[Dave Lev (OP)]

It's just that the BBT changed the rules- because it was, the start of the laws of physics as we know them.

Why is it so difficult to get from you clear answer???
You claim that the BBT starts the laws of physics but you don't explain why is it?
Please explain the conditions before the Big Bang that convinced you to believe that at the moment of the Big Bang those laws of physics did not apply?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 19:48:08
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

Sorry, I couldn't find an answer to my question in that article.
HOW MANY TIMES are you going to offer the same article without quoting the message in the article that should answer my question?
Why is it so difficult for you to quote the message in the article that answers my question?
I claim that this article is just irrelevant to my question.
If you think that this article explains the creation of the energy for the BBT, then please quote the explanation.
If you can't do so, then it proves that you just offer me nonsense.

[Bored chemist]

HOW MANY TIMES are you going to offer the same article without quoting the message in the article that should answer my question?

Until you realise that the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes.

How many times do I have to tell you the same thing?

[Bored chemist]

You claim that the BBT starts the laws of physics but you don't explain why is it?

Because the laws of physics are part of the universe so they start when the universe starts.
Isn't that obvious?

[Kryptid]

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

Nice dodge, but I asked you that question before you made that post about focusing solely on the energy source. So what is your answer?

Why is it so difficult to get from you clear answer???

I could ask you the same thing. Why have you been dancing around my question like a ballerina?

[Bored chemist]

If you can't do so, then it proves that you just offer me nonsense.

No.

It might prove that you just aren't clever enough to understand.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Until you realise that the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes.

What is brane:
https://www.britannica.com/science/brane
"Brane, an object extended in one or more spatial dimensions, which arises in string theory and other proposed unified theories of quantum mechanics and general relativity. A 0-brane is a zero-dimensional object, a point; a 1-brane is a one-dimensional object, a string; a 2-brane is a two-dimensional object, a membrane; and a p-brane is a p-dimensional object. Because some versions of string theory have 9 spatial dimensions, p-branes may exist for values of p up to 9."
https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/brane
Physics
An extended object with any given number of dimensions, of which strings in string theory are examples with one dimension. Our universe is a 3-brane.

So, Brane is an object extended in one or more spatial dimensions.
Our universe is a 3-brane.
There is no limit for the number of branes:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0960077900001302
Infinite-dimensional branes and the  topology of heterotic superstrings
Therefore, as our universe has 3 branes and there are infinite branes please answer the following:
1. Infinite Universes -
Do you agree that based on branes theory, as our universe use only 3-branes there might be infinite Universes around us?
2. Energy creation and conservation law
How the energy in the brane had been created at the first place?
You claim that: "the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes."
So, those branes were already there before the Big Bang moment.
Each one of them has real dimension and real energy.
Therefore, do you confirm that for each one of them the conservation law was also real?
Therefore, how those branes got their energy for the first place?
Please don't tell me that they got it from other branes.
Somehow energy has to be created somewhere.
Therefore, you can't just base a theory on energy transformation from a brane to brane. You have to show how that energy in the first brane had been created.

3. the laws of physic

Because the laws of physics are part of the universe so they start when the universe starts.
Isn't that obvious?

Sorry, the the laws of physic started to work when the first brane pop up. If you wish to transfer energy from brane to brane you have to obey all the laws of physic.
Therefore, the creation of our 3-branes universe must work according all the laws of physic as there were already other branes before it pop up.
Therefore, your imagination that each 3-brane universe can pop up while it breaks all the laws of physic is just incorrect.
4. Energy transformation
As each brane has a different dimension then it must be orthogonal to all the other branes dimensions.
Therefore, technically, branes can't collide with each other. So how can you set a collision between two branes dimensions that are fully octagonal to each other?
Therefore, how energy from one brane can be transformed or jump to other brane?
5. Universe creation.
As there was already infinite branes with infinite universes, how can you create a new 3-branes Universe by collision with two other branes that can't collide with each other as they are orthogonal to each other?
Therefore, even if the idea of the branes are real, and even if they can transform energy from one brane to other, and even if we ignore the request how they got their energy for the first place - then how can a collision between two octagonal branes create new 3-branes universe?
6. End of the Universe.
If your imagination about: "the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes" is correct, then do you agree that theoretically our 3-branes universe could potentially collide with other 3-branes and end its life?

