stephen hawking

keepit wrote:
So, where did stephen hawking go wrong when he said climate change is a big threat to humanity, and how is he able to understand the buzzwodrs "climate change" and "fossil fuels"?

keepit wrote:So, where did stephen hawking go wrong when he said climate change is a big threat to humanity, and how is he able to understand the buzzwodrs "climate change" and "fossil fuels"?

keepit wrote:
So, where did stephen hawking go wrong when he said climate change is a big threat to humanity, and how is he able to understand the buzzwodrs "climate change" and "fossil fuels"?

In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity gravity is not a force, because it is spacetime curvature
induced by the presence of matter. According to the physicists the finite mass of their black hole is concentrated at its 'singularity'. "A nonrotating black hole has a particularly simple structure. At the center is the singularity, a point of zero volume and infinite density where allof the black hole's mass is located. Spacetime is infinitely curved at the singularity. . . . The black hole's
singularity is a real physical entity. It is not a mathematical artifact . . ." [1]

However, no finite mass can produce
infinite gravity anywhere.

"... there must be a singularity of
infinite density, within the black hole."
[2]
Density D is defined in physics as .mass M divided by the volume V of the
mass. Then according to [1] above,
D=M/V =M/0 = ∞

But division by zero is undefined, and ∞ (infinity) is not even a real number.
Not only do the physicists violate elementary mathematics, they also violate elementary physics since no finite mass can have zero volume and infinite density anywhere.
In the so-called 'Schwarzschild solution', g11 = -1/g00. According to
Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac [3], the
'Schwarzschild solution',
"becomes singular at r = 2m, because
then g00 = 0 and g11 = -∞."
Thus, Dirac also claims that,

g11= −1/0 = −∞


No it doesn't.

"At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size, and to
have been infinitely hot." [5]

A physical entity must be present to render a temperature; for example, solid, liquid or gas. That which has'zero size' cannot possess a temperature, bearing in mind that hotness is quantified by means of temperature of a material thing. Furthermore, no physical entity can have an infinite temperature. Considera gas for example – just how fast mustits particles be moving for it to have aninfinite temperature? There is no suchthing as infinite temperature and hence no such thing as infinite hotness, letalone infinite hotness of nothingness.

As explained in my paper it is not difficult to prove black holes and Big Bang creationism nonsense.

(1) According to the cosmologists, the finite mass of their black hole is concentrated at the singularity of their black hole, where volume is zero, density is infinite, and spacetime is infinitely curved. Gravity is not a force in General Relativity, because it is spacetime curvature. Thus, according to the cosmologists, a finite mass produces infinite gravity! However, no
finite mass has zero volume, infinite density, or can produce infinite gravity, anywhere.

(2) On the one hand, according to the cosmologists, their black hole has an escape velocity. At their black hole 'event horizon' they assert that the escape speed is the speed of light. On the other hand they assert that nothing can even leave the event horizon. The event horizon is a one-way membrane – things can go into the black hole but nothing can emerge. Light, they say, hovers forever at the 'event horizon'. However, escape speed does not mean that nothing can leave, only that things cannot escape if they do not achieve the escape speed. Thus, on the other hand the cosmologists assert that the event horizon has no escape speed. So their black hole has and does not have an escape speed simultaneously at the same place (at the 'event horizon'). But nothing can have and not have an escape velocity simultaneously at the same place. Furthermore, since light travels at the speed of light, and the escape speed at the event horizon is the speed of light, then, by definition of escape speed, light must escape!

(3) Einstein's field equations are:

R_{uv} -Rg_{uv}/2+/\g_{uv} = -kT_{uv}

/\ is the 'cosmological constant'. T_{uv} is the energy-moment tensor that describes the material sources of Einstein's gravitational field. The left side is of the equation gives spacetime geometry, which is curved by the presence of material sources, and is thereby Einstein's gravitational field. According to Einstein and his followers, if /\ = 0 and T_{uv} =0, the equations reduce to ,

R_{uv} = 0 (because it can be shown that then R = 0)

Einstein and his followers assert that these resulting equations describe the gravitational field 'outside a body such as a star'. However, this is circular, and therefore false, since all material sources are removed mathematically by setting T_{uv} = 0, then a material source is immediately reinstated with the words 'outside a body such as a star'. Since T_{uv} = 0, there are no material sources present to produce any gravitational field. But the black hole was spawned by the solution to R_{uv} = 0. According to the cosmologists their black hole has a finite mass. This mass is inserted post hoc into the solution equation in order to satisfy the false assertion that R_{uv} = 0 contains a material source, 'such as a star'.

