[Dave Lev (OP)]

You can't defend your idea because, as you know, it is wrong.

I can easily defend my idea as it is correct by 100%.
The imagination about energy that had been especially delivered for our lovely BBT imagination is wrong and you should know that it is wrong as you can't explain how that energy had been created.

[Bored chemist]

I can easily defend my idea as it is correct by 100%.

Then why don't you?
Why do you post stuff that breaks the proven laws of physics?

However, our universe can create new mass/energy without breaking those laws.

No, it can not.
By definition, it can't do that and follow the conservation laws.
Why post such obvious nonsense?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 09:49:56
However, our universe can create new mass/energy without breaking those laws.

No, it can not.
By definition, it can't do that and follow the conservation laws.

As a master of BBT knowledge (which have a life mission to reject any other theory), would you kindly explain how the energy for that theory had been created without breaking the conservation laws and exactly where was it before that imagination bang?

[Bored chemist]

would you kindly explain

What would be the point?
I explained it plenty of times.
I don't know if the problem that you do not listen, or that you do not understand.

I can't fix either of  those faults.
Can you?
Can you actually read and understand the reasons why the law of conservation of mass does not apply at the start of the universe?
Can you understand that "before the start of the universe" is plainly different from "after the start of the universe"?

[Bored chemist]

However, our universe can create new mass/energy without breaking those laws.

Here's the post where I proved that you are wrong.

If we accept, for a moment, your idea that the universe started with just 1 black hole, le us consider what that would mean.

Imagine I went back in time in a space/time ship of some sort and I put my ship in orbit round that BH- a very long way out so I don't affect it.

I can watch the universe getting made (we will assume I live practically forever).

If your model is correct, I will see the BH spit out matter and that matter will form stars etc


One thing I can do while I watch is time the orbital period of my ship round the new universe.
From that orbital period, I can calculate the mass of the Universe.

In your model that orbital period will change as the BH increases the mass of the universe.

This gives me a way in which I can "weigh" the universe.
And, according to you, that weight will increase.

But the conservation law proves that it can't increase.
So we know your model is wrong.

That's the important bit; your model is wrong, no matter what mechanism you put forward for the process where BH make stars.

[Kryptid]

No, it is not due to quantum.

Hawking radiation is an aspect of quantum physics, whether you like it or not.

So, our dear Hawking assumed (as all the other 100,000 BBT scientists) that new energy can't be created in our universe due to the conservation law.
Therefore, based on that wrong understanding he got the simple outcome that there must be negative mass.

His understanding wasn't wrong. I'm still waiting for you to explain why negative energy is nonsense.

Therefore, Hawking radiation is nonsense not due to quantum math but due to the wrong assumption that our universe can't create new energy/mass.

Non-sequitur.

Theory D is actually the Darwinism theory for the Universe evolvement.
As Darwin explained how all the variety of life had been evolved from the first Ameba, my task is to explain how the variety of matter, atoms... stars and even galaxies web - had been evolved from that tinny BH in the empty universe up to the infinity.

Darwinism has to be put in the trash because it can't explain how the first amoeba was created.

So, please let's move on to theory D while we have got the first tinny BH in the empty infinite Universe.

Not until you explain how that first black hole was formed. It is a requirement as per your rules.

Emmy Noether theory is correct by 100%. Conservation law is also correct by 100%.
However, our universe can create new mass/energy without breaking those laws.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand it?

Noether's theorem states that mass and energy can't be created.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

What would be the point?
I explained it plenty of times.
I don't know if the problem that you do not listen, or that you do not understand.

The point is that you and all the other 100,000 really don't know.
The point is that you all actually know that you don't have a basic clue how the BBT energy had been created and where.
The point is that you carry the name of conservation law for nothing.
The point is that without clear explanation about the source of the BBT energy - your BBT should be set deep in the garbage.
Therefore, for the last time - if you know where and how that imagination energy had been created without breaking the conservation law - then please introduce your imagination.
If not - you have to accept the simple understanding that the BBT is just useless theory.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Hawking radiation is an aspect of quantum physics, whether you like it or not.