Conclusion:
You idea of those imagination branes don't help the BBT to get free of charge energy.
Somehow energy must be created somewhere. You can't just transformer it from one brane to other.
Therefore, as the BBT is using the energy from imaginary branes - then it is your obligation to prove that the idea of infinite branes or infinite numbers of 3-branes universe as our universe is real. You should also start the BBT from the moment of the creation of the first brane and explain how that brane got its energy without breaking the laws of physic.

[Bored chemist]

So, those branes were already there before the Big Bang moment.

Before is not defined unless one of the dimensions involved is time, and it's not clear what happens if there are more than 1 temporal dimension.
So your argument is meaningless.

Therefore, you can't just base a theory on energy transformation from a brane to brane. You have to show how that energy in the first brane had been created.

Again, your "logic" is simply wrong.
Once more you are saying that we couldn't have a theory about how cars work until we knew about the energy formation in the Sun.
It's just not true.

6. End of the Universe.
If your imagination about: "the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes" is correct, then do you agree that theoretically our 3-branes universe could potentially collide with other 3-branes and end its life?

Yes it could. There's a whole thread about the idea of more than one big bang.
But that's another story entirely.
We need you to realise that your idea about the start of the universe is wrong before we move on to that.

You should also start the BBT from the moment of the creation of the first brane and explain how that brane got its energy without breaking the laws of physic.

Again, you are wrong about how theories work.
They don't need to cover everything.

you need to understand how we make progress in science.

In the mean time, you also need to recognise that your "universe packed with black holes theory" must be wrong.

[Kryptid]

Dave, I was courteous enough to answer your question when you asked me this:

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

So how about being courteous enough to answer my original question?

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

It's a simple "yes" or "no" question. It wouldn't take you more than a few seconds to type the answer.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Before is not defined unless one of the dimensions involved is time, and it's not clear what happens if there are more than 1 temporal dimension.

Is it real?
You have clearly stated that:

the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes.

Therefore, based on a simple logic, those two branes must exists before the bang.
I know that you have a very special logic.

Again, your "logic" is simply wrong.

Are you sure that your "logic" is logic
So please explain how based on your special "logic" as they didn't exist before the bang, then how they could collide with each other while they were not there before?

Once more you are saying that we couldn't have a theory about how cars work until we knew about the energy formation in the Sun.
It's just not true.

Car is all about its material.
Without that material there is no car.
When you try to produce a car you have to have the material for that car.
Try to produce a car without any material and then show us your car.
In the same token, BBT is all about its energy.
Without energy there is no BBT.
Hence, before starting your car imagination - it is your obligation to have the requested material for this care and before you tell us about your imagination BBT it is your obligation to offer a valid source of energy for that bang.
There is no room for "probably" in your following message:

the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes.

Only real source of energy.

Again, you are wrong about how theories work.
They don't need to cover everything.

I agree.
However, you must explain the key issue in each theory.
The BBT is all about energy.
You can tell us that you don't know how the bang had started and from where did you get the spark that set the Big bang.
That is perfectly OK.
But you have to offer the energy source!
Without it, the BBT should be set deep in the imagination garbage.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 08:25:44
6. End of the Universe.
If your imagination about: "the source of the energy in the universe is (probably) the collision of two branes" is correct, then do you agree that theoretically our 3-branes universe could potentially collide with other 3-branes and end its life?

Yes it could. There's a whole thread about the idea of more than one big bang.
But that's another story entirely.

This isn't another story.
This is the real story.
Our Universe would never and ever end.
As your BBT story leads you to the conclusion that the universe could be ended, then it's better for you to keep it there in the garbage.

