[Kryptid]

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

The Big Bang theory isn't "my" theory. I'm not even defending it anymore. I fully recognize that the Big Bang theory does not explain everything.

Our scientists have calculated that the total energy in the vacuum could get up to 10^91.

You can't use that 10⁹¹ g/cc figure, though. No such incredible density of vacuum energy has ever been measured or proven (remember, it's just a mathematical prediction). According to your own posts, only 6 x 10^-30 g/cc has been measured. Measurements and proof are required, according to your rules:

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?

Science is not a wishful list.
If you think something - you have to prove it by solid evidence.

I think differently – "Science is all about proof".

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

Please remember - the OBSERVATION is above any law and any mathematics.
There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.
We must adjust our mathematics to meet the real observation!!!

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

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.

According to what measurement or proof?

Therefore, if the energy in a specific cc is high enough it could potentially be converted into a BH.

What real measurement has been done that demonstrates vacuum energy can actually attain that kind of energy density in reality? Remember math alone can't be used as evidence:

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

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You can't use that 10^91 g/cc figure, though. No such incredible density of vacuum energy has ever been measured or proven (remember, it's just a mathematical prediction). According to your own posts, only 6 x 10-30 g/cc has been measured. Measurements and proof are required, according to your rules:

Yes, the 10^91 g/cc Vacuum energy figure is based on our scientists mathematical prediction. Therefore, our scientists told us what might be the upper level of that vacuum energy (although they have never measured that king of energy).
From the other side, we all know that this energy pop up and disappear short after.
Therefore, we can expect that there are cc's with just zero energy.
Hence, when our scientists have clearly measured the 6 x 10-30 g/cc level this level represents the average energy in that volume per cc.
Now read again my explanation:

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.
Quote from: Dave Lev on 05/09/2021 20:12:20
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.

The whole idea is that the 6*10-30 gm/cc doesn't really represents the real energy in each and every cc from our location to that supernova.
It just represents the average measured energy per cc.
As we clearly know that in some (or even most) of the cc the vacuum energy should be zero, than in order to get that 6*10-30 gm/c in some other cc the energy must be higher.
Hence, if for example at 50% of the cc the energy is zero, than in the other 50% the energy must be 2*6*10-30 gm/cc
Don't you agree that the chance for the vacuum energy to pop up is quite low?
Therefore, I would estimate that in any given moment just a few cc (in that long distance from our location all the way to that supernova) would pop up and disappear short after.
Therefore, do you agree that due to the nature activity of the vacuum fluctuations it is very clear that in order to get to that average measured 6*10-30 gm/cc those few cc that pop up must have very relatively high vacuum energy?
It is also very clear that almost all of those vacuum fluctuations would die before setting any impact.
Our scientists had confirmed that this vacuum fluctuations could potentially carry an energy of almost 10^91 gm/cc.
Therefore, do you agree that after trillions over trillions over.... trillions vacuum fluctuations pop ups, there is a chance that one of them would carry enough energy to set the first BH?

The Big Bang theory isn't "my" theory. I'm not even defending it anymore. I fully recognize that the Big Bang theory does not explain everything.

The BBT is Unbeatable.
Our scientists would do whatever it takes to keep it forever and ever and ever.
They don't care that they have no real energy source for that Big Bang.
They also don't care why and how the Big Bang started.

In any theory it is expected that you have to set expectations. If you observe something that contradicts your theory, then you should set this theory deep in the garbage.
That is correct to all the theories that our scientists have developed with one exception - The BBT theory.
In that BBT, Our scientists set the expectations, but those expectations are very flexible. Therefore, they really don't care on any observation that contradicts the BBT, as they are ready to update the BBT to meet any contradicted observation.