That R_{uv} = 0 contains no matter whatsoever, and hence cannot lead to a black hole at all, is reaffirmed by the case, /\ =/= 0, T_{uv} = 0, in which case Einstein's field equations become,

R_{uv} = /\g_{uv} (by means of a little tensor analysis)

The solution for these equations is de Sitter's empty universe, which is empty because it contains no material sources (T_{uv} = 0), even though the solution has a non-zero curvature. Matter is still the source of Einstein's gravitational field. Without material sources there is no gravitational field. So spacetime curvature alone, without material sources, does not produce a gravitational field. It produces junk. Thus, Einstein and his followers assert that material sources are both present and absent by the very same mathematical constraint (i.e. T_{uv}
= 0). That's impossible! Since de Sitter's empty universe contains no material sources (it's empty), the black hole universe R_{uv} = 0 also contains no material sources, and so there
is no black hole, and no Big Bang creationism.

I do not understand your arguments. General Relativity is a mathematical theory so it must comply with the rules of pure mathematics. Mr. Einstein's mathematics violates the rules of pure mathematics so his theory is false. The argument I have advanced is simple in principle:

(1) In his 1915 paper in which he advanced his General Theory of Relativity Mr. Einstein employed his unmodular coordinates.
(2) His unimodular coordinates led to his pseudotensor to describe his field equations, as he expounds in his 1915 paper.
(3) His pseudotensor is a meaningless collection of mathematical symbols because it produces, upon contraction, a first-order intrinsic differential invariant. But the pure mathematicians G. Ricci-Curbastro and T. Levi-Civita proved in 1901 that first-order intrinsic differential invariants do not exist!
(4) Consequently, Mr. Einstein's field equations have no mathematical validity; so his theory is false. QED

Contract Einstein's pseudotensor. The result has the form of a first-order intrinsic differential invariant, i.e. it is composed solely of the components of the metric tensor and its first derivatives. But the pure mathematicians proved in 1901 that such an invariant does not exist! So Einstein's pseudotensor is in fact nothing but a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols. Thus his field equations are also nothing but a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols.

keepit wrote:
So, where did stephen hawking go wrong when he said climate change is a big threat to humanity, and how is he able to understand the buzzwodrs "climate change" and "fossil fuels"?

keepit wrote:
So, where did stephen hawking go wrong when he said climate change is a big threat to humanity, and how is he able to understand the buzzwodrs "climate change" and "fossil fuels"?

Xadoman wrote: Stephen Hawking got many thing wrong.

Xadoman wrote: For example, black holes do not exist.

Xadoman wrote: It is not possible to have a finit mass in infinitely small space.

Xadoman wrote: For starters check out this guys presentation:

In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity gravity is not a force, because it is spacetime curvature
induced by the presence of matter. According to the physicists the finite mass of their black hole is concentrated at its 'singularity'. "A nonrotating black hole has a particularly simple structure. At the center is the singularity, a point of zero volume and infinite density where allof the black hole's mass is located. Spacetime is infinitely curved at the singularity. . . . The black hole's
singularity is a real physical entity. It is not a mathematical artifact . . ." [1]

However, no finite mass can produce
infinite gravity anywhere.

"... there must be a singularity of
infinite density, within the black hole."
[2]
Density D is defined in physics as .mass M divided by the volume V of the
mass. Then according to [1] above,
D=M/V =M/0 = ∞

But division by zero is undefined, and ∞ (infinity) is not even a real number.
Not only do the physicists violate elementary mathematics, they also violate elementary physics since no finite mass can have zero volume and infinite density anywhere.
In the so-called 'Schwarzschild solution', g11 = -1/g00. According to
Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac [3], the
'Schwarzschild solution',
"becomes singular at r = 2m, because
then g00 = 0 and g11 = -∞."
Thus, Dirac also claims that,

g11= −1/0 = −∞


No it doesn't.

"At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size, and to
have been infinitely hot." [5]

A physical entity must be present to render a temperature; for example, solid, liquid or gas. That which has'zero size' cannot possess a temperature, bearing in mind that hotness is quantified by means of temperature of a material thing. Furthermore, no physical entity can have an infinite temperature. Considera gas for example – just how fast mustits particles be moving for it to have aninfinite temperature? There is no suchthing as infinite temperature and hence no such thing as infinite hotness, letalone infinite hotness of nothingness.

