[Bored chemist]

Theory D is based on real vacuum energy.
Therefore - Theory D is based on real energy while BBT is based imagination energy.

No.
That means that "theory" D is based on the BBT.

[Bored chemist]

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".

You stopped just as it got interesting.
The next obvious question in that series is what was there before the vacuum energy; where did it come from?

Until you can answer that , "Theory" D is dead.

[Kryptid]

It's actually surprising that Dave accepts the existence of vacuum energy in the first place. As far as I'm aware, there has never been an unambiguous observation of vacuum energy. That means vacuum energy violates this rule of Dave's:

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

That thing about vacuum energy having a density of 10⁹¹ grams per cubic centimeter is a mathematical prediction and has never actually been measured. That being said, it violates these rules of Dave's as well:

How can we distinguish between real theories to science fiction theory?
Don't you think that the only way to prove any theory is to set an expectation and validate those expectations by real measurements?

Sorry - the math (especially the manipulated math) by itself can't be used as evidence.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

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".

You stopped just as it got interesting.
The next obvious question in that series is what was there before the vacuum energy; where did it come from?

Until you can answer that , "Theory" D is dead.

Dear BC
You have a fatal misunderstanding.
When you see/observe something, you don't need to prove its existence.
Therefore, a car maker doesn't need to understand how the iron that he is using is created.
All is needed is to observe that Iron.
In the same token, we clearly observe TODAY the energy in the vacuum space.
So, theory D doesn't need to explain how that energy had been created as that vacuum energy that we see today in the empty space was good enough to start that theory.
However, the story with the BBT is totally different.
We don't see today the entire energy that started the BBT.
It is just in our BBT scientist's imagination.
Therefore, our scientists must prove that this energy was real.
They can do it in the following steps:
1. Show the source of that energy
Now we all know that our scientists don't have a basic clue how that energy had been created.
Therefore - the BBT should be set in the garbage.
2. Set the calculation for the requested energy for our universe and verify why that energy won't end as a SSS..SMBH.
Our scientists claim that the only way for the BBT to escape from ending its life as a SSS...SMBH is due to the rapid expansion. However, we all agree that for infinite Universe and infinite energy is needed. So, how that rapid expansion could overcome the infinite energy from ending as that SSS..SMBH.
It is very clear that the rapid expansion velocity should higher than trillions over trillions speed of light. That clearly breaks the physics law. However, as those laws must work immediately at the moment of the bang, than the requested rapid expansion is just unrealistic. Therefore - that is one more example why the BBT should be set in the garbage.
3. Show that the observed heat energy/temp works according the BBT exactions.
Our scientists claim that at the Big Bang moment our Universe temp was ultra high.
Even after 600,000 Years the temp was still very high.
We clearly observe far end galaxies from that time period. So, why don't you verify the temp of those galaxies? If their temp meets the BBT expectations, it is good indication for the BBT. If not, then please set the BBT in the nearest garbage for good.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

That thing about vacuum energy having a density of 10^91 grams per cubic centimeter is a mathematical prediction and has never actually been measured. That being said, it violates these rules of Dave's as well:

No its not.
Our scientists claim that the CURRENT vacuum energy is real.
So, even if they have some sort of mistake and it isn't 10^91 but only 10^10 or less it is still ok.
Theory D needs only some energy for the first BH.
I hope that we all agree that this kind of energy is available in the empty vacuum energy.
Once we agree with that - Theory D can start to work.

[Bored chemist]

No its not.
Our scientists claim that the CURRENT vacuum energy is real.

They claim the BBT is real too.
Did you not realise how stupid your argument was?

[Bored chemist]

a car maker doesn't need to understand how the iron that he is using is created.

And a theory of how the universe evolved since the BB does not need to understand where the BB came from.
Why don't you recognise that it is the same principle?

[Bored chemist]

Theory D needs only some energy for the first BH.