As an example:
The agre of the Universe - You have stated that if you would discover that the age of the Universe must be higher than 13.8 BY than it proves that the BBT is useless.
Therefore, There was a time that our scientists thought that the maximal radius of the entire universe is just 13 .8 BY (Visible universe)
Later on they have changed it to 46 BLY (Observable Universe).
Now they start to understand that the Universe size could be even infinite.
So, how can you fit infinite universe in only 13.8 BY?
BC found the solution. He calls it - Inflation.
So, by using just one word converts an expected finite universe with a relatively compact size to infinite size.
Please be aware that the meaning of infinite size is infinite universes of the observable size.
Hence, you take a story that could at that maximal meet a universe which is bigger by three times than the maximal expansion of the speed of light and multiply it by infinite.
How lovely.

Let's focus on the CMBR

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.

Well, the CMBR story is quite simple:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/BBhistory.html
"Protons and electrons combine to form neutral hydrogen. Universe becomes transparent. Temperature is T=3000 K, time is 380,000 years after the Big Bang. Ordinary matter can now fall into the dark matter clumps. The CMB travels freely from this time until now, so the CMB anisotropy gives a picture of the Universe at this time."
So, the CMBR starts when the age of the Universe was 380,000 years at T=3000K.

The age of the earliest observed galaxy is only 200 M years after the Big Bang.
https://www.space.com/11386-galaxies-formation-big-bang-hubble-telescope.html
Using several different telescopes, astronomers have discovered a distant galaxy whose stars appear to have formed 200 million years after the Big Bang, the explosive event that brought the universe into being.

Therefore, based on the BBT, that galaxy existed while the CMB was still quite high.
In order to verify if the BBT is real or fiction we just need to verify the following:
1. What is the expected CMBR when the age of the Universe was only 200 MY
2. Verify the CMBR temp at that earliest observed galaxy.
If we discover a fit between the expected CMBR temp, to the measured BBT then we can use this fit as an indication that supports the BBT.
However, I'm sure that our BBT scientists would never abandon the BBT.
If they would discover sever temp difference, they would just update their exactions to the measured temp.
So, the BBT strategy is quite simple:
Whenever there is a contradiction between the BBT' expectation to the observed data, then our scientists update the BBT' expectation and close the gap.
Do you know how many times this BBT theory had been update to meet a new contradicted observation?
Therefore, the BBT is unbeatable.

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

Well, the BBT is just imagination but it is unbeatable, while theory D is the only ultimate theory for our Universe.
I start to think that I waste my time as it seems that you and all the BBT scientists would never ever give up.
Therefore, in order for me to take a decision.
Would you kindly tell me what kind of observation/evidence/discovery could convince once and for all that BBT is useless (or actually nothing can do so and therefore I really waste my time)?

[Bored chemist]

The BBT is Unbeatable.

Whereas "theory" D is beaten on a number of counts- not least that the universe should be full of BH, but isn't.


It's just that Dave doesn't understand his own theory.
It also doesn't deal with Olber's paradox.

Hence, when our scientists have clearly measured the 6 x 10^-30 g/cc level this level represents the average energy in that volume per cc.

When and how did they measure it?

If, as you claim, the universe is infinite, how do you measure an average over the whole of it- when most of it is too far away to observe?

Would you kindly tell me what kind of observation/evidence/discovery could convince once and for all that BBT is useless (or actually nothing can do so and therefore I really waste my time)?

We already did that.
An object that's clearly older than 40 billion years would do.
There was a brief discussion about blue dwarf stars.

Why  are you asking the question after we already answered it clearly for you?


Also why do you not answer our question?

Is it because you know that you are wrong?

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

[Bored chemist]

In order to verify if the BBT is real or fiction we just need to verify the following:
1. What is the expected CMBR when the age of the Universe was only 200 MY
2. Verify the CMBR temp at that earliest observed galaxy.
If we discover a fit between the expected CMBR temp, to the measured BBT then we can use this fit as an indication that supports the BBT.

For what it is worth, the estimated temperature of the 200 M year old universe is about 60K.
The stars in the galaxy would have been much hotter.
So what?


Instead of applying that to some distant past- 200 M years after the big bang, let's apply it to today.
We see the CMBR is about 2.7K
And we see the stars in that galaxy as much much hotter than that.

Obviously, the stars are always going to be much hotter than the background, that's why stars shine.