Xadoman wrote: Stephen Hawking got many thing wrong.

Xadoman wrote: For example, black holes do not exist.

Xadoman wrote: It is not possible to have a finit mass in infinitely small space.

Xadoman wrote: For starters check out this guys presentation:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote: Stephen Hawking got many thing wrong.

Xadoman, if you are going to tackle the subject of what Stephen Hawking got wrong, stick to any of the countless topics besides physics. In science, there wasn't much that Stephen Hawking got wrong.

Climate Change, his adopted religion, has nothing to do with physics and has been a major source of Hawking-errors.

Xadoman wrote: For example, black holes do not exist.

Why do you say this?

Xadoman wrote: It is not possible to have a finit mass in infinitely small space.

That's not what a black hole is. You are describing "the singularity" which happens to be a concept in a theoretical model, nothing more.

It would appear that the universe is comprised of countless galaxies, each one being a speck of the universe's "dust". Galaxies are comprised of stars, with each star being a speck of the galaxy's "dust." Humanity is confined to a speck of dust orbiting a speck of dust to nothing more than a speck of dust that is nothing more than a speck of dust. From our vantage point, we have great difficult seeing beyond a mere flake of a speck of dust's speck of dust ... which we call "the observable universe." Everything we can see is moving away from each other, like any two points on an inflating balloon. Stephen Hawking referred to the observable universe as "an expanding universe." If you imagine going backwards in time, the universe contracts, with the obvious limit being represented by the "singularity" whereby all the matter and energy of the observable universe is condensed into a single point. It's simply a model for an expanding observable universe.

A black hole is simply a vast collection of matter that creates a huge amount of gravity. How much gravity? Enough that if a photon (which has mass albeit not being matter) breaches the "event horizon", it will not be able to escape the gravity and will, instead be sucked in and will never escape. Since no light escapes, all that is seen is black in that area of space.

Xadoman wrote: For starters check out this guys presentation:

No thanks. I have a better idea.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINHHXaPrWA&ab_channel=GUINewsMedia


Here is another article from him:

"A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Nobel Laureate is Talking Nonsense"

https://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0067v2.pdf

A couple of quotes:

In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity gravity is not a force, because it is spacetime curvature
induced by the presence of matter. According to the physicists the finite mass of their black hole is concentrated at its 'singularity'. "A nonrotating black hole has a particularly simple structure. At the center is the singularity, a point of zero volume and infinite density where allof the black hole's mass is located. Spacetime is infinitely curved at the singularity. . . . The black hole's
singularity is a real physical entity. It is not a mathematical artifact . . ." [1]

However, no finite mass can produce
infinite gravity anywhere.

"... there must be a singularity of
infinite density, within the black hole."
[2]
Density D is defined in physics as .mass M divided by the volume V of the
mass. Then according to [1] above,
D=M/V =M/0 = ∞

But division by zero is undefined, and ∞ (infinity) is not even a real number.
Not only do the physicists violate elementary mathematics, they also violate elementary physics since no finite mass can have zero volume and infinite density anywhere.
In the so-called 'Schwarzschild solution', g11 = -1/g00. According to
Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac [3], the
'Schwarzschild solution',
"becomes singular at r = 2m, because
then g00 = 0 and g11 = -∞."
Thus, Dirac also claims that,

g11= −1/0 = −∞


No it doesn't.

"At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size, and to
have been infinitely hot." [5]

A physical entity must be present to render a temperature; for example, solid, liquid or gas. That which has'zero size' cannot possess a temperature, bearing in mind that hotness is quantified by means of temperature of a material thing. Furthermore, no physical entity can have an infinite temperature. Considera gas for example – just how fast mustits particles be moving for it to have aninfinite temperature? There is no suchthing as infinite temperature and hence no such thing as infinite hotness, letalone infinite hotness of nothingness.

Swan wrote:Hawking is the moron who claimed that nothing can escape a black hole, then changed his mind

Swan wrote: and [theorized] Hawking radiation

Swan wrote: which escapes black holes.

Xadoman wrote:Einstein the Stubborn: Correspondence between Einstein and LeviCivita

Xadoman wrote: There is no such thing as a black hole.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Hawking is the moron who claimed that nothing can escape a black hole, then changed his mind

Nope. Hawking never changed his mind. Science isn't a subjective matter about which one can change one's mind.

