[Dave Lev (OP)]

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.

Dear Kryptid
You have offered the following article:

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

It is stated that Hawking knew that his story was incorrect. So, it almost seems that he is just a liar:
"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."
With regards to the Negative mass it is stated:
"It does not involve an inward-falling pair member carrying negative energy"
Therefore, those scientists claim that it is not about falling negative mass.
So why do you insist on negative mass while they claim that Hawking theory is incorrect and he knew that?

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 20:28:25
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.

In theory D we starts with only one single tinny BH. That's all we need. I have offered the VE energy. our scientists claim that due to VE the space is full with particles. Those particles pop in and out and they are real even if due to the annihilation process most of them are converted to photons.
Therefore we discuss on real VE energy and real particles that are needed for just one single tinny BH.
On the other hand the BBT is not based on real energy as you have no clue where that energy came from and how it had been created. That energy should cover all the mass/energy in the entire universe even if the universe is infinite.
Please don't forget that due to Einstein formula:
E = m c^2
Then for any gram of mass we must invest energy that is higher by C^2.
Therefore, the energy that is needed for just one galaxy as the milky way with its 200 B Stars is higher by C^2.
If we discuss about infinite universe with infinite galaxy - then it is clear that you need energy that is higher by C^2 than the total mass in that infinite universe.
Hence, the requested energy is just high above infinite. So, any inflation velocity which is finite would end the BBT as a SSS.. SMBH.
So, how can you claim that the BBT is preferable, while you need infinite energy without any real energy source and it is almost clear that any finite inflation would end the bang as a BH, while in theory D you only need just one BH and the VE energy is there in front of our eyes?

Actually, if it helps, I can start theory D just after the Big bang that ends as a single BH.
You claim that the Bang in the BBT is real. So I would like to buy that bang.
Do you agree to sell me that bang in order to start my theory D?

[Bored chemist]

In theory D we starts with only one single tinny BH.

Any process which gives rise to one BH from "space" will, in an infinite time give rise to an infinite number of BH
We do not see an infinite number of BH.
So we know that there is no process which creates them.


And you still need to answer this

Here's the post where I proved that you are wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 22/08/2021 10:39:01
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.

And you still need to answer this

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.

[Bored chemist]

You claim that the Bang in the BBT is real.

The famous observation about the big bang is that it wasn't  actually big and it wasn't actually a bang

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You claim that the Bang in the BBT is real.

The famous observation about the big bang is that it wasn't  actually big and it wasn't actually a bang

If it wasn't big and wasn't bang, then what was it?
Can we call if "flop"
So please, would you kindly sell me that "flop" which would deliver the requested BH to my theory D?

[Kryptid]

They didn't say that Hawking's theory is incorrect. What they said was that the simplified explanation he came up with to dumb it down for the public was incorrect. That's a big difference.

The kind of negative energy I'm speaking of doesn't have anything to do with Hawking radiation. I'm simply speaking in general that there could be negative mass particles out there somewhere that are either so rare or so far away that we haven't detected them yet.

[Bored chemist]

So please, would you kindly sell me that "flop" which would deliver the requested BH to my theory D?

Well... if you insist.
Here's a flop.
What it does is generate 1 BH per cubic parsec per million years (there's a setting for how often, but that's the "factory default".)
And, acceding to your theory, I had to sell the flop  to you an infinitely long time ago- because you think space has been here forever.

So, since the flop has been spitting out BH for an infinite time, there are now an infinite number of BH.
Which makes the universe impossibly crowded.

So, sure, I can sell you this flop, but it still leaves your "theory" as an abject failure.
Just like I have been saying for ages.

Are you beginning to understand the problem of an infinitely old universe?
Either you get no BH or an infinite number of them.
Neither works.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

So please, would you kindly sell me that "flop" which would deliver the requested BH to my theory D?

Well... if you insist.
Here's a flop.
What it does is generate 1 BH per cubic parsec per million years (there's a setting for how often, but that's the "factory default".)
And, acceding to your theory, I had to sell the flop  to you an infinitely long time ago- because you think space has been here forever.

So, since the flop has been spitting out BH for an infinite time, there are now an infinite number of BH.
Which makes the universe impossibly crowded.

So, sure, I can sell you this flop, but it still leaves your "theory" as an abject failure.
Just like I have been saying for ages.

Are you beginning to understand the problem of an infinitely old universe?
Either you get no BH or an infinite number of them.
Neither works.