So your question only shows that you do not understand the situation.

[Bored chemist]

So, the BBT strategy is quite simple:
Whenever there is a contradiction between the BBT' expectation to the observed data, then our scientists update the BBT' expectation and close the gap

Updating theories in the light of new information is how science works.
Why did you not know that?

[Kryptid]

(although they have never measured that king of energy).

So your rules mean we have to throw it out.

Therefore, do you agree that due to the nature activity of the vacuum fluctuations it is very clear that in order to get to that average measured 6*10-30 gm/cc those few cc that pop up must have very relatively high vacuum energy?

No. You can have an average energy density of 6 x 10^-30 g/cc when the maximum possible density is 7 x 10^-30 g/cc and the minimum possible density is 5 x 10^-30 g/cc. The maximum possible energy density of the vacuum has never been measured.

Our scientists had confirmed that this vacuum fluctuations could potentially carry an energy of almost 10^91 gm/cc.

Actually, that was predicted to be the vacuum's actual energy density, not merely a maximum possible energy density. The fact that the actual measured energy density of the vacuum is many, many times lower than the predicted value has been called the "cosmological constant problem". The difference between the measured value and the predicted value is around 120 orders of magnitude. So the actual, measured energy density of the vacuum is around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times lower than the predicted value. Here's what you said about math conflicting with observations:

We have to prove what we see based on real universe and not on some sort of unrealistic mathematical assumptions/calculations.

Please remember - the OBSERVATION is above any law and any mathematics.
There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.
We must adjust our mathematics to meet the real observation!!!

So again, I reiterate, you cannot use that 10⁹¹ g/cc figure. According to your rules, you can only use what has been measured.

Therefore, do you agree that after trillions over trillions over.... trillions vacuum fluctuations pop ups, there is a chance that one of them would carry enough energy to set the first BH?

Not if it can't reach the needed density. You need to show that it can by using actual observational evidence and measurements.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:15:41
The BBT is Unbeatable.

Whereas "theory" D is beaten on a number of counts- not least that the universe should be full of BH, but isn't.

As long as you agree that at least one BH could be created from the Vacuum energy, then theory D can start working without any need for any external source of energy as the BBT needs.
Therefore, theory D is real while BBT is just imagination.

It's just that Dave doesn't understand his own theory.
It also doesn't deal with Olber's paradox.

I have already explained why theory D overcomes on Olber's paradox.
The explanation is very simple:
When we observe an object with a redshift of 1 it means that this object is moving away from us at the speed of the light.
When we observe an object with a redshift of 13 it means that this object is moving away from us 13 times the speed of the light.
The redshift of the CMBR is about 1100.
That is an indication that we get radiation from a sphere of objects that are moving away from us at about 1100 the speed of light.
Hence, in any direction that we would look, there are infinite no of stars and galaxies.
However, as they are moving away from us at a velocity faster than the speed of light, there is a limit for how many stars/galaxies we can really see.
Therefore, as we only observe a finite number of stars/galaxies in our infinite universe Olber's paradox is not relevant.
On the other hand, that activity proves that at any location that we would be in that infinite universe we would get the same CMBR radiation, and therefore, we could think that we are located at the center on the universe (which is - incorrect).

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:15:41
Hence, when our scientists have clearly measured the 6 x 10-30 g/cc level this level represents the average energy in that volume per cc.

When and how did they measure it?

Did you had the chance to read the article?
Why do you ask me this question? Its better for you to ask them.

If, as you claim, the universe is infinite, how do you measure an average over the whole of it- when most of it is too far away to observe?

Our scientists have specifically indicated that they are using the supernova to verify the Vacuum energy.
So, the distance from our location to that supernova is finite. Hence, the get the result of the vacuum energy in that finite distance all the way to the supernova,
 

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:15:41
Would you kindly tell me what kind of observation/evidence/discovery could convince once and for all that BBT is useless (or actually nothing can do so and therefore I really waste my time)?

We already did that.
An object that's clearly older than 40 billion years would do.
There was a brief discussion about blue dwarf stars.