Swan wrote: and [theorized] Hawking radiation

... which is produced at the event horizon. Any quantum particle/antiparticle pair that forms at the event horizon, that would normally destroy each other (like matter-antimatter) where the pair forms on opposite sides of the event horizon, would force one of the particles to fly away unharmed (i.e. Hawking radiation) while it's negative remains trapped in the black hole. I know that you believe in your heart of hearts that this kind of division into two particles from one packet of energy happens for quantum computing so I know that you accept the idea straight out without requiring any additional verification.

Swan wrote: which escapes black holes.

Nope. Nothing escapes a black hole. It's the particle being trapped and not escaping the black hole that prevents it's corresponding negative particle from being destroyed, allowing it to fly off, creating Hawking radiation.

keepit wrote:Many cosmologists say that black holes don't obey the established laws of physics.

keepit wrote:
Many cosmologists say that black holes don't obey the established laws of physics.
OK to say that although it does seem like something of a copout.
The beliefs about black holes will surely change.

keepit wrote:
"If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" A quote my beloved grandfather Richard showed me.
It applies to both money and academic recognition.

keepit wrote:
"If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" A quote my beloved grandfather Richard showed me.
It applies to both money and academic recognition.

keepit wrote:
So, where did stephen hawking go wrong when he said climate change is a big threat to humanity, and how is he able to understand the buzzwodrs "climate change" and "fossil fuels"?

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
"If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" A quote my beloved grandfather Richard showed me.
It applies to both money and academic recognition.

Not everyone worships money... Wealth and money aren't the same thing. I'm of at least average intelligence, probably would score a little higher, if I thought getting tested mattered. I'm equally not all that concerned about my bank balance, just as long as there is enough to cover expenses, and some to give a little security for when things go wrong (democrats). For me, wealth is the spare time, and freedom to study and build whatever interests me. What I value isn't printed on paper.

Would you consider a man with a Phd in North American Basket Weaving smart enough to operate on your brain? How about a billionaire? Both are smart, and successful, just might need to thumb through a textbook, or watch a YouTube video, and ready to start cutting...

But, in some case you might be right. Swan grows his own tomatoes, squeezes his own ketchup, but doesn't get rich off it. Not even respected for it. Fat men knock him off his bike, while racing through Moraine National Park...

Xadoman wrote:
Stephen Hawking got many thing wrong. For example, black holes do not exist. It is not possible to have a finit mass in infinitely small space.

For starters check out this guys presentation:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jINHHXaPrWA&ab_channel=GUINewsMedia


Here is another article from him:

"A Few Things You Need to Know to Tell if a Nobel Laureate is Talking Nonsense"

https://vixra.org/pdf/1507.0067v2.pdf

A couple of quotes:

In Einstein's General Theory of Relativity gravity is not a force, because it is spacetime curvature
induced by the presence of matter. According to the physicists the finite mass of their black hole is concentrated at its 'singularity'. "A nonrotating black hole has a particularly simple structure. At the center is the singularity, a point of zero volume and infinite density where allof the black hole's mass is located. Spacetime is infinitely curved at the singularity. . . . The black hole's
singularity is a real physical entity. It is not a mathematical artifact . . ." [1]

However, no finite mass can produce
infinite gravity anywhere.

"... there must be a singularity of
infinite density, within the black hole."
[2]
Density D is defined in physics as .mass M divided by the volume V of the
mass. Then according to [1] above,
D=M/V =M/0 = ∞

But division by zero is undefined, and ∞ (infinity) is not even a real number.
Not only do the physicists violate elementary mathematics, they also violate elementary physics since no finite mass can have zero volume and infinite density anywhere.
In the so-called 'Schwarzschild solution', g11 = -1/g00. According to
Nobel Laureate Paul Dirac [3], the
'Schwarzschild solution',
"becomes singular at r = 2m, because
then g00 = 0 and g11 = -∞."
Thus, Dirac also claims that,

g11= −1/0 = −∞


No it doesn't.

"At the big bang itself, the universe is thought to have had zero size, and to
have been infinitely hot." [5]

A physical entity must be present to render a temperature; for example, solid, liquid or gas. That which has'zero size' cannot possess a temperature, bearing in mind that hotness is quantified by means of temperature of a material thing. Furthermore, no physical entity can have an infinite temperature. Considera gas for example – just how fast mustits particles be moving for it to have aninfinite temperature? There is no suchthing as infinite temperature and hence no such thing as infinite hotness, letalone infinite hotness of nothingness.

Xadoman wrote:
Here are some more quotes from the same guy:

As explained in my paper it is not difficult to prove black holes and Big Bang creationism nonsense.