It also needs a mechanism to turn that energy into a BH.
But the real problem is that you need to tell us where the energy came from.
(In fact it came from the BB)

And then you need to explain why, if that energy forms BH, why isn't the universe full of BH.

Basically, your idea is hopeless.

[Bored chemist]

I hope that we all agree that this kind of energy is available in the empty vacuum energy.

Only because something created it.
What created it?
Please tell us.

[Kryptid]

Our scientists claim that the CURRENT vacuum energy is real.

Since when have you cared about what scientists claimed?

So, even if they have some sort of mistake and it isn't 10^91 but only 10^10 or less it is still ok.

What if the mistake is that there is zero energy? When was the vacuum measured to have any energy at all? Measurements are required, remember? It's one of your rules. It's also your rule that math alone is not enough.

Once we agree with that - Theory D can start to work.

Okay, then how about we get to the next step? Do you know how that vacuum energy turned into a black hole?

Only because something created it.
What created it?
Please tell us.

I second this question. Please tell us what created that vacuum energy, Dave.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What if the mistake is that there is zero energy? When was the vacuum measured to have any energy at all? Measurements are required, remember? It's one of your rules. It's also your rule that math alone is not enough.

The vacuum energy is located in front of our eyes.
Our scientists could measure that energy by a recent supernova.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
"The recent supernova results suggest that the vacuum energy density is close to this limit: rho(vacuum) = 0.75*rho(critical) = 6*10-30 gm/cc."
So, this time they do not claim for 10^91 but at least they claim that they have made real measurement for that vacuum energy.

Since when have you cared about what scientists claimed?

There is big difference between the imagination of the BBT scientists to that real measurements by our scientists.
Therefore, how can you compare the BBT imagination of our BBT scientists about the energy that had created in the universe 13.8BY ago from nothing to real measurements that they do today?

Okay, then how about we get to the next step? Do you know how that vacuum energy turned into a black hole?

Did you read the message from BC.
He claims that it is feasible.
However, he is really afraid that there will be too many of those BH. Therefore, after infinite time some of those BHs might hide in his room under his bed.

I second this question. Please tell us what created that vacuum energy, Dave.

There is no need for that.
As we can measure that energy it proves that it is real.
If it is real then it isn't my job to explain it.
I can just use it in theory D.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

But the real problem is that you need to tell us where the energy came from.
(In fact it came from the BB)

Theory D doesn't need the BBT.
So, as I don't force you to use theory D in your BBT, please don't force me to use your imagination BBT in my modeling.
The vacuum energy is real and it doesn't need the BBT for that:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
"Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum. These particles are always created out of the vacuum in particle–antiparticle pairs, which in most cases shortly annihilate each other and disappear."
So please keep the BBT away from theory D.

[Kryptid]

That is not a yes or no answer, Dave. Give me an actual yes or no. Do you know how vacuum energy turned into the first black hole? I will not stop asking until you give a proper answer. So if you don't want me to keep asking you for the next ten pages, go ahead and answer it.

[Bored chemist]

Theory D doesn't need the BBT.

Theory D needs the vacuum energy.
So it needs to tell us where the vacuum energy comes from .
Without it, there's no explanation of where the energy comes from.
In the same was you want us to explain where the energy comes from that drives the BBT, you need to explain where the vacuum energy comes from.

It makes no sense to say

As we can measure that energy it proves that it is real.

For a start we can not measure it.
But more importantly, you don't seem to understand that we can measure the BB- we see the Hubble constant and the CMBR.
We see the energy in the universe so we don't need to explain it.

Or, if you think we do need to explain it, then you do too.

You seem to have one set of rules for what teh BBT has to do, but a totally different view on what "Theory" D has to do.

Why can "Theory" D get away with saying " there is vacuum energy" but the BBT can't get away with saying "there is BB energy"?

What's the difference?

As far as I can tell the only differences are that the BBT doesn't break the conservation laws and it doesn't predict a universe full of nothing but black holes and it doesn't need "magic" to turn the vacuum energy into a BH. (I say magic, because we all know that physics will not do that).