Why only 40 BY?
What wrong with 15BY or even 18BY?
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-do-scientists-determi/
According to our best available estimates, stars having about 90 percent of the sun's mass are just now starting to die in the globulars. These stars are most probably around 15 billion years old, but they could conceivably be as young as 12 billion years or as old as 18 billion years. It is very unlikely that most of them could be either younger or older than this range. This estimate is already accurate enough to place some very interesting limits on the age and life history of the universe."
Our scientists focus on the globular cluster. Those stars are relatively young as all of them had been created in the center of the MY and ejected outwards.
They further they would look the older stars they would find.
It is very clear to me that when we would improve our technology and look further away, we would see some stars with age of over than 100 BY.

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

Dear BC
It is really not fair to ask a question when you don't have an answer for that in your BBT.
In Theory D I'm using the Vacuum energy that is there in the empty space.
You think that this energy is there due to your lovely BBT.
However, you have totally failed to explain the source of the BBT energy.
So, as you can't offer any real valid source of energy for the BBT, please don't try to claim that the vacuum energy is there due to the BBT.

For what it is worth, the estimated temperature of the 200 M year old universe is about 60K.
The stars in the galaxy would have been much hotter.
So what?

CMBR radiation is different from the star radiation.
We should find a technology to monitor that CMBR at that far away galaxy.
Only if we can find that the CMBR there is 60K instead of our current 2.7K we can know that the BBT is realistic.

So, the BBT strategy is quite simple:
Whenever there is a contradiction between the BBT' expectation to the observed data, then our scientists update the BBT' expectation and close the gap

Updating theories in the light of new information is how science works.
Why did you not know that?

That is correct ONLY if your mission is to hold this theory forever and ever.
In real life if you have a contradiction between observations to the theory, you MUST set the theory in the garbage and start from zero.
If you were really wish to focus on science, than you had to clear the table from the BBT, set all the observations and start from zero.
If you do so, you would get to theory D.
Unfortunately for all of us, you and all the other BBT scientists have only one mission - protecting the BBT.
You would never let any evidence/observation to convince you that you are wrong.
Therefore, you would continue to ignore any evidence/observation that contradicts the BBT and try to find a way how to hold that BBT imagination forever and ever and ever.
Good Luck

[Bored chemist]

Therefore, do you agree that after trillions over trillions over.... trillions vacuum fluctuations pop ups, there is a chance that one of them would carry enough energy to set the first BH?

If there is, then over an infinite time, there are an infinite number of BH.
The universe should be full of them.

[Bored chemist]

then theory D can start working without any need for any external source of energy as the BBT needs.

That is not true.
Your idea of a BH making a universe is impossible.
You pretend that it works because you miss out the vital step in the BH evaporation process where a negative mass particle falls into the BH.
You say that you can do that because ew never observe negative mass particles.
But, in fact, we have.
So your bleating that "negative mass is an imagination" is wrong.

So you have no excuse for ignoring the conservation of mass
So your "process" for making a universe from a BH is a mistake.
It is based on your mistaken belief that there are no negative mass particles.
But we see them.
Physicist Peter Engels and a team of colleagues at Washington State University reported the observation of negative mass behaviour in rubidium atoms.

So the "imagination" as you would call it is the idea that  BH can create a universe.


Since "Theory" D is plainly wrong, you should bin it.

That is correct ONLY if your mission is to hold this theory forever and ever.

You just said that you only change the theory if you want it to stay the same for ever.

That is nonsense, isn't it?

Updating theories (and occasionally binning them) is what science does.

Why only 40 BY?

Sorry, I mistyped it 14 billion would do.

But... you don't have any, do you?
So it hardly matters.

I have already explained why theory D overcomes on Olber's paradox.
The explanation is very simple:

It is also plainly wrong.
So you only think you have solved it, in fact, you just didn't understand it.

You say that the distant stars are moving away so fast that we can not see them.
But consider a speck of dust that is half way to that star.
It is surrounded by stars, so it will get hot.
Now consider a speck a tenth of the way to the distant star It is also surrounded by stars. \It will get hot.
And now consider that photon-photon scattering, while rare, does happen.
So you don't even need the dust.
The light itself will do the job.