(1) According to the cosmologists, the finite mass of their black hole is concentrated at the singularity of their black hole, where volume is zero, density is infinite, and spacetime is infinitely curved. Gravity is not a force in General Relativity, because it is spacetime curvature. Thus, according to the cosmologists, a finite mass produces infinite gravity! However, no
finite mass has zero volume, infinite density, or can produce infinite gravity, anywhere.

(2) On the one hand, according to the cosmologists, their black hole has an escape velocity. At their black hole 'event horizon' they assert that the escape speed is the speed of light. On the other hand they assert that nothing can even leave the event horizon. The event horizon is a one-way membrane – things can go into the black hole but nothing can emerge. Light, they say, hovers forever at the 'event horizon'. However, escape speed does not mean that nothing can leave, only that things cannot escape if they do not achieve the escape speed. Thus, on the other hand the cosmologists assert that the event horizon has no escape speed. So their black hole has and does not have an escape speed simultaneously at the same place (at the 'event horizon'). But nothing can have and not have an escape velocity simultaneously at the same place. Furthermore, since light travels at the speed of light, and the escape speed at the event horizon is the speed of light, then, by definition of escape speed, light must escape!

(3) Einstein's field equations are:

R_{uv} -Rg_{uv}/2+/\g_{uv} = -kT_{uv}

/\ is the 'cosmological constant'. T_{uv} is the energy-moment tensor that describes the material sources of Einstein's gravitational field. The left side is of the equation gives spacetime geometry, which is curved by the presence of material sources, and is thereby Einstein's gravitational field. According to Einstein and his followers, if /\ = 0 and T_{uv} =0, the equations reduce to ,

R_{uv} = 0 (because it can be shown that then R = 0)

Einstein and his followers assert that these resulting equations describe the gravitational field 'outside a body such as a star'. However, this is circular, and therefore false, since all material sources are removed mathematically by setting T_{uv} = 0, then a material source is immediately reinstated with the words 'outside a body such as a star'. Since T_{uv} = 0, there are no material sources present to produce any gravitational field. But the black hole was spawned by the solution to R_{uv} = 0. According to the cosmologists their black hole has a finite mass. This mass is inserted post hoc into the solution equation in order to satisfy the false assertion that R_{uv} = 0 contains a material source, 'such as a star'.

That R_{uv} = 0 contains no matter whatsoever, and hence cannot lead to a black hole at all, is reaffirmed by the case, /\ =/= 0, T_{uv} = 0, in which case Einstein's field equations become,

R_{uv} = /\g_{uv} (by means of a little tensor analysis)

The solution for these equations is de Sitter's empty universe, which is empty because it contains no material sources (T_{uv} = 0), even though the solution has a non-zero curvature. Matter is still the source of Einstein's gravitational field. Without material sources there is no gravitational field. So spacetime curvature alone, without material sources, does not produce a gravitational field. It produces junk. Thus, Einstein and his followers assert that material sources are both present and absent by the very same mathematical constraint (i.e. T_{uv}
= 0). That's impossible! Since de Sitter's empty universe contains no material sources (it's empty), the black hole universe R_{uv} = 0 also contains no material sources, and so there
is no black hole, and no Big Bang creationism.

Xadoman wrote:

Contract Einstein's pseudotensor. The result has the form of a first-order intrinsic differential invariant, i.e. it is composed solely of the components of the metric tensor and its first derivatives. But the pure mathematicians proved in 1901 that such an invariant does not exist! So Einstein's pseudotensor is in fact nothing but a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols. Thus his field equations are also nothing but a meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Hawking is the moron who claimed that nothing can escape a black hole, then changed his mind

Nope. Hawking never changed his mind. Science isn't a subjective matter about which one can change one's mind.

Swan wrote: and [theorized] Hawking radiation

... which is produced at the event horizon. Any quantum particle/antiparticle pair that forms at the event horizon, that would normally destroy each other (like matter-antimatter) where the pair forms on opposite sides of the event horizon, would force one of the particles to fly away unharmed (i.e. Hawking radiation) while it's negative remains trapped in the black hole. I know that you believe in your heart of hearts that this kind of division into two particles from one packet of energy happens for quantum computing so I know that you accept the idea straight out without requiring any additional verification.

Swan wrote: which escapes black holes.

Nope. Nothing escapes a black hole. It's the particle being trapped and not escaping the black hole that prevents it's corresponding negative particle from being destroyed, allowing it to fly off, creating Hawking radiation.