Do you claim that Hawking radiation isn't based on the understanding of energy/mass conservation?
If so, do you claim that the following article is wrong?

Hawking radiation is due wrong understanding about energy conservation law:
https://ysjournal.com/what-is-hawking-radiation-and-what-problems-has-it-brought-to-physics/
"To understand Hawking radiation we must first understand that there is no such thing as empty space. Even a vacuum is a bath of bubbling particles, spontaneously appearing and then disappearing. "
"In order for energy to be conserved the particle falling into the black hole must have a perceived negative energy. Since negative energy means negative mass (because of Einstein’s famous mass-energy equivalence principle, shown in the formula E=mc2) it therefore follows that the mass of the black hole decreases. This means that if a black hole does not take in any other type of energy it will shrink until it disappears: that is why Hawking radiation is also known as black hole evaporation."
So, our dear Hawking assumed (as all the other 100,000 BBT scientists) that new energy can't be created in our universe due to the conservation law.
Therefore, based on that wrong understanding he got the simple outcome that there must be negative mass.

[Kryptid]

Do you claim that Hawking radiation isn't based on the understanding of energy/mass conservation?

I never said that, but it's still an aspect of quantum physics.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Do you claim that Hawking radiation isn't based on the understanding of energy/mass conservation?

I never said that, but it's still an aspect of quantum physics.

Sorry, in the article it is stated clearly that it is aspect of conservation law!
Quantum physics gives the math frame.
As Hawking used wrong setups (conservation law) then he got that wrong negative mass results.
So please - its not due to quantum, its due to the wrong understanding about conservation law.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

His understanding wasn't wrong. I'm still waiting for you to explain why negative energy is nonsense.

Well, based on Hawking imagination, the chance for a negative particle to fall into the BH is equal to the chance of a positive particle to fall in.
Therefore, the chance for a negative particle to be ejected outwards is equal to the chance of a positive particle to be ejected outwards.
Therefore, it is expected that around 50% of the BH in the Universe we should observe negative mass with negative gravity force.
Do we see any mass with negative gravity?
As the answer is clearly no, then it proves that there is no negative mass in the entire Universe.

[Kryptid]

Sorry, in the article it is stated clearly that it is aspect of conservation law!

I don't know why you are saying "sorry", given that I never disagreed with that.

As Hawking used wrong setups (conservation law) then he got that wrong negative mass results.

You have yet to demonstrate that it is wrong.

So please - its not due to quantum, its due to the wrong understanding about conservation law.

It's still an aspect of quantum physics: do you really not think that subatomic particles are quantum?

Well, based on Hawking imagination, the chance for a negative particle to fall into the BH is equal to the chance of a positive particle to fall in.

No, it isn't. In Hawking's model, the negative mass particles only fall into the black hole. That makes them unobservable.

Are you going to explain how the first black hole formed?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

No, it isn't. In Hawking's model, the negative mass particles only fall into the black hole. That makes them unobservable.

Why only the negative mass falls in?
Do you claim that Hawking spirit is pushing the negative mass in and the positive mass out?
Can you please explain (based on real science), why only the negative mass falls in?

[Kryptid]

Why only the negative mass falls in?

I would need to do some more research to update myself on the topic, but I think the very fact that one of the virtual particles ends up inside of the event horizon is what causes it to have negative mass in the first place. However, that's really not accurate as the pop culture explanation for Hawking radiation is inaccurate itself. Hawking just created that as an analogy that was easier for people to understand because the real explanation is harder for non-physicists to get their mind around. I'm not sure that the "real" explanation involves negative energy or mass at all. This is a potentially useful video about it:

Then there's this explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/09/yes-stephen-hawking-lied-to-us-all-about-how-black-holes-decay/?sh=3e970b574e63

That article offers an explanation that doesn't require negative mass:

Black holes are not decaying because there's an infalling virtual particle carrying negative energy; that's another fantasy devised by Hawking to "save" his insufficient analogy. Instead, black holes are decaying, and losing mass over time, because the energy emitted by this Hawking radiation is slowly reducing the curvature of space in that region.

Do you claim that Hawking spirit is pushing the negative mass in and the positive mass out?