Why are you giving "Theory" D a free ride?

[Bored chemist]

He claims that it is feasible.
However, he is really afraid that there will be too many of those BH. Therefore, after infinite time some of those BHs might hide in his room under his bed.

As usual, you miss the point.
I said that it was feasible enough to consider what would happen if it was true.
And I considered what would happen if there was some mechanism that generated BH.

And the answer is that, if such a mechanism existed, and if (as you claim) it has had infinite time, then there must be an infinite number of BH.
So they should be everywhere.

So we know that , while it might be "feasible", it is incompatible with your ideas and the observation that we are not in a BH.
So, either it's wrong, or your idea is wrong.
But your idea depends on it, so your idea is wrong anyway.

That is not a yes or no answer, Dave. Give me an actual yes or no. Do you know how vacuum energy turned into the first black hole? I will not stop asking until you give a proper answer. So if you don't want me to keep asking you for the next ten pages, go ahead and answer it.

I second this question.
So it looks like Kryptid and I will just keep on asking
"Do you know where the vacuum energy came from, and do you know how it made a black hole?"

until you answer.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:12:20
As we can measure that energy it proves that it is real.

For a start we cannot measure it.

How can you reject the clear observation/measurements of our scientists?

The vacuum energy is located in front of our eyes.
Our scientists could measure that energy by a recent supernova.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
"The recent supernova results suggest that the vacuum energy density is close to this limit: rho(vacuum) = 0.75*rho(critical) = 6*10-30 gm/cc."

So, the vacuum energy is real and therefore we do not need to explain its existence.

But more importantly, you don't seem to understand that we can measure the BB- we see the Hubble constant and the CMBR.
We see the energy in the universe so we don't need to explain it.

Yes, the CMBR is real and Hubble measurements  are real.
Therefore, we also do not need to explain their existence.
However, those observations don't prove any aspect of the BBT due to the following:
1. CMBR - the CMBR lever is only 2.7K. That is the real story of the CMBH. So if you can take this specific energy and set your BBT that would be perfectly OK. However, we all agree that this energy by itself can't help the BBT. You need much more energy. So you took that energy and multiply it by millions over billions and hope that this assumption is real. I claim that this is a fatal mistake. The CMBR is real but your assumption that you can multiply it by any number that you wish is fatal error.
Please be aware that for an infinite universe you need infinite energy. That is absolutely not realistic.
I would also like to remind you that so far you didn't find any observation that could support your imagination about the CMBR level in the past.
You refuse to answer my following question:

3. Show that the observed heat energy/temp works according the BBT exactions.
Our scientists claim that at the Big Bang moment our Universe temp was ultra high.
Even after 600,000 Years the temp was still very high.
We clearly observe far end galaxies from that time period. So, why don't you verify the temp of those galaxies? If their temp meets the BBT expectations, it is good indication for the BBT. If not, then please set the BBT in the nearest garbage for good.

We clearly observe far away galaxies.
Why none of them reflects the imagination CMBR that you dream on?
You have totally failed to prove that the CMBR in the past was higher that its current Level.
That by itself is good enough to set the BBT deep in the garbage.
2. Hubble measurements - Hubble measurements are real. However, Hubble only measured the far end galaxies expansions. He didn't measure the expansion of the space itself. Therefore, your assumption that the galaxies expansion means by definition the space expansion is one of the highest sever mistake of our scientist!
So, far you couldn't prove that there is any sort of expansion in the space. It is all deep your imagination without any real prove for that. You just failed to understand why the far end galaxies moving away from us at that ultra high velocity and therefore, you invent that useless theory of space expansion.
Please - without real prove for that space expansion - your imagination should be set deep in the garbage.

Why can "Theory" D get away with saying " there is vacuum energy" but the BBT can't get away with saying "there is BB energy"?
What's the difference?

