital object spirals outwards:
For example, when a relative low mass object orbits around a massive object at a relatively long distance (as a moon around a planet, a planet around a star or a star around a SMBH - it would spiral outwards.  All the planets spiral outwards from our sun. Our scientists claim that they do so due to tidal heat transformation/friction.
Therefore, Ligo is not an indication for a falling star into the SMBH' accretion disc or into the SMBH itself (as the ratio between any S star to the SMBH is very high.
The ratio between S stars to the SMBH mass is similar to the ratio between the planets to the sun.
As all the planets are orbiting outwards (due to tidal friction) also all S stars should orbit outwards due to the same tidal friction.
Nothing falls in and nothing would never and ever fall in!!!

However, with regards to the SMBH accretion disc - The plasma at the accretion disc is located very close to the SMBH and has a very high circular orbit. Therefore, theoretically, the plasma should fall in. However, due to the SMBH EM power all the matter in the accretion disc are ejected outwards - to the last particle!
So it is not ejected outwards due to the gravity force, but due to SMBH' mighty EM power.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:44:41
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.

No
You have a fatal mistake.
The conservation law kills the BBT as you have no valid source for the Energy, but has no negative impact on theory D:
Our scientists clearly claim that there is more than enough energy even in an empty space.

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, theoretically there is enough energy in the empty space to generate all the matter that we see in our Universe.
However, based on the BBT, the energy for our universe is imported from outside.
However, the whole idea of the BBT is that there was no universe and no space before the Big Bang. So, even if you can bypass by this imagination the conservation law, you still have a severe problem about the source of the energy.
Hence, based on theory D - the energy in the empty space is good enough to cover all the mass that we see, while the BBT doesn't explain the source of the energy.
Therefore, the conservation law and Northern theory Kill the BBT, but doesn't negatively affect my modeling.
Is it clear to you by now?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:44:41
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.

CMBR - Based on theory D, the CMBH is the radiation of our current infinite Universe. I can easily explain how we get that radiation and it would stay the same forever and ever.
Hubble constant - That constant doesn't prove any sort of expansion in the space itself. It is all about expansion in the galaxies. Theory D gives perfect explanation for that.

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

There are no old stars in the galaxies as all the stars are drifting outwards. Nothing comes from outside. As the galaxy cross the space it swift away any star that stays it its way. Any star and any dwarf galaxy that we see around our MW galaxy had been ejected from the MW. All the dwarf galaxies around us should be considered as the children of the Milky Way. Each one of them had been evolved from a baby BH that the MW had been created. Therefore, if you wish to find a dwarf star, you need to look very far away from the galaxy (about one million LY away).

So, you have been caught out lying.

As the BBT is based on nonsense - it is just irrelevant theory.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 03:44:41
Ligo isn't about an indication of a falling matter into the SMBH' accretion disc.
You didn't say anything about the accretion disk.

Ok
We all agree that we have no observation of any matter/star/Gas cloud that falls into the SMBH' accretion disc.
However, we also all agree that we clearly observe a constant stream (or molecular jet stream) that is ejected from the accretion disc.
Hence - based on observation
We clearly observe matter as it is ejected outwards from the accretion disc, while we have never ever observed any matter that falls in.
Therefore - if we have to base our knowledge on real data/evidence - we have to agree that the matter is the accretion disc is coming from inside and is ejected outside.
This is the real meaning of real observation!!!

[Kryptid]

So, from now on we would focus only on real observation and real science of law (for any theory)

So Theory D goes in the garbage because we've never had a real observation of a black hole forming from vacuum energy.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, from now on we would focus only on real observation and real science of law (for any theory)

So Theory D goes in the garbage because we've never had a real observation of a black hole forming from vacuum energy.

Sorry, there is a big difference between theories D to BBT.
In the BBT, the energy had to be imported from outside - while there is no valid source to buy that energy.
Therefore without real energy source there is a violation of the conservation law and the BBT should be set in the garbage.
In theory D - the energy is already in the empty space. Hence, any matter that is created from that energy doesn't violet the conservation law.

