[Bored chemist]

No there is no explanation in that article about my request.

Correct.
Nobody said there was.
There was not meant to me.
What I was doing is pointing out that your problem- the uncaused cause- is well known.

And it applies to "theory" D just as much as to the BBT.

"Where did the first BH come from?" is the same type of question as "where did the energy of the BB come from?".

But you only see the second one as a problem. Because you are not clever enough to see that the same problem happens with your idea.

[Bored chemist]

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.

We already answered the  question about the BBT.

We are not sure; the best available  theory is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane

It isn't a great answer. But it is better than Dave's lack of an answer for the thing he keeps calling a "theory".

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

1. It does not explain where the first BH comes from - I agree. But it explains the source of energy for that BH and it is real!
2. It has no mechanism for that BH to produce a universe. - Yes it has. I clearly explain how it works.
3. It breaks the conservation laws and - No. It fully meets the conservation laws!
4. it predicts a universe completely full of BH - Yes, the Universe is full with BH. Just in the center of our galaxy there are 10,000 BHs. So what is the problem with it?

[Bored chemist]

You clearly know that you have no valid data about the creation of the BBT energy.

We clearly have, because I keep posting it.

On what grounds do you consider it not to be "valid".
Do you think it is not valid because you do not understand it?

[Bored chemist]

But it explains the source of energy for that BH and it is real!

It does not explain how that tiny energy is concentrated into a BH.

And it does not explain why that happens.
And it doe snot explain why , in an infinite time, it only happened exactly once.
The universe should be full of BH by now.

Yes it has. I clearly explain how it works.

But your explanation is wrong.
It is impossible.
It makes no sense.
It is forbidden by the laws of physics.

. It breaks the conservation laws and - No. It fully meets the conservation laws!

The conservation of mass says that the mass of an isolated system is constant.
Your idea says the mass of the universe grows with time.
The universe is an isolated system

How is that not a coiontradictoion?
Which words are you not understanding?

Yes, the Universe is full with BH

Is there one between your ears?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

It isn't a great answer. But it is better than Dave's lack of an answer for the thing he keeps calling a "theory".

Dear BC & kryptid
It is very difficult to set a real discussion when we jump from subject to subject.
So, In order to verify which theory is more realistic let's agree on the following rules:
1. The same rules that we apply to one theory would be apply to the other one.
2. We would focus only on one issue/aspect at a time and just after understanding that issue we would move on to the other issue/aspect. Each side can decide on which aspect we will discuss.
With your perdition I would start with energy conservation
I would like to focus on the energy that each theory is using to start with.
BBT - the BBT doesn't offer how the BBT energy had been created and therefore if clearly breaks the conservation law.
You have offered the following article:

We are not sure; the best available  theory is this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane

However, I couldn't find even one word about energy or Conservation law in that article.
So, how can you use an article that should explain the creation of energy while it doesn't discuss at all about energy?
Hence, do you confirm that this article doesn't cover the energy source for the BBT and it is just irrelevant for our discussion about the energy creation?
Do you have better idea/article? If so please copy the section that covers specifically the energy creation.
If you don't have then we should agree that the BBT fails to explain its energy creation and therefore it breaks the conservation law?
On the other had
In Theory D the energy for the first BH is taking its energy  from the energy in the Vacuum space.
Do you agree that in the Vacuum there should be enough energy to set that first BH?

Please - we do not discuss how the Big Bang or the small bang had started.
We only discuss on the available energy to start with (at both theories) and not on any other issue.
So, just after closing this issue, you are more than welcome to select any issue to compare with.

[Bored chemist]

However, I couldn't find even one word about energy or Conservation law in that article.
So, how can you use an article that should explain the creation of energy while it doesn't discuss at all about energy?

Why did you expect to find any mention of a law that can not apply?

[Kryptid]

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:

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

[Bored chemist]

It is very difficult to set a real discussion when we jump from subject to subject.

There is one subject.
The subject is "theory" D and its errors.

Because there are a lot of errors, the discussion covers a lot of ground.

Because you ignore facts, it covers the same ground repeatedly.

So, how can you use an article that should explain the creation of energy while it doesn't discuss at all about energy?