Hawking admitted that he made a mistake, everyone knows this.

Hawking admits he was wrong on black holes
Social Sharing
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Reddit
LinkedIn
CBC News · Posted: Jul 21, 2004 8:38 PM EDT | Last Updated: July 22, 2004
Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking on Wednesday put forward a radically-revised version of his theory on the nature of black holes, which formed where stars collapse.

He told a Dublin conference that black holes did not destroy everything they consumed but instead eventually fired out "mangled" matter and energy.

Until now, he had argued that matter sucked into the gravitational vortex of a black hole was completely destroyed and no information about it ever reappeared apart from a generic form of radiation, now called "Hawking radiation."

That conflicted with an elemental law of quantum physics, which holds that information can never be completely lost.

But in Wednesday's presentation, entitled "The Information Paradox for black holes," Hawking posited that black holes hold their contents for eons. He said the black holes eventually deteriorate and die.

As they disintegrate, he said, the black holes emit their transformed contents back into the universe.

His new theory has wide-ranging intellectual implications for other fields of study.

Previously, Hawking had also held out the possibility that disappearing matter could travel through the black hole into a parallel universe, a concept much beloved in some branches of philosophy and in science fiction.

"There is no baby universe branching off, as I once thought. The information remains firmly in our universe...," he said.

"I'm sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes," Hawking explained in his speech.

"If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe, but in a mangled form, which contains the information about what you were like, but in an unrecognizable state," he argued.

Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, achieved international fame with the 1975 theory that pioneered black hole science and was later popularized in his book A Brief History of Time.

The 62-year old scientist who travels to speaking engagements around the world has had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis since his mid-20s. He communicates by using a hand-held device to select words on his wheelchair's computer screen, then sends them out through a speech synthesizer.

Hawking also settled another matter almost three decades old. He had made a bet with Caltech astrophysicist John Preskill, who insisted in 1975 that matter consumed by black holes couldn't be destroyed.

Hawking conceded he had lost the bet and presented Preskill with a reference work, Total Baseball, The Ultimate Baseball Encyclopedia, after having it specially flown over from the United States.

You may now resume building stuff with your lego's

keepit wrote:
Many cosmologists say that black holes don't obey the established laws of physics.

Robert Wagner wrote:
Only fools keep denying man made climate change.

Swan wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

keepit wrote:
"If you're so smart, why ain't you rich?" A quote my beloved grandfather Richard showed me.
It applies to both money and academic recognition.

Not everyone worships money... Wealth and money aren't the same thing. I'm of at least average intelligence, probably would score a little higher, if I thought getting tested mattered. I'm equally not all that concerned about my bank balance, just as long as there is enough to cover expenses, and some to give a little security for when things go wrong (democrats). For me, wealth is the spare time, and freedom to study and build whatever interests me. What I value isn't printed on paper.

Would you consider a man with a Phd in North American Basket Weaving smart enough to operate on your brain? How about a billionaire? Both are smart, and successful, just might need to thumb through a textbook, or watch a YouTube video, and ready to start cutting...

But, in some case you might be right. Swan grows his own tomatoes, squeezes his own ketchup, but doesn't get rich off it. Not even respected for it. Fat men knock him off his bike, while racing through Moraine National Park...

LOL, are you proud that I own what little is left of your mind after sniffing glue?



Shit, I really love me. Which makes one

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Hawking is the moron who claimed that nothing can escape a black hole, then changed his mind

Nope. Hawking never changed his mind. Science isn't a subjective matter about which one can change one's mind.

Swan wrote: and [theorized] Hawking radiation

... which is produced at the event horizon. Any quantum particle/antiparticle pair that forms at the event horizon, that would normally destroy each other (like matter-antimatter) where the pair forms on opposite sides of the event horizon, would force one of the particles to fly away unharmed (i.e. Hawking radiation) while it's negative remains trapped in the black hole. I know that you believe in your heart of hearts that this kind of division into two particles from one packet of energy happens for quantum computing so I know that you accept the idea straight out without requiring any additional verification.

Swan wrote: which escapes black holes.

Nope. Nothing escapes a black hole. It's the particle being trapped and not escaping the black hole that prevents it's corresponding negative particle from being destroyed, allowing it to fly off, creating Hawking radiation.

Hawking admitted that he made a mistake, everyone knows this.

Hawking admits he was wrong on black holes
Social Sharing
Facebook
Twitter
Email
Reddit
LinkedIn
CBC News · Posted: Jul 21, 2004 8:38 PM EDT | Last Updated: July 22, 2004
Renowned physicist Stephen Hawking on Wednesday put forward a radically-revised version of his theory on the nature of black holes, which formed where stars collapse.