That's the problem, once you have an infinite number of stars, any non-zero fraction of their light is still impossibly bright.

And, of course, you have no actual mechanism for producing the stars because you ignore the importance of negative mass (which you absolutely must have, to get round the mass conservation problem).

So, you have no mechanism for a BH making a universe, though you mistakenly think you have.
You have no way to address Olber's paradox, though you mistakenly think you have.
You have no explanation for the vacuum energy, though you mistakenly think you have.
You have no explanation of how that energy would form a BH , though you mistakenly think you have.
You have nor explanation for the fact that, if your ideas were right the universe would be literally full of BH , though you mistakenly think you have.

And yet you think your joke of a "theory" is better than the BBT and all the people who do understand science are wrong- because you don't understand much of anything.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 10:53:59
Quote from: Bored chemist on 05/09/2021 21:27:07
"Do you know where the vacuum energy came from, and do you know how it made a black hole?"

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Therefore, do you agree that after trillions over trillions over.... trillions vacuum fluctuations pop ups, there is a chance that one of them would carry enough energy to set the first BH?

If there is, then over an infinite time, there are an infinite number of BH.
The universe should be full of them.

Would you kindly discuss it with kryptid and get to final conclusion?
You tell me about infinite BHs due to Vacuum energy and he tells me about zero BH.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 07:15:41
Our scientists had confirmed that this vacuum fluctuations could potentially carry an energy of almost 10^91 gm/cc.
Actually, that was predicted to be the vacuum's actual energy density, not merely a maximum possible energy density. The fact that the actual measured energy density of the vacuum is many, many times lower than the predicted value has been called the "cosmological constant problem". The difference between the measured value and the predicted value is around 120 orders of magnitude. So the actual, measured energy density of the vacuum is around 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times lower than the predicted value. Here's what you said about math conflicting with observations:

So, you fully confirm that the predicted vacuum energy should be higher.
Therefore, why is it so difficult for you to understand that potentially, the energy in the vacuum could be higher than the measured level?

So again, I reiterate, you cannot use that 1091 g/cc figure. According to your rules, you can only use what has been measured.

That is incorrect.
The measured level doesn't contradict the predicted level.
Please remember that this energy isn't stable.
It actually disappears almost as soon as it pop up.
So, the chance to catch the maximal average higher energy is not so high.
Therefore, we are lucky that we got some energy.
Hence, why can't we think that the current measured level (although it is very low) is excellent indication that the Vacuum energy is real.

Not if it can't reach the needed density. You need to show that it can by using actual observational evidence and measurements.

We all agree that the Vacuum energy is real.
We also agree that the predicted energy (r let me call it the potential vacuum energy) is also there.
Therefore, you have to agree that there is a possibility after infinite time for creating a BH from this energy without any need to import external energy from unknown source as it is in the BBT.
So, the energy for the first BH in theory D is much more realistic than the imagination ultra high energy request for the BBT that came out of nothing.
How can you claim that it is realistic to consider that the whole energy for our entire infinite universe had been delivered by BBT without any valid source for that, while creating single BH from the vacuum energy that exists in our infinite universe is not realistic?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 21:09:12
then theory D can start working without any need for any external source of energy as the BBT needs.

That is not true.
Your idea of a BH making a universe is impossible.
You pretend that it works because you miss out the vital step in the BH evaporation process where a negative mass particle falls into the BH.
You say that you can do that because ew never observe negative mass particles.
But, in fact, we have.
So your bleating that "negative mass is an imagination" is wrong.

Dear BC
We are dealing with the first step of theory D.
Once we all agree that BH's could be created from the Vacuum energy without any request for imaginary energy (as it is needed for the BBT) we will move on to the next step that you have just mentioned.

[Bored chemist]

We are dealing with the first step of theory D.

Why?
None of the steps work but.... ok.
Here's the first step

Where did the vacuum energy come from?

The real scientists say it was produced by the BB.