Now you're being intentionally ridiculous.

[Bored chemist]

What would be the point?
I explained it plenty of times.
I don't know if the problem that you do not listen, or that you do not understand.

The point is that you and all the other 100,000 really don't know.
The point is that you all actually know that you don't have a basic clue how the BBT energy had been created and where.
The point is that you carry the name of conservation law for nothing.
The point is that without clear explanation about the source of the BBT energy - your BBT should be set deep in the garbage.
Therefore, for the last time - if you know where and how that imagination energy had been created without breaking the conservation law - then please introduce your imagination.
If not - you have to accept the simple understanding that the BBT is just useless theory.

Even if that was true, it would still be better than your idea which we know is wrong.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Then there's this explanation: https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/07/09/yes-stephen-hawking-lied-to-us-all-about-how-black-holes-decay/?sh=3e970b574e63
That article offers an explanation that doesn't require negative mass:

It is actually stated:
"But the flawed analogy he put forth in his most famous book, A Brief History of Time, is not correct. Hawking radiation is not the emission of particles and antiparticles from the event horizon. It does not involve an inward-falling pair member carrying negative energy. And it shouldn't even be exclusive to black holes. Stephen Hawking knew how black holes truly decay, but he told the world a very different, even incorrect, story. It's time we all knew the truth instead."
So, do you finelly agree that this article upports my understanding that there is no negative mass/energy?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

The point is that you all actually know that you don't have a basic clue how the BBT energy had been created and where.
The point is that you carry the name of conservation law for nothing.
The point is that without clear explanation about the source of the BBT energy - your BBT should be set deep in the garbage.
Therefore, for the last time - if you know where and how that imagination energy had been created without breaking the conservation law - then please introduce your imagination.
If not - you have to accept the simple understanding that the BBT is just useless theory.

Even if that was true, it would still be better than your idea which we know is wrong.

Let's agree - you (and all the other 100,000 scientists) don't have a basic clue how the energy for our entire universe (even if it is infinite) had been created and where.
Therefore, you can't know for sure that the BBT energy doesn't break the conservation law.
Hence, next time that you raise the flag of the conservation law, please remember to hide under the table.

[Origin]

Let's agree

Let's agree that you don't know what you are talking about.  Lets agree that you don't have an education in physics and do not even know the basics that a freshman in college knows.  Let's agree that your ideas are based on ignorance and are clearly wrong.

[Kryptid]

So, do you finelly agree that this article upports my understanding that there is no negative mass/energy?

No, as it doesn't rule out other forms of negative mass or energy.

[Bored chemist]

Let's agree - you (and all the other 100,000 scientists) don't have a basic clue how the energy for our entire universe (even if it is infinite) had been created and where.

Even if we did agree that, it wouldn't stop your idea being certainly wrong, so the BBT would still be a better option.

Therefore,

You should use the word "therefore" when something follows from something else.But in this case, it would be following from something that isn't true.
So you can't say "therefore".

ou can't know for sure that the BBT energy doesn't break the conservation law.

Yes we can, because it doesn't depend on where the energy is from; it depends on when it arrived .
So, yes we do know that it does not break the energy/ mass conservation laws.
This will still be true, no matter what nonsense you say.

Hence, next time that you raise the flag of the conservation law, please remember to hide under the table.

Again the word "hence" is a bit like "therefore".
You can't use it when the thing it depends on is wrong.


It's like saying "People have green skin; hence they are difficult to see against a grass field".
It's not true that people are hard to see- because they aren't really green.

And we are still waiting for you to answer this

Quote from: Bored chemist on 20/09/2021 08:35:39
Quote from: Bored chemist on 19/09/2021 10:12:08

Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/09/2021 18:46:29
Quote from: Dave Lev on 18/09/2021 13:46:31
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Virtual particles are indeed real particles?
Please read the following:
I understand it.

You say you do.
If you understand it then please write down the two different definitions of the word "real" which are being used in this discussion.


Quote from: Bored chemist on 18/09/2021 11:09:50
Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 13:07:42
Do not bother to reply until you find out the difference between real and virtual particles.
Until you do that, you are just wasting everybody's time.