Well, I have no interest in your personal flop.
I'm going to buy the real flop that is called: "Planck epoch"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang
"The earliest phases of the Big Bang are subject to much speculation, since astronomical data about them are not available. In the most common models the universe was filled homogeneously and isotropically with a very high energy density and huge temperatures and pressures, and was very rapidly expanding and cooling. The period from 0 to 10−43 seconds into the expansion, the Planck epoch, was a phase in which the four fundamental forces — the electromagnetic force, the strong nuclear force, the weak nuclear force, and the gravitational force, were unified as one.[25] In this stage, the characteristic scale length of the universe was the Planck length, 1.6×10−35 m, and consequently had a temperature of approximately 1032 degrees Celsius. Even the very concept of a particle breaks down in these conditions. A proper understanding of this period awaits the development of a theory of quantum gravity.[26][27] The Planck epoch was succeeded by the grand unification epoch beginning at 10−43 seconds, where gravitation separated from the other forces as the universe's temperature fell.[25]"
So, theory D starts at the Planck epoch.
It is also stated that the density of the early universe was very high, much higher that the density that is needed for a BH:
"Despite being extremely dense at this time—far denser than is usually required to form a black hole—the universe did not re-collapse into a singularity."
So, they think that the density of the early universe could end as a BH but somehow it did not re-collapse into a singularity.
If I understand it correctly, it is all due to the inflation.
In theory D there is no inflation, only the current expansion that we observe today.
Therefore, without that imagination that is called inflation, the Big Bang would end as a single BH and from that moment the space would expand at the Hubble constant.
"Hubble's constant, measured to be 70.4+1.3−1.4 km/s/Mpc by the WMAP"

Hence:
Theory D starts from that bang took place at the infinite time ago with a single BH while the space is increasing at 70.4+1.3−1.4 km/s/Mpc.
That single BH would be the mother and father to all the matter in the Universe.
After infinite time, we would get an infinite universe full with galaxies that have been created by that single BH.

Conclusion -
You can't sell me your personal flop with infinite BH's.
I would like to buy only the original flop that is called "Planck epoch". Without inflation, that flop must end as a single BH.

Can we please start now the story of theory D?

[Kryptid]

You can't use that unless you have explanation for where that "imagination energy" (as you call it) came from.

Even if you did have an explanation for it, the universe that would come from that wouldn't look anything like the one we actually see. During the Planck epoch, all of space was filled with highly-dense energy.

Since the Universe in Theory D is infinitely-large, that means infinite mass and infinite energy. A black hole that formed from the collapse of all of that mass would therefore be infinitely-massive and infinitely-large. Every location in the Universe would be inside that black hole. So you don't get stars or planets.

What in the world is with you suddenly talking about space expanding? You have continually denied the existence of spatial expansion because it breaks your rule of not being directly observed.

[Bored chemist]

I'm going to buy the real flop that is called: "Planck epoch"

It does not make BH out of VE.
So it won't work.
Your idea is still unworkable

And you still need to answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/09/2021 14:09:50
Here's the post where I proved that you are wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 22/08/2021 10:39:01
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.


And you still need 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.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

You can't use that unless you have explanation for where that "imagination energy" (as you call it) came from

Sorry, 100,000 BBT scientists claim that the "Planck epoch" is real.
Therefore, if you have any difficulties with that theory, then please go and ask those scientists about the source of energy for that Planck epoch.
This isn't my job.
Theory D starts exactly as the BBT.
Hence, 10^-43 sec after the bang in both theories there is a Planck epoch.

During the Planck epoch, all of space was filled with highly-dense energy.

Yes, that is absolutely correct.

Since the Universe in Theory D is infinitely-large, that means infinite mass and infinite energy.

No, Both start with the same Planck epoch phase.
However, from this point of time there is small difference between the theories:
In the BBT the inflation must start to work.
In theory D the normal expansion (based on Hubble law) of 70.4+1.3−1.4 km/s/Mpc is good enough.

A black hole that formed from the collapse of all of that mass would therefore be infinitely-massive and infinitely-large

Well its all about the total energy that the Big mighty bang is willing to deliver free of charge.
In the BBT you need infinite energy. In theory D we only need energy to fit in one BH.
As you can get in the BBT the energy to any size of universe, then I can also ask the dear BBT to deliver me just small portion of energy, unless you can prove that only infinite energy can be delivered at that mighty bang.

Every location in the Universe would be inside that black hole. So you don't get stars or planets.

I don't need any star of planets. Just one single BH.
It can be tinny BH or even infinite SSS SMBH.
As long as it called BH, then it is good enough for me.

What in the world is with you suddenly talking about space expanding?

Well, I had been convinced that the VE isn't good enough for you.
So, as you all are BBT believers and I can't beat the BBT, then I have decided to jump on the BBT wagon.

You have continually denied the existence of spatial expansion because it breaks your rule of not being directly observed.

If the BBT wagon can take me to the requested destination - that is perfectly OK with me.

So please just a single BH after the Planck Epoch.
It can be a tinny BH of a SSSSS...SMBH.
Any single kind of BH after the bang is good enough for theory D.