[Kryptid]

In theory D - the energy is already in the empty space. Hence, any matter that is created from that energy doesn't violet the conservation law.

Even if it didn't violate conservation of energy, it still breaks your rule of having to have a "real observation". Without that, it is, to quote you, "unproved imagination".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In theory D - the energy is already in the empty space. Hence, any matter that is created from that energy doesn't violet the conservation law.

Even if it didn't violate conservation of energy, it still breaks your rule of having to have a "real observation". Without that, it is, to quote you, "unproved imagination".

Thanks for considering the possibility that Theory D might not violate conservation of energy
However, any request for observation must come with some basic logic.
For example:
Based on theory D there is only need for a single bang that took place infinite time ago and create a tinny BH at infinite distance from us.
So what is the possibility to observe that kind of bang?
However, when it comes to the BBT, the story is different. The Big Bang took place only 13.8 BY ago. Our scientists claim that the temp at that moment was ultra high. Even 600,000 years after that bang, the temp of the universe was still quite high. Surprisingly, we can observe galaxies at a distance of 13.2 BLY away from us. Those galaxies had been created when the Universe age was 600,000 years.
Hence, we monitor those galaxies as observe their aria, we actually see the early space of the universe.
Therefore, it is expected that the temp around that galaxy would reflect the temp of the universe at the age of 600,000 years.
However, if I understand it correctly, we didn't find there any special hot universe as expected.
Therefore, that observation (or missing observation) by itself proves that the story about a Big Bang with so much heat after the bang is just a fiction story.

[Bored chemist]

The conservation law kills the BBT as you have no valid source for the Energy

Why do you think that, even though I have explained that it is wrong?

[Bored chemist]

However, when it comes to the BBT, the story is different. The Big Bang took place only 13.8 BY ago.

And we still see the afterglow; the CMBR.

[Kryptid]

However, any request for observation must come with some basic logic.
For example:
Based on theory D there is only need for a single bang that took place infinite time ago and create a tinny BH at infinite distance from us.
So what is the possibility to observe that kind of bang?

It's not my fault that your rules demand observations:

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

They have to prove  those ideas ONLY by real observations and verifications.

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.

it is your obligation to prove your imagination by real observation.

Can you please prove this imagination by real observation?

Science must be based on real observation.

You once even wanted me to force Bored Chemist to back up his arguments with real observations:

Therefore, I request you to force him to backup his imagination/ideas by real observation, real data and real article.

If Bored Chemist has to do it, then so do you. If your model involves a process that we haven't ever seen and can't ever see, then it isn't science according to you. That puts Theory D in the garbage.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You once even wanted me to force Bored Chemist to back up his arguments with real observations:

