[Bored chemist]

As there is no negative mass, then your 5.5 is just imagination.

But negative mass exists- it is studied in labs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39642992
Why are you pretending otherwise?

[Kryptid]

Any request for observation must be realistic

Okay then, you shouldn't ask for an observation of negative mass. Hawking radiation for stellar mass black holes is far, far too weak for us to ever hope to detect with current technology. That would include any negative mass particles produced in the process. It would be like trying to detect the thermal radiation given off by a container of liquid helium millions of miles away. It just isn't practical.

then please don't ask me to offer an observation for a bang that took place infinite time ago.

Sure, as long as you agree that, for the same reason, we shouldn't expect to see extremely weak radiation of negative mass particles light-years away.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The "idea" by which the BH produces a universe is also an example of what he calls "imagination".
Except that, in that case, it isn't just that we have never seen it happen; the problem is that we know it cannot happen.

You know by 100% that you have no answer for how the BBT energy had been created - at any dimension that you wish.
Therefore, you know that the BBT is nonsense.
If one day you would be able to clear your mind from that imagination that is called BBT, you would know why theory D is the ultimate theory for our Universe.

[Bored chemist]

You know by 100% that you have no answer for how the BBT energy had been created - at any dimension that you wish.
Therefore, you know that the BBT is nonsense.

That is faulty logic.
It is like someone saying that they do not know how a car engine works so cars can not move.


However, in addition to being faulty logic, it is built on a false claim.
You say

You know by 100% that you have no answer for how the BBT energy had been created

but I have already told you several times where I think the energy may have come from.

So you are just lying, and then basing nonsense on your own lies.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Okay then, you shouldn't ask for an observation of negative mass. Hawking radiation for stellar mass black holes is far, far too weak for us to ever hope to detect with current technology. That would include any negative mass particles produced in the process. It would be like trying to detect the thermal radiation given off by a container of liquid helium millions of miles away. It just isn't practical.

Sorry
I don't agree with you.
Do you confirm that the chance for a negative mass to be ejected outwards is the same as the chance for it to fall inwards?
If so, you have to agree that around 50% of the Bhs there must be negative mass.
We see so many BH in our galaxy. some of them are located almost next to our nose. So why we can't monitor the impact of the negative gravity due to that negative mass?

[Kryptid]

Do you confirm that the chance for a negative mass to be ejected outwards is the same as the chance for it to fall inwards?

No. According to Hawking's theory, all of it goes into the black hole. We wouldn't be able to detect it even if we were right next to the black hole.

[Bored chemist]

If one day you would be able to clear your mind from that imagination that is called BBT, you would know why theory D is the ultimate theory for our Universe.

That makes no sense.
Even if I discarded the BBT, I wouldn't support an idea like "theory" D which is impossible because
It does not explain where the first BH comes from
It has no mechanism for that BH to produce a universe.
It breaks the conservation laws and
it predicts a universe completely full of BH.

Even the Bible looks like a better account than yours.

If the BBT was wrong, it still wouldn't make "theory" D right.

[Bored chemist]

I don't agree with you.

It isn't Kryptid that you are arguing with.
You are disagreeing with reality.
He said we couldn't see it, and we couldn't see it.

If you really disagree then you need to show us how it would be possible- in detail.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

but I have already told you several times where I think the energy may have come from.

No, you didn't!
All you did is pointing some imagination idea about other dimension.
So please try to explain clearly in your own words how the BBT energy had been CREATED. Not transformed - But real creation of Energy
Good luck.

[Bored chemist]

No, you didn't!

Yes I did.
You might not believe it, but your grasp of logic is so flaky we shouldn't rely on it.

[Bored chemist]

please try to explain clearly in your own words how the BBT energy had been CREATED

please try to explain clearly in your own words how the [the first BH] energy had been CREATED.

As I said, you have run into a well known issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_causation

But you think that only other people need to deal with it.
You excuse your "theory" D by magical thinking.

That's not science.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As there is no negative mass, then your 5.5 is just imagination.

But negative mass exists- it is studied in labs.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-39642992
Why are you pretending otherwise?

Sorry, in that article it is stated that they take a positive mass and try to convert it to negative mass:
To create the conditions for negative mass, the researchers used lasers to trap the rubidium atoms and to kick them back and forth, changing the way they spin.
When the atoms were released from the laser trap, they expanded, with some displaying negative mass."
Can you please explain the meaning of " some displaying negative mass"
Positive mass is always a positive mass while negative mass should be always negative.
There is no way to change the energy from positive to negative just by laser trap.
If you can do it in laser trap why can't we do it in BH trap?
I claim that it is pure imagination.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

please try to explain clearly in your own words how the BBT energy had been CREATED

please try to explain clearly in your own words how the [the first BH] energy had been CREATED.

As I said, you have run into a well known issue.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_causation

But you think that only other people need to deal with it.
You excuse your "theory" D by magical thinking.

That's not science.

No there is no explanation in that article about my request.
Why is it so difficult for you to explain in your own words the creation of the BBT energy?
So, do you know how it works or it is just imagination as usual?

[Kryptid]

Do you know how the first black hole came into existence, Dave?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

No, you didn't!

Yes I did.
You might not believe it, but your grasp of logic is so flaky we shouldn't rely on it.

If you did, then please copy the explanation in your own words about the creation of the BBT energy.
Again - Creation (not transformation)

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you know how the first black hole came into existence, Dave?

Well, Do you know how the Big Bang came into existence?
At least I can offer real energy for that first BH.
You clearly know that you have no valid data about the creation of the BBT energy.
So, before we discuss about how energy could be transformed to a Big Bang or small bang, please offer real explanation how that energy had been created.

[Bored chemist]

please copy the explanation in your own words

Which do you want?
A copy, or my own words?

Why do you ask stupid things like that?

[Bored chemist]

At least I can offer real energy for that first BH.

No, you can not.

[Bored chemist]

Again - Creation (not transformation)

That distinction is silly.
It makes no difference.

[Kryptid]

Well, Do you know how the Big Bang came into existence?

No, I don't. There you go, I answered the question. So now it's your turn to answer the question.