It does not make BH out of VE.
So it won't work.
Your idea is still unworkable

Yes, the VE is already in the garbage.
Now I'm using the BBT wagon and you can't prevent me from using that VIP wagon.

[Bored chemist]

Sorry, 100,000 BBT scientists claim that the "Planck epoch" is real.

Yes and they say that you are wrong because the universe is about 14G Yr old, but you are trying to tell the lie that it has been here forever.
The Planck epoch happened, by definition, shortly after the start of the universe.
You say there was no "beginning", so there can't have been a Planck epoch.

[Bored chemist]

No, Both start with the same Planck epoch phase.

No, because a finite one is not the same as the infinite one that you are claiming.

[Bored chemist]

n theory D the normal expansion (based on Hubble law) of 70.4+1.3−1.4 km/s/Mpc is good enough.

That's only "normal" today.
It's 1/ the age of the universe.

[Bored chemist]

If the BBT wagon can take me to the requested destination - that is perfectly OK with me.

It can't.

[Bored chemist]

Any single kind of BH after the bang is good enough for theory D.

As we have pointed out, even if you have a single BH, "Theory" D does not work, because it breaks the conservation laws.

[Bored chemist]

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 19:49:36
And you still need to answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/09/2021 14:09:50
Here's the post where I proved that you are wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 22/08/2021 10:39:01
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.


And you still need 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.

[Kryptid]

Sorry, 100,000 BBT scientists claim that the "Planck epoch" is real.

Here is what you have said about those very same scientists in the past:

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.

Are you of the opinion now that scientists should be believed just because they claim something to be true?

Therefore, if you have any difficulties with that theory, then please go and ask those scientists about the source of energy for that Planck epoch.
This isn't my job.

Actually, it is your job because you claim that those scientists don’t know how that energy got there:

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.

If they can’t explain it, then you have to. It is your rule:

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

It is not good enough to explain how the Universe had been evolved from that energy that the universe got free of charge.
In any real theory it is our OBLIGATION to offer real solution how the energy had been evolved (in our current universe or at any twisted space time..
As the BBT bypass that key question about the creation of the energy it is just a Useless theory.

No, Both start with the same Planck epoch phase.
However, from this point of time there is small difference between the theories:
In the BBT the inflation must start to work.
In theory D the normal expansion (based on Hubble law) of 70.4+1.3−1.4 km/s/Mpc is good enough.

That doesn’t do anything to keep your universe from starting with infinite energy. Every cubic centimeter of space was filled with energy during the Planck epoch. Since your universe contains an infinite number of cubic centimeters, that means an infinite amount of energy.

Well its all about the total energy that the Big mighty bang is willing to deliver free of charge.
In the BBT you need infinite energy. In theory D we only need energy to fit in one BH.
As you can get in the BBT the energy to any size of universe, then I can also ask the dear BBT to deliver me just small portion of energy, unless you can prove that only infinite energy can be delivered at that mighty bang.

You get an infinite amount of energy as I just explained above.

I don't need any star of planets.

If you want Theory D to be correct, you do. We live on a planet. There are stars in our sky. These things obviously exist. So Theory D has to be capable of producing them at some point during the Universe’s history. If the entire Universe is filled with an infinite black hole, then you don’t get those things. That makes Theory D incompatible with observation.

Just one single BH.
It can be tinny BH or even infinite SSS SMBH.
As long as it called BH, then it is good enough for me.

It has to be infinite, and for the reasons I’ve stated before, that is at odds with our observations (an infinite black hole would preclude our own existence, so we wouldn’t even be here to make observations in the first place).

Well, I had been convinced that the VE isn't good enough for you.
So, as you all are BBT believers and I can't beat the BBT, then I have decided to jump on the BBT wagon.

So you are doing this in order to appease us and not because you actually believe the evidence supports this? That’s not a scientific attitude.

If the BBT wagon can take me to the requested destination - that is perfectly OK with me.

It can’t because it breaks your rules. You have stated there is no evidence for spatial expansion and your rules require there to be evidence.

Yes, the VE is already in the garbage.
Now I'm using the BBT wagon and you can't prevent me from using that VIP wagon.

We can’t, but the various rules you have established over the previous months of our discussions do prevent you from using it.

Also, why do you keep changing your explanation for how the first black hole formed? That strongly implies that you don’t actually know how it happened. You’re playing guessing games. If you really knew, you’d stick to one explanation.

If you don’t know the answer, then Theory D can’t be “100% correct” like you claim it is. If a theory was 100% correct, then there would never be any need to change some aspect of it like you have been doing.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Are you of the opinion now that scientists should be believed just because they claim something to be true?

Well, I still think that the BBT is nonsense and that Plank Epoch is just imagination.
However, as you don't let me work with the real energy as VE, then I had been forced to use your BBT wagon in order to get that requested first BH.