If you asked what supplied the energy to knock an ornament off the shelf, I might say that the cat did it.
And you would look at the wiki page for "cat" and see if the word "energy" got mentioned.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

[Bored chemist]

BBT - the BBT doesn't offer how the BBT energy had been created and therefore if clearly breaks the conservation law.

I have repeatedly explained why that law did not apply to the BBT.
Why are you asking how it breaks a rule that did not exist?

[Bored chemist]

In Theory D the energy for the first BH is taking its energy  from the energy in the Vacuum space.

By magic?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

In Theory D the energy for the first BH is taking its energy  from the energy in the Vacuum space.

By magic?

There is no magic. I have already offered the following explanation from our scientists about the energy in the empty space:
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."
So, it is not a magic and not imagination.
That energy was there before starting Theory D.
It is real and it is based on real understanding from our scientists.

However, when it comes to the BBT, you have no valid data to cover the creation of the BBT energy.

BBT - the BBT doesn't offer how the BBT energy had been created and therefore if clearly breaks the conservation law.

I have repeatedly explained why that law did not apply to the BBT.
Why are you asking how it breaks a rule that did not exist?

Sorry. You have NEVER EVER offered any real article that clearly specifies how the energy had been created BEFORE the Big BANG.
If you did, then please offer it again.
However, I would not except any more an article of nonsense that you ask me to read and find the imagination.
If you offer an article - please quote the message in the article that specifies how and where the energy for the BBT had been created without breaking the conservation law!
I have offered the energy that was there before starting Theory D. You should do it also for the BBT.
However, Please - not nonsense - only clear explanation about ENERGY creation before the Big bang.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:
Do you know how the first black hole came into existence, Dave?

We will discuss this issue after closing the current issue about the energy source for both theories.

[Bored chemist]

There is no magic.

Then how does it happen?

Sorry. You have NEVER EVER offered any real article that clearly specifies how the energy had been created BEFORE the Big BANG.

I do not need to.
The conservation law does not apply.

So you were wrong to say

I would like to focus on the energy that each theory is using to start with.
BBT - the BBT doesn't offer how the BBT energy had been created and therefore if clearly breaks the conservation law.

It does not break a law that did not exist.

[Bored chemist]

I'm still waiting for you to answer this question:
Do you know how the first black hole came into existence, Dave?

We will discuss this issue after closing the current issue about the energy source for both theories.

We already closed that issue.
There is no credible way for your idea to work, because it breaks lots of conservation laws.
So your idea is impossible.
The conservation of mass/ energy did not apply to the BBT.
So the BBT is possible.


There's nothing useful you can say.

[Bored chemist]

If you offer an article - please quote the message in the article that specifies how and where the energy for the BBT had been created without breaking the conservation law!

Which part of "that law did not apply" do you not understand?
It is like asking how it didn't break the law  about parking on yellow lines.
That law was not there at the time.

[Bored chemist]

I have offered the energy that was there before starting Theory D. You should do it also for the BBT.

You have offered a model in which the whole universe is packed with BH.
That is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 18:50:37
Sorry. You have NEVER EVER offered any real article that clearly specifies how the energy had been created BEFORE the Big BANG.

I do not need to.
The conservation law does not apply.

Well, I have no problem that you claim that the conservation law doesn't apply to the BBT.
However, you need to explain why the conservation law doesn't apply.
If I understand it correctly, the whole idea in the BBT is that before the Big Bang there was no space and no time.
If that is correct, then can you explain how energy could be created while there is no time and no space?
So, your assumption that the conservation law didn't apply - kills the possibility to create new energy for the BBT.
If you think differently, please explain why the conservation law doesn't apply for the BBT and how under those conditions the BBT energy could be created.

[Bored chemist]

If I understand it correctly, the whole idea in the BBT is that before the Big Bang there was no space and no time.

Not quite.
It's just that the BBT changed the rules- because it was, the start of the laws of physics as we know them.
It isn't clear that "before the BB" has a meaning but if it does, whatever was there before isn't the Universe that is here now.

If you think differently, please explain why the conservation law doesn't apply for the BBT and how under those conditions the BBT energy could be created.

HOW MANY TIMES?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology#Models_of_brane_cosmology

[Bored chemist]

Now we have got that sorted.
How do you explain the fact that the Universe isn't full of BH?