Dear Kryptid
I have never ever asked to observe something that isn't realistic.
When I ask for an observation, then this observation should be valid.
I have never ever ask to see the Big bang moment even that it took place only 13.8 BY ago.
In the same token I do not expect to see a tinny bang that took place at the infinite time ago at the infinite distance from us.
So, if you discuss about my rules - let's make the rules clear.
I only ask to see something that is feasible to see.
for example:
1. The temp of the early universe:
I claim that we should observe and monitor the temp of the early universe.
We can clearly observe a 13.2 By old galaxy.
That galaxy was there when the universe age was already 600,000 Year.
So, if we can clearly observe that galaxy in the early universe when its age was only 600,000 Years, while the universe was still be very hot, then why we do not observe that expected temp at that far away galaxy?
If the temp of that far away galaxy doesn't correlated to the expected universe temp at that age, then it is an indication that the BBT is just imagination.
2. SMBH' Accretion disc - Our scientists clearly observe the hot plasma as it orbits at ultra high velocity in a circular orbit around the SMBH. They clearly observe that plasma as it is ejected outwards from the disc into the Bulge as a UFO.
However, so far they have NEVER EVER observed any matter as it falls in.
Therefore, while our scientists claim that if something falls, it should come with fireworks, then we should clearly see matter as it makes its way from the bulge into the SMBH or its accretion disc. 
However, we don't see any falling star/moon/matter and not any kind of  fire works as a star is falling in.
In order to bypass that missing observation BC claim that we should see the star only as it gets to the accretion disc.
This is imagination.
We should see it much before getting that location as its orbital velocity at the disc is as high as the speed of light.
So somehow it must increase its velocity long before getting there and it must be broken long before that location.
But for all of you, a missing observation isn't a problem. You are very kind with the BBT.
You always try to explain why it doesn't work according to our expectations..
BC explain that the stars must be broken ONLY at that disc. So, when the star falls in it must ask the universe to tell him where is the exact location of the Accretion disc as BC told him that it can only break over there.
Is it real?
BC also claim that it breaks there due to a collision with the disc. But sometimes there would be no matter over there and also the accretion disc is so thin and so narrow. So what is the chance that a falling star would hit that disc and what is the chance that this kind of disc can break so massive star as S2?
Even if that star falls in (and we can't see it) then as it breaks or collide over there, it should come with a significant bang or fireworks as the star' matter is ejected in all directions. We don't see that activity in any SMBH accretion disc.
The last issue is that if something falls it must falls all the way and merge with the SMBH. We see the impact of Ligo. Those BH's falls in and merge.
Their matter isn't ejected outwards after the merging in a constant flow.
In the same token - also Phobos spirals in and should merge with Its planet.
So, if something falls - it falls for good.
BC try to use the eccentricity as an indication for matter that falls in and ejected out.
That is a severe mistake.
As in our real universe any orbital object with high eccentricity would NEVER EVER falls in.
All the objects that we observe that spiral inwards - Must be located close to the main mass and orbit at a very circular orbit (with very low eccentricity).
So, the idea of high eccentricity is just a fiction.
Therefore - I claim that as we don't observe any matter as it falls into the accretion disc - while we clearly observe the matter as it is ejected outwards from that same accretion disc - then NOTHING really falls in!!!!
Therefore, in this case I insist to observe the falling matter – if that was real.
You can't just claim that we see the matter as it is ejected outwards but somehow we can't see any matter that falls inwards through the same media.
This is imagination.

Therefore, when I ask to observe something - then if that something was real we have to see it by 100%.

I didn't ask you to observe your big bang moment that took place 13.8 BY ago, and therefore, you shouldn't ask me to observe the tiny bang moment that took place at the infinity time ago.

[Bored chemist]

I have never ever asked to observe something that isn't realistic.

Yes you did.
You repeatedly asked why we didn't have pictures of invisible things , in the dark a  long way away.

Don't you remember the "black cat in a coal cellar" comments?

By the way, do you realise that people can just look back through the thread and see that you did it?
Did you think we wouldn't notice that you were not telling the truth?

[Bored chemist]

So, when the star falls in it must ask the universe to tell him where is the exact location of the Accretion disc as BC told him that it can only break over there.

In reality, I didn't say that.
You are just making stuff up.

[Bored chemist]

I claim that we should observe and monitor the temp of the early universe.

If, as you claim, the universe is infinitely old, the idea of " the early universe" has no meaning.

Why do you ask us to monitor it?

[Bored chemist]

You always try to explain why it doesn't work according to our expectations..

It works in accordance with our observations- which is the important thing.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, when I ask to observe something - then if that something was real we have to see it by 100%.

Well, it is only fair that I can say the same  thing.

If your idea about mass popping up out of BH is real then why don't we see it?

[Bored chemist]

BC try to use the eccentricity as an indication for matter that falls in and ejected out.

Where?
is this another of your made up things?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You always try to explain why it doesn't work according to our expectations..

It works in accordance with our observations- which is the important thing.

If you hope that the matter in the SMBH' accretion disc falling in from the Bulge, while we only see the plasma as it is ejected outwards into the Bulge then this is clear contradiction to the expected observation.
So, how do you dare to claim "It works in accordance with our observations- "?

Don't you remember the "black cat in a coal cellar" comments?