Quote
Therefore, if you have any difficulties with that theory, then please go and ask those scientists about the source of energy for that Planck epoch.
This isn't my job.
Actually, it is your job because you claim that those scientists don’t know how that energy got there:

As long as our scientists claim that the BBT is correct, then I can use that Planck epoch idea.

That doesn’t do anything to keep your universe from starting with infinite energy. Every cubic centimeter of space was filled with energy during the Planck epoch.

That is still Ok for theory D

Since your universe contains an infinite number of cubic centimeters, that means an infinite amount of energy.

Based on the BBT the universe started as a Planck point. That is perfectly OK also for theory D.
However, based on the BBT, that bang took place 13.8 By ago while based on theory D it took place infinite time ago.

Since your universe contains an infinite number of cubic centimeters, that means an infinite amount of energy.

So, "my" universe can start as a finite universe at the infinite time ago and end today with infinite Universe.

You get an infinite amount of energy as I just explained above.

That is perfectly OK.
So theory D starts with a very massive BH.
As long as there is a single BH hat is OK.

If you want Theory D to be correct, you do. We live on a planet. There are stars in our sky. These things obviously exist. So Theory D has to be capable of producing them at some point during the Universe’s history. If the entire Universe is filled with an infinite black hole, then you don’t get those things. That makes Theory D incompatible with observation.

We get them all from that single BH.
I would explain how it works,

It has to be infinite, and for the reasons I’ve stated before, that is at odds with our observations (an infinite black hole would preclude our own existence, so we wouldn’t even be here to make observations in the first place).

Sorry, you didn't offer any real data to prove that the energy at the Planck epoch is infinite. You couldn't even offer a real energy source for just one boson. So, please how can you claim in so high confidence that the energy is infinite?
Please also remember that infinite energy means a BH also based on the BBT theory as the inflation can't be infinite.
Therefore, if the energy density is infinite (as you claim) nothing can prevent it from setting a SSS SMBH.
Hence, with your following argument: "an infinite black hole would preclude our own existence, so we wouldn’t even be here to make observations in the first place" you have just killed the BBT.
Therefore, if you wish to keep your BBT alive, while we all understand the inflation can't be infinite, then the energy must also be finite.

So you are doing this in order to appease us and not because you actually believe the evidence supports this? That’s not a scientific attitude.

Correct.
As you reject real science, I had been forced to use your own imagination science.

It can’t because it breaks your rules. You have stated there is no evidence for spatial expansion and your rules require there to be evidence.

Well, I'm now riding the BBT wagon, therefore, I have to use your rule about the space expansion, although it has no negative impact on theory D.

Quote
Yes, the VE is already in the garbage.
Now I'm using the BBT wagon and you can't prevent me from using that VIP wagon.

We can’t, but the various rules you have established over the previous months of our discussions do prevent you from using it.

The VE king is dead. Long live the new plank epoch king.

Also, why do you keep changing your explanation for how the first black hole formed? That strongly implies that you don’t actually know how it happened. You’re playing guessing games. If you really knew, you’d stick to one explanation.

I know that the VE is the ultimate solution.
However, I have no intention to argue with you for 30 Pg. just on that issue.
Therefore, I had been forced to come with new tactic.

If you don’t know the answer, then Theory D can’t be “100% correct” like you claim it is. If a theory was 100% correct, then there would never be any need to change some aspect of it like you have been doing.

In a real science world, theory D works perfectly without any change.
However, we are living in a planet where all the 100,000 scientists are fully BBT believers.
So, it isn't about science any more. It is all about bypassing the BBT imagination obstacles.
Therefore, if you can change the BBT 10^1000 times in the last 80 years, than I can also update my theory as needed in order to bypass those imagination obstacles.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

As we have pointed out, even if you have a single BH, "Theory" D does not work, because it breaks the conservation laws.

Yes it is
I will explain it soon.

[Bored chemist]

As we have pointed out, even if you have a single BH, "Theory" D does not work, because it breaks the conservation laws.

Yes it is
I will explain it soon.

No; you won't.
Because, no matter what you say, your idea breaks the conservation laws.

However, as you don't let me work with the real energy as VE, then I had been forced to use your BBT wagon in order to get that requested first BH.

The thing that you were "forced" to do was explain how the VE turned into a BH.
You could not do that (because it does not happen).
That's because your idea is just plain wrong.

Sorry, you didn't offer any real data to prove that the energy at the Planck epoch is infinite.

You wrote that immediately after quoting him proving exactly that.

I know that the VE is the ultimate solution.

It doesn't solve the problems with your idea.

Quote from: Bored chemist on Yesterday at 19:49:36
And you still need to answer this
Quote from: Bored chemist on 21/09/2021 14:09:50
Here's the post where I proved that you are wrong.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 22/08/2021 10:39:01
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.


And you still need 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.