He told a Dublin conference that black holes did not destroy everything they consumed but instead eventually fired out "mangled" matter and energy.

Until now, he had argued that matter sucked into the gravitational vortex of a black hole was completely destroyed and no information about it ever reappeared apart from a generic form of radiation, now called "Hawking radiation."

That conflicted with an elemental law of quantum physics, which holds that information can never be completely lost.

But in Wednesday's presentation, entitled "The Information Paradox for black holes," Hawking posited that black holes hold their contents for eons. He said the black holes eventually deteriorate and die.

As they disintegrate, he said, the black holes emit their transformed contents back into the universe.

His new theory has wide-ranging intellectual implications for other fields of study.

Previously, Hawking had also held out the possibility that disappearing matter could travel through the black hole into a parallel universe, a concept much beloved in some branches of philosophy and in science fiction.

"There is no baby universe branching off, as I once thought. The information remains firmly in our universe...," he said.

"I'm sorry to disappoint science fiction fans, but if information is preserved, there is no possibility of using black holes to travel to other universes," Hawking explained in his speech.

"If you jump into a black hole, your mass energy will be returned to our universe, but in a mangled form, which contains the information about what you were like, but in an unrecognizable state," he argued.

Hawking, Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University, achieved international fame with the 1975 theory that pioneered black hole science and was later popularized in his book A Brief History of Time.

The 62-year old scientist who travels to speaking engagements around the world has had amyotrophic lateral sclerosis since his mid-20s. He communicates by using a hand-held device to select words on his wheelchair's computer screen, then sends them out through a speech synthesizer.

Hawking also settled another matter almost three decades old. He had made a bet with Caltech astrophysicist John Preskill, who insisted in 1975 that matter consumed by black holes couldn't be destroyed.

Hawking conceded he had lost the bet and presented Preskill with a reference work, Total Baseball, The Ultimate Baseball Encyclopedia, after having it specially flown over from the United States.

You may now resume building stuff with your lego's

The event horizon is not the black hole. It is caused by the black hole though. Nothing escapes a black hole.

Swan wrote:Since the 1970s, it has been known that black holes are not completely black.

Swan wrote: In fact, they emit very low-energy radiation called Hawking radiation.

Swan wrote: As a black hole radiates,

Swan wrote: its mass decreases,

Swan wrote: and it starts emitting more and more radiation,

Swan wrote: causing it to evaporate more and more rapidly.

Swan wrote: Eventually, it shrinks to around the Planck mass,

Swan wrote: the point at which its DeBroglie wavelength is equal to the Schwarzschild radius.

Swan wrote: At this point, we no longer know what happens,

Swan wrote: since to describe physics at the Planck scale requires a theory of quantum gravity.

Swan wrote: The apparent paradox here

Swan wrote: ... is that the radiation being emitted from a black hole is completely thermal,

Swan wrote: This means that no matter what you make the black hole out of - a star, an encyclopedia, Oreo cookies - the same thing will come out of the evaporation.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Since the 1970s, it has been known that black holes are not completely black.

Black holes are nothing other than black. Reduce your intake of kerosene.

Swan wrote: In fact, they emit very low-energy radiation called Hawking radiation.

Black holes do not emit anything.

Swan wrote: As a black hole radiates,

Black holes do not radiate ... anything.

Swan wrote: its mass decreases,

A black hole never loses mass. Nothing escapes it. Black holes are always accumulating mass.

Swan wrote: and it starts emitting more and more radiation,

Black holes don't emit any radiation. Black holes don't emit anything.

Swan wrote: causing it to evaporate more and more rapidly.

Black holes do not evaporate, nor do they sublimate. Please release the tourniquet from your neck.

Swan wrote: Eventually, it shrinks to around the Planck mass,

Black holes grow in size, never shrink.

Swan wrote: the point at which its DeBroglie wavelength is equal to the Schwarzschild radius.

This is nothing but distracting gibberish. It's not working.

Swan wrote: At this point, we no longer know what happens,

Aaaah, you finally got to the Marxist "we." When you write "we no longer know what happens", you mean that you have no idea what happens, ever.

Swan wrote: since to describe physics at the Planck scale requires a theory of quantum gravity.

Incorrect. We have Planck's law for that.

Swan wrote: The apparent paradox here

There is no paradox.