We need you to realise that your idea about the start of the universe is wrong before we move on to that.

My modeling is the ONLY real modeling for our Universe.
I have offered ultimate energy source to start my modeling - The vacuum energy source.
You all know that it is real and it was always there in the vacuum space of our infinite Universe that is there forever and ever.

you need to understand how we make progress in science.

Your BBT "science" is just imagination science.
You clearly see that the Universe works differently from your expectations and you don't care.
You just update this imagination to meet any new discovery.
You want to force the Universe to accept your BBT, while it tells you again and again by real observations and real evidence that the BBT is useless.
Unfortunately, you ignore all the evidences.
It's better for you to find a Universe that would agree to work according to your "imagination science".
That is wrong!
In real theory - any new observation MUST meet your expectations.
If not - it is your obligation to set your theory in the garbage and start from Zero.
That's the way that I and all the other electronic engineers work in our electronic developments.
Therefore, you have got today a supper advanced electronic equipments.
However, when it comes to cosmology, you and all BBT scientists stuck in the assumption that you are correct and all the others are wrong.
You behave exactly as those "scientists" that claim 500 years ago that our planet is at the center of the Universe.
There were sure that they are correct.
They set in jail any person that didn't accept their "Theory"
You almost behave like them.
You set my thread in this desert that is called "That can't be true" while the only theory that can't be true is the BBT.
I really appreciate that at least you have no intention (so far) to set me on jail.

In the mean time, you also need to recognise that your "universe packed with black holes theory" must be wrong.

In the mean time it's better for you to understand that somehow energy must be created somewhere.
You can't escape from that.
Any theory that doesn't cover the energy creation is just useless.
You can't just borrow/transform energy from some imagination source and claim that this energy can be used even for the infinite universe.
It is OK to assume that somehow some very minimal energy could be used to start your theory (as Vacuum Energy), but you must find a way how energy could be created especially as our scientists claim that our real universe is actually – infinite universe.
Again - without it, any theory is just useless.

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, based on a simple logic...

Yes, but we have to use complicated logic.
If time does not exist then the laws of causation  change.

When you try to produce a car you have to have the material for that car.

But the important thing is that you do not need a theory about where that material came from.

The BBT is all about energy.

Not really.
It's about what happened between then and now.

But let's look briefly at "theory" D
It obviously needs energy to get together to make a BH.
And , according to oyou, we need to explain that; as you say...

But you have to offer the energy source!

Without it, the BBT "theory" D should be set deep in the imagination garbage

Do you really not see that , if you insist on knowing where the energy comes from for the BBT, you also have to insist on knowing where the energy comes from in "theory" D.

But you can't do that. Kryptid keeps asking you to, but you stubbornly refuse.

The vacuum energy came from the BB.

You can't say "we will use the vacuum energy that was created by the BB to make the first BH"
Because, without the BB, that vacuum energy isn't there.


So where did the energy for the first BH come from?
And why isn't the universe full of BH?

[Kryptid]

I have offered ultimate energy source to start my modeling - The vacuum energy source.
You all know that it is real and it was always there in the vacuum space of our infinite Universe that is there forever and ever.

Theory D just broke another one of your rules:

Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

If time does not exist then the laws of causation  change.

Dear BC
I have some news for you and for all the other BBT scientists.
The time was ALWAYS existed. Forever and ever from the infinity long time ago up to the infinity.
Therefore, any theory must obey to the law of physics starting from the infinite time ago.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:23:12
When you try to produce a car you have to have the material for that car.
But the important thing is that you do not need a theory about where that material came from.

Show me one car' manufacturer that don't care where the material for its car comes from.
Without material there is no car. Not even one.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 05:23:12
The BBT is all about energy.
Not really.
It's about what happened between then and now.