What's your "imagination"?

[Bored chemist]

You tell me about infinite BHs due to Vacuum energy and he tells me about zero BH.

Either way, you are wrong, aren't you?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So, you have no mechanism for a BH making a universe, though you mistakenly think you have.
You have no way to address Olber's paradox, though you mistakenly think you have.
You have no explanation for the vacuum energy, though you mistakenly think you have.
You have no explanation of how that energy would form a BH , though you mistakenly think you have.
You have nor explanation for the fact that, if your ideas were right the universe would be literally full of BH , though you mistakenly think you have.
And yet you think your joke of a "theory" is better than the BBT and all the people who do understand science are wrong- because you don't understand much of anything.

You have no explanation for the source of the BBT energy, though you mistakenly think you have.
That is good enough to kill the BBT at the starting point.
On he other hand, the vacuum energy is real and its predicted energy should be much higher than the measured energy.
Therefore, theory D has real energy source to start with.

Hence, theory D can cross the first stage of its life, while BBT can't do so.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

We are dealing with the first step of theory D.

Why?
None of the steps work but.... ok.
Here's the first step
Where did the vacuum energy come from?
The real scientists say it was produced by the BB.
What's your "imagination"?

And how the BBT got its imagination energy?
As long as you can't explain the source of energy for the BBT and how that energy had been created, you can't claim that the vacuum energy had been produced by the BBT.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Let's make it clear
The BBT doesn't offer a real energy source even for one tiny particle.
So, how do you dare to claim for having the energy for the entire Universe including all the energy in the vacuum?
Therefore, when we discuss on real energy (as vacuum energy), it's better for you to grab the BBT and hide under the table.

[Kryptid]

Would you kindly discuss it with kryptid and get to final conclusion?
You tell me about infinite BHs due to Vacuum energy and he tells me about zero BH.

Bored chemist and I are entitled to our different opinions. Although I do agree with him that the total number of black holes in the Universe should be infinite in your model if it is possible for black holes to form from vacuum energy. That's the important word, though: "if". Well, actually, not really infinite. There should actually only be a single, infinitely-large black hole with infinite mass that formed from the merger of all of those infinite black holes. If the Universe was filled with such a single, giant black hole, there wouldn't be room for stars, planets or galaxies. But I'll leave that to Bored Chemist to explain for now.

Therefore, why is it so difficult for you to understand that potentially, the energy in the vacuum could be higher than the measured level?

Since we are playing by your rules, we can only use what is measured to be true. The measured value is 6 x 10^-30 g/cc (which is less than a single electron per cubic centimeter), not 10⁹¹ g/cc. Here are some quotes of yours to, once again, remind you of your own requirements:

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?

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

We have to prove what we see based on real universe and not on some sort of unrealistic mathematical assumptions/calculations.

Science is not a wishful list.
If you think something - you have to prove it by solid evidence.

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

But, and this is the most relevant rule of all when it comes to vacuum energy:

Please remember - the OBSERVATION is above any law and any mathematics.
There is no way to for the observation to meet our wrong mathematics.
We must adjust our mathematics to meet the real observation!!!

Oh, and regards to your quote of, "the energy in the vacuum could be higher", you have this quote about "could be":

You prefer to set it under "Could be" infinite, (or: "We don't know"?).
Sorry, you must know the clear answer.
Is it infinite or not?
"Could be" is nice first step but it's not good enough

So "could be" isn't good enough. Your rules say that we "must know the clear answer".

The measured level doesn't contradict the predicted level.

If I predicted water to have a density of 1 million g/cc but measure it to have a density of 1 g/cc, then I have a major contradiction. It's the same thing with vacuum energy.

Hence, why can't we think that the current measured level (although it is very low) is excellent indication that the Vacuum energy is real.

Vacuum energy being real isn't the same as it being capable of collapsing into a black hole.

We also agree that the predicted energy (r let me call it the potential vacuum energy) is also there.