There is no difference.
If the CMBR - AS-IS can help you for the BBT, then your can do so.
Its ok for us to agree that the CMBR represents the average temp of the current Universe. You can claim that in some arias the temp might be higher and at other arias the temp might be lower. Therefore if it help you, you can multiply that energy/temp by some numbers (10, 50, 100). But please, you can't just take it almost to the infinity just because that what is needed for the BBT.
Therefore, as both, the CMBR and the vacuum energy were confirmed by our scientists, then as I accept the existence of the CMBR, you have to except the existence of the vacuum energy.
However, I agree that somehow I need to explain how the Vacuum energy could set the first BH.

That is not a yes or no answer, Dave. Give me an actual yes or no. Do you know how vacuum energy turned into the first black hole? I will not stop asking until you give a proper answer. So if you don't want me to keep asking you for the next ten pages, go ahead and answer it.

Yes, I can offer an answer for you.
However, before I start, I would like highlight that you don't have any prove for how the BIg Bang got its energy and how that imagination energy turned into that Big Bang.
Therefore, if you try to criticize other theory, please first verify that your theory can bypass your questions.
Hence -
1. The BBT totally failed to prove the source of Big Bang energy
2. The BBT totally failed prove/explain how that imagination energy turned into that Big Bang

However, I can do it much better than the BBT.
The Vacuum energy is real and it was measured by our scientists.
They also explain the following:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_energy
"Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of virtual particles (also known as vacuum fluctuations) which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum. These particles are always created out of the vacuum in particle–antiparticle pairs, which in most cases shortly annihilate each other and disappear."

Hence, Vacuum energy can also be thought of in terms of vacuum fluctuations which are created and destroyed out of the vacuum.
They also claim that due to the annihilate process they pop up and disappear
Therefore, 
When our scientists use that supernova to measure the Vacuum energy, they actually observe that energy that pop up and disappear.
Our scientists have calculated that the total energy in the vacuum could get up to 10^91.
Therefore, I would compare it to the light energy of a blinking long line of Leds. Each led light on at different time and their lights disappear short after. Therefore, the following 6*10-30 gm/cc represent the average energy per cc in the blinking vacuum fluctuations.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html
"The recent supernova results suggest that the vacuum energy density is close to this limit: rho(vacuum) = 0.75*rho(critical) = 6*10-30 gm/cc."

Hence, in each cc the vacuum energy could move from zero up to 10^91 while the average energy is only 6*10-30 gm/cc.
Therefore, if the energy in a specific cc is high enough it could potentially be converted into a BH.
I really don't know the chance for that activity
However, I agree with BC that in the Infinite Universe after the infinite time that activity should take place.

In any case, I have proved that theory D can use the real energy that is there in the empty vacuum space of the infinite Universe. I hope that I have found the feasibility how the first BH had been created from that real energy.
Please remember that the BBT failed on those two criteria.
Therefore, do you confirm that even if you are not fully convinced with my explanation, it is very clear that theory D offers much more realistic solutions in those two criteria than the BBT?

[Bored chemist]

So, the vacuum energy is real and therefore we do not need to explain its existence.

The universe is real. We do not need to explain its existence.
"Theory D" is a waste of time.

You can stop now.

[Bored chemist]

Please be aware that for an infinite universe you need infinite energy. That is absolutely not realistic.

OK, what happens if you have an infinitely large universe- as you claim, and a vacuum energy of

6*10^-30 gm/cc."

as you claim.

The answer is that you get an infinite energy.
So, you have contradicted yourself.

[Bored chemist]

We clearly observe far away galaxies.
Why none of them reflects the imagination CMBR that you dream on?

Because the galaxies and the CMBR are completely different things.

Show that the observed heat energy/temp works according the BBT exactions.

Very roughly, the universe expanded a lot and that stretched the wavelengths from BBR corresponding to about 10,000 K to about 2.7K or so.

The galaxies formed a long time after the inflation so their radiation was not affected by it.
Why would it be?
Your question is absurd- that's why I didn't answer it.

[Bored chemist]

"Do you know where the vacuum energy came from, and do you know how it made a black hole?"