No
So, please explain how can you run the BBT without energy.
If you can, then please go ahead.
If you know that without energy the BBT is useless, then how can you calim that the energy isn't important?
Your answer proves that you have no clue about the BBT energy source especially as you claim that there was no time before the BBT.
If there was energy before the BBT, then the time was always there.
So, the BBT is all about severe contradiction.
Before the Big Bang there is no time and there is no energy.
That's good enough to prove that the BBT is a fiction.

But let's look briefly at "theory" D
It obviously needs energy to get together to make a BH.

Yes, that is correct.

The vacuum energy came from the BB.

Are you sure about it?
The Big Bang can't even explain the energy of the visable Universe, the dark energy and even the dark matter.
Now you wish that it would cover the Vacuum energy.
What a nonsense.
The Universe was there long before your imagination and the vacuum energy was always there in our Universe.
So please, the BBT isn't the master of our universe and therefore, you can't claim that the vacuum energy is all about the BBT.
On the contrary - it is your obligation to show how the BBT could get its energy for all the matter, dark energy, dark matter and vacuum energy even if the universe is infinite.
Sorry - you and all the other BBT scientists don't have a basic clue how the BBT could get any sort of energy - even for just single Atom. So, please don't tell us that the Vacuum energy should thank the BBT for its existence, while the BBT can't show real energy source for just one atom.

You can't say "we will use the vacuum energy that was created by the BB to make the first BH"
Because, without the BB, that vacuum energy isn't there.
So where did the energy for the first BH come from?

The vacuum energy was always there.
Don't give the BBT a credit for its existence.
The first BH got its energy from that Vacuum energy at the infinity time ago.

But you can't do that. Kryptid keeps asking you to, but you stubbornly refuse.

the question is as follow:

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

You have answered that question:

Even a very improbable event happens uncountably often in an infinite time.

So, you fully confirm that even if the creation of a BH from the Vacuum energy is very improbable event, it "happens uncountably often in an infinite time".
So, this is your answer to kryptid' question.
However, you also claim:

And why isn't the universe full of BH?

And it relies on the idea that BH "pop up" from time to time, but if that was true, the universe would be full of them (after an infinite time).
So we know that is also wrong.

The answer is quite simple:
BHs can pop up from time to time.
Due to infinite age of the Universe and due to its infinite size, I agree that theoretically infinite no of BHs could be created.
However, a BH by itself is useless.
In order for a BH to generate new particle pairs it must have EM radiation.
Therefore, only if two BHs starts to orbit around each other, their increasing spin could generate EM radiation.
The moment that the first BH or actually, the twin BH's got the ability to generate EM radiation - the Universe started to live.

Theory D just broke another one of your rules:
Quote from: Dave Lev on 13/08/2021 20:54:26
Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.

No it's not.
Theory D starts with only one BH with the ability to generate EM radiation.
That BH would create new energy/mass and new galaxies up to the infinity.

[Bored chemist]

Show me one car' manufacturer that don't care where the material for its car comes from.

If any car manufacturer knew where the material came from, we could ask them if it was from a black hole, or a big bang.

That's more or less my point.

[Bored chemist]

So, please explain how can you run the BBT without energy.
If you can, then please go ahead.
If you know that without energy the BBT is useless, then how can you calim that the energy isn't important?

Like the car maker who can not tell you where the iron came from, I can't tell you where the energy came from (though there's a reasonable suggestion in brane cosmology) .
But also, like the car maker who can tell you how that iron becomes a car, I can tell you how the energy becomes a universe.

That's what the BBT does.
It was never intended to explain anything before the BB.

Sorry - you can't just start a theory while all the Energy of the Universe is already there.

No it's not.

You said it was.

The answer is quite simple:
BHs can pop up from time to time.
Due to infinite age of the Universe and due to its infinite size, I agree that theoretically infinite no of BHs could be created.
However, a BH by itself is useless.
In order for a BH to generate new particle pairs it must have EM radiation.
Therefore, only if two BHs starts to orbit around each other, their increasing spin could generate EM radiation.
The moment that the first BH or actually, the twin BH's got the ability to generate EM radiation - the Universe started to live.