Since we agree to abide by your rules, I'm going to have to say "no" to this. Your previous quotes say that observations trump math. There are no observations that support a predicted vacuum energy of 10⁹¹ g/cc:

We have to prove what we see based on real universe and not on some sort of unrealistic mathematical assumptions/calculations.

That means we have to throw that number in the garbage.

Therefore, you have to agree that there is a possibility after infinite time for creating a BH from this energy without any need to import external energy from unknown source as it is in the BBT.

No, because you haven't provided a plausible mechanism based on real measurements. You are relying on unverified math, which is against your rules.

How can you claim that it is realistic to consider that the whole energy for our entire infinite universe had been delivered by BBT without any valid source for that, while creating single BH from the vacuum energy that exists in our infinite universe is not realistic?

I never said that. What I'm saying is that you have yet to demonstrate that a black hole popping up out of the vacuum as being realistic.

The BBT doesn't offer a real energy source even for one tiny particle.

Neither does Theory D. We've never seen vacuum energy in empty space turn into one tiny particle either (let alone a black hole).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Since we are playing by your rules, we can only use what is measured to be true.

Please - it isn't my personal rules.
I'm using logical rules.
If you don't agree with any rule - then let's discuss it.
The first rule is that you can't create anything without real energy source.
I hope that you agree with this rule.
If so, then based on your following reply we first must set the BBT deep in the garbage.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 22:05:04
The BBT doesn't offer a real energy source even for one tiny particle.

Neither does Theory D. We've never seen vacuum energy in empty space turn into one tiny particle either (let alone a black hole).

You fully confirm that the BBT has no real energy source.
Therefore, with or without theory D, you and all the other BBT scientists must agree that the BBT is useless theory and should be set in deep in the garbage.
It is much better for all of us to have no theory for our universe instead of holding imagination one that is called BBT.
Therefore, once we all agree that the BBT has no real energy source and it is just irrelevant theory, we would go on and look for better theory as theory D.
If at the end we will discover that theory D is also useless, we will set it in the garbage and look for other better theory.
Therefore- Do we all agree that we should not hold any theory that has no energy source to start with?
If so, we will move on to theory D and verify the real story about its energy source that is called vacuum energy.
Based on that verification we will decide if it is going to follow the BBT into the garbage or if it can at least cross the first phase of creating a tinny BH out of that available vacuum energy in the infinite Universe.

So before we start our deep discussion about the vacuum energy, do we all agree that the BBT should be set in the garbage as it has no real energy source to start with?

[Bored chemist]

I'm using logical rules.

No, you are not.

You have no explanation for the source of the BBT energy, though you mistakenly think you have.
That is good enough to kill the BBT at the starting point.

No it is not.
For the same logical reason I explained earlier.
A theory does not have to explain everything.

But, in fact I have put forward an explanation.
the problem is that you do not understand that "before time began" makes causality a more complex issue.

However, I will see if I can make you understand your problem by a different approach.

If you think the vacuum energy was there "forever" and gave rise to a BH even though you have no idea where it came from or how that happened, I can say the same of the BB
The energy was provided by the vacuum energy and I don't know how, but it doesn't require any more magic than your idea.

That's what logic says; if you can use the vacuum energy to create a universe, then I can too.

The difference is that your idea of a BH making a universe is impossible- the mechanism you suggested is wrong because it breaks the mass/energy conservation law.

The BBT doesn't offer a real energy source even for one tiny particle.

Nor does "Theory" D.

I keep asking how you make the first BH and you don't have a sensible answer.

Any answer you have given so far must be wrong because it would give an infinite number of BH
And that's not what we see.
You make a lot of noise about a theory having to agree with observation; yours does not.

[Bored chemist]

The first rule is that you can't create anything without real energy source.

So you can not create the vacuum energy.
And without it, you certainly can not use that VE to create the first BH.
And even if you had a mechanism for that, it would (in an infinite time) create an infinite number of BH
The universe would collapse into a single hyper-massive BH.
And it has not.
But, even if you magically only have 1 BH
You are still wrong about a BH having a mechanism to create the universe because that would break the conservation laws.

So your idea is three impossible things balanced on top of eachother.