Swan wrote: ... is that the radiation being emitted from a black hole is completely thermal,

Would you give me a fukking break? This is the stupidest crap.

Swan wrote: This means that no matter what you make the black hole out of - a star, an encyclopedia, Oreo cookies - the same thing will come out of the evaporation.

There is no evaporation. Nothing ever comes out of a black hole.

Now I understand what is meant by "tantamount to torture."

Stupid.

.

"The work that Roger Penrose and I did between 1965 and 1970
showed that, according to general relativity, there must be a
singularity of infinite density, within the black hole." Hawking [12]

"Once a body of matter, of any mass m, lies inside its
Schwarzschild radius 2m it undergoes gravitational collapse . . .
and the singularity becomes physical, not a limiting fiction."
Dodson and Poston [13]

"A nonrotating black hole has a particularly simple structure. At
the center is the singularity, a point of zero volume and infinite
density where all of the black hole's mass is located. Spacetime is
infinitely curved at the singularity. . . . The black hole's singularity
is a real physical entity. It is not a mathematical artifact . . ."
Carroll and Ostlie [14]

"As r decreases, the space-time curvature mounts (in proportion
to r−3), becoming theoretically infinite at r = 0." Penrose [10]

It is claimed that the LIGO and LISA projects will detect Einstein's gravitational
waves. The existence of these waves is entirely theoretical. Over the past forty years
or so no Einstein gravitational waves have been detected. How long must the search
go on, at great expense to the public purse, before the astrophysical scientists admit
that their search is fruitless and a waste of vast sums of public money? The fact is,
from day one, the search for these elusive waves has been destined to detect nothing.
Here are some reasons why.
Einstein's gravitational waves do not have a unique speed of propagation. The speed
of the alleged waves is coordinate dependent. A different set of coordinates yields a
different speed of propagation. Einstein and his followers deliberately choose a set of
coordinates that gives the speed of propagation as that of light in vacuum (i.e. c =
2.998x108
m/s). There is no a priori reason why this particular set of coordinates is
better than any other. The sole reason for their choice is to obtain the desired result.
Such a method has no validity in science. Here is what the late British scientist Arthur
S. Eddington pointed out in his book, 'The mathematical theory of relativity',
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2nd edition, 1960:
"The statement that in the relativity theory gravitational waves are propagated with
the speed of light has, I believe, been based entirely upon the foregoing investigation;
but it will be seen that it is only true in a very conventional sense. If coordinates are
chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical
importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the
speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice
of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely
introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the
propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious
circle."
In their calculations for Einstein's gravitational waves, the relativists utilise a
mathematical entity called Einstein's pseudo-tensor. In the words of the late British
physicist Paul A. M. Dirac ('General Theory of Relativity', Princeton Landmarks in
Physics Series, Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey, 1996),
"It is not possible to obtain an expression for the energy of the gravitational field
satisfying both the conditions: (i) when added to other forms of energy the total
energy is conserved, and (ii) the energy within a definite (three dimensional) region at
a certain time is independent of the coordinate system. Thus, in general, gravitational
energy cannot be localized. The best we can do is to use the pseudotensor, which
2
satisfies condition (i) but not condition (ii). It gives us approximate information about
gravitational energy, which in some special cases can be accurate."
"Let us consider the energy of these waves. Owing to the pseudo-tensor not being a
real tensor, we do not get, in general, a clear result independent of the coordinate
system. But there is one special case in which we do get a clear result; namely, when
the waves are all moving in the same direction."
Now Einstein realised that his field equations do not satisfy the usual conservation of
energy and momentum for a closed system and so, in order to save his theory from
this catastrophe he simply invented something, ad hoc, to make his theory (apparently)
satisfy the usual conservation laws; namely, his pseudo-tensor. Not only is this
unscientific, it is also unconscionable, and completely fallacious for the following
reason. Assumption of the validity of Einstein's pseudo-tensor implies the existence
of a mathematical entity called a first-order intrinsic differential invariant, i.e. an
invariant which is dependent solely upon the components of the metric tensor and
their first derivatives. One does not even have to know the details of this; all one
needs to know is that the pure mathematicians, Georgio Ricci-Curbastro and Tullio
Levi-Civita, inventors of the tensor calculus, proved, in the year 1900, that such
invariants do not exist! Thus, by reductio ad absurdum, Einstein's pseudo-tensor is a
meaningless concoction of mathematical symbols, and consequently everything
relying upon it, such as Einstein gravitational waves, is meaningless