The answer is wrong.
There are a list of problems with it.
You will need to do a lot better.

BHs can pop up from time to time.
Due to infinite age of the Universe and due to its infinite size, I agree that theoretically infinite no of BHs could be created.

That's my point. By now there should be one in my garden and one in the street next to my house.
There should be BH everywhere.

That's what happens when you give a process an infinite time.

In order for a BH to generate new particle pairs it must have EM radiation.

They all do- that's what Hawking radiation is.

Therefore, only if two BHs starts to orbit around each other, their increasing spin could generate EM radiation.

That wouldn't generate any EM field.

On the other hand, any two BH that are created , unless they are moving away from each other at the escape velocity, will be in orbit.
And if you have many black holes, they can't all move away from eachother unless you have, in effect, a BB.

Almost all of them would be in orbits- in the same way that most of the matter in the universe is in orbit round other matter.

So your "answer" has made things much worse.
Previously you had to find room for an infinite number of BH in the universe, but now you have to find space for an infinite number of universes.

The moment that the first BH or actually, the twin BH's got the ability to generate EM radiation

That would be as soon as the first one existed.
But you still have to tell us where the energy to make it came from.
The only "answer" you have given so far is the vacuum energy, but that was produced by the BB, so you can't use it unless you say the BBT is correct.

[Bored chemist]

That BH would create new energy/mass and new galaxies up to the infinity.

Creating mass and energy is impossible.
Your "mechanism" is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Like the car maker who can not tell you where the iron came from, I can't tell you where the energy came from

Any car maker gets the iron and see it before he converts that iron into car.
So, the car maker doesn't need to tell you where the iron comes from as he sees it, it is real and its existence is proved
Anyone can tell you how iron is created.
However, a car maker won't set one car without real iron in his hand.
Try to give a car maker some imagination iron and try to verify if he can do with that an imaginary car.
So, by using imaginary iron a car maker might get at the maximum imaginary car.

The BBT energy is imaginary by definition.
No one really knows how that energy had been created while there is no space and no time.
Therefore, you offer an imaginary energy to be used by the BBT.
Hence, by using imaginary/unproved energy you might get at the maximum imaginary/unproved universe.

That's what the BBT does.
It was never intended to explain anything before the BB.

Sorry - any story/theory must start with "before"
We were not coming to our planet if our parents were not there "before"
Theory D is based on real vacuum energy that was there "Before".
As in the BBT isn't based on real energy that was there before, then this theory is just imagination.

So, let's agree
The BBT fails to show the source for its energy
Theory D is based on real vacuum energy.
Therefore - Theory D is based on real energy while BBT is based imagination energy.
Once we agree with that we have to agree that there is no need to discuss any more about the BBT imagination, but we can move on with the next phase of theory D and verify if it is feasible.

[Kryptid]

Actually Dave, you haven't answered my question. It's a yes or no question. Do you know how the first black hole came into existence or not?

Also, Theory D doesn't start off with a single black hole. It starts off with an infinitely-large, empty Universe. Since each cubic centimeter of space contains a finite amount of energy, then Theory D starts off with an infinite amount of energy. That breaks your rule.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry - any story/theory must start with "before"

A theory concerning the start of time can not possibly start with "before".
How did you think "before there was time" was a sensible thing to ask about?

[Bored chemist]

Anyone can tell you how iron is created.

OK, tell us.
But don't start with iron ore- that isn't "creating" iron. It already has iron nuclei and ions in it.
Tell us what created those iron atoms.
Tell us where the neutrons and protons came from.

Or do you think that is absurd?
Do you realise you can have a theory of "making a car" without needing a theory about "making neutrons"?

[Bored chemist]

The BBT fails to show the source for its energy
Theory D is based on real vacuum energy.

But the vacuum energy came from the BB.

So if you say the BBT is wrong, where is the vacuum energy from?