Don't you remember that I told you that if there are cats at the cellar, then at least some of them might be white or just not black? Also, the chance that the entire cellars in the planet have coal is not so high.
Therefore, if there were cats in a cellar, then somehow we have to see at least some of them.
In the same token - if something was falling into the SMBH' accretion disc - while we observe so many of them - we have to see somewhere something as it falls in.
As we do not see it - and I can promise you by 100% that we would NEVER EVER see it (Not in a billion years from now and Not if you stay two meters from that accretion disc), then your imagination of falling matter is just a fantasy.
Keep on with this fantasy. It is free of charge as your BBT is also a free of charge fantasy.

If, as you claim, the universe is infinitely old, the idea of " the early universe" has no meaning.

Why do you ask us to monitor it?

You are the one that claim that the BBT took place 13.8 BY ago.
So please - don't you have any basic wish to verify if your theory is correct or incorrect?

So, when the star falls in it must ask the universe to tell him where is the exact location of the Accretion disc as BC told him that it can only break over there.

In reality, I didn't say that.
You are just making stuff up.

Yes you did.

The conservation law kills the BBT as you have no valid source for the Energy

Why do you think that, even though I have explained that it is wrong?

You didn't explain the source of the BBT energy!
You only explain how you could bypass the physics law.

However, when it comes to the BBT, the story is different. The Big Bang took place only 13.8 BY ago.

And we still see the afterglow; the CMBR.

The CMBR isn't an indication for the afterglow.
It is all about the cosmic microwave background radiation of our infinite Universe.
That radiation is everywhere. in our location and in one million billions LY at any direction. It was already there in our Universe long before that 13.8 By and it would stay (almost the same level) forever and ever.
So, you and all the other 100,000 BBT scientists don't have a basic clue about the real meaning of that CMBR.

I ask myself again and again what kind of data do you need in order to understand that the BBT is just a useless theory.
But it is very clear to me that after 75 pg. that even if God by himself would come and tell you face to face that the BBT is wrong, you would try to convince him that the BBT is the Ultimate theory for our Universe.
You don't care if the Universe is finite or infinite
You don't care about the real age of the Universe.
You don't care about the dark matter or the dark energy.
You don't care about any contradiction in the BBT.
All you care is to hold that lovely BBT theory forever and ever and… ever..

[Kryptid]

I have never ever asked to observe something that isn't realistic.
When I ask for an observation, then this observation should be valid.
I have never ever ask to see the Big bang moment even that it took place only 13.8 BY ago.
In the same token I do not expect to see a tinny bang that took place at the infinite time ago at the infinite distance from us.

Okay, that's fair. I wouldn't expect to be able to see anything infinitely far away. If we were to see a black hole suddenly form from empty space, then that would imply that your scenario is feasible even though we could never see it directly. That is, however, a big problem in itself, as we have never seen a black hole (or anything at all, for that matter) spontaneous form from empty space. We haven't seen it in the laboratory, or in the Solar System or in the Andromeda Galaxy. We don't even have a theoretical mechanism by which such a thing could happen.

So not only are you proposing something that we can't observe because it's infinitely far away, but also something that we haven't observed locally nor even have a basis to believe it could happen in the first place. You have no observations or math to support your idea for a black hole forming from vacuum energy, so that means it breaks your rules.

[Bored chemist]

Don't you remember that I told you that if there are cats at the cellar, then at least some of them might be white or just not black?

Yes, I remember you telling us that nonsense.

Yes you did.

Prove it.

You are the one that claim that the BBT took place 13.8 BY ago.
So please - don't you have any basic wish to verify if your theory is correct or incorrect?

you missed the point.
You told us to do something which you think is impossible.

The CMBR isn't an indication for the afterglow.

Yes it is- or you have to come up with a different explanation- one which explains the spectrum.

[Bored chemist]

how do you dare to claim "It works in accordance with our observations- "?

Because it does.
It isn't my fault that you don't know what to expect from the BBT.
I have tried telling you to learn some science, but you don't.

You didn't explain the source of the BBT energy!

I did put forrward an explanation, at least twice.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

On the other hand, you have not explained where your BH comes from, nor how it could ever break the conservation laws and produced mass.