Remember me
▼ Content

stephen hawking



Page 1 of 212>
stephen hawking08-09-2023 00:48
keepit
★★★★★
(3132)
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"?
08-09-2023 03:48
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
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"?


How do you know he wasn't selling books, or struggling to stay relevant? He gets to read the same crap headlines the rest of us get. He's already been driving an EV wheelchair for years...
08-09-2023 04:28
keepit
★★★★★
(3132)
Harvey,
How do you know Hawking wasn't like you?
08-09-2023 06:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)


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"?

First, you explain why you somehow believe Hawking couldn't possibly make any errors.

If your response is that, of course he could make errors like anyone else, then you have your answer.

Otherwise, you're full of baloney.




I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-09-2023 06:19
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2946)
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"?


It is very similar to the way Spongy Iris understands the way Earth is encased in a glass globe. Like the glass ceiling, climate change has never been observed. It is only a belief that it exists.


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
08-09-2023 10:15
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1036)
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.


08-09-2023 10:30
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1036)
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.
08-09-2023 10:41
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1036)
Here is another quote:


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



https://vixra.org/abs/2206.0082
08-09-2023 10:42
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1036)
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.
08-09-2023 13:38
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
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"?


Hawking is the moron who claimed that nothing can escape a black hole, then changed his mind and created Hawking radiation which escapes black holes. Meaning that Hawkings mind is a black hole


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
08-09-2023 13:38
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
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"?


That was silly. I say I say I say again, that was silly you little varmint




IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
Edited on 08-09-2023 13:42
08-09-2023 17:10
keepit
★★★★★
(3132)
"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.
08-09-2023 17:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
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.


[/quote]
08-09-2023 17:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
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, for example, Hawking's adopted religion, has nothing to do with physics and has been a major source of Hawking-gaffes.

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 difficulty 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. Read Hawking's thesis which can be downloaded here. Any objections you might have about black holes are fully addressed therein.

Also, any Christians who are religiously opposed to the "Big Bang" theory should read chapter 4 of Hawking's Thesis wherein he spells out his assumptions that render a singularity "inevitable". This provides Christians a formal basis for challenging those assumptions.

Enjoy.
08-09-2023 21:17
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1036)
Einstein the Stubborn: Correspondence between Einstein and LeviCivita
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1202/1202.4305.pdf

LeviCivita was pure mathematician. He found out more than 100 years ago that Einstein theory was bunkum.

Black holes were spawned from the Einstein theory, so these are also bunkum.

There is no such thing as a black hole.
08-09-2023 21:46
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
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.


[/quote]

Black holes do not exist as they are described as eating everything and letting nothing back out, however since they radiate everything that they consume black holes do not exist.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
09-09-2023 00:29
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Why has no one built a gravity/anti-gravity generator? If it all works out so well on paper, why no practical applications?
09-09-2023 01:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)


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.




I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-09-2023 01:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
Xadoman wrote:Einstein the Stubborn: Correspondence between Einstein and LeviCivita

If you want to show this, you have to point it out in the science. Conversations are no good for this.

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

In the science there is. Point to the science that supports your argument.

By the way, I found apparent errors in your paper above. What is "g" supposed to be in this paper?


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
09-09-2023 04:06
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
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


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
09-09-2023 04:21
keepit
★★★★★
(3132)
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.
09-09-2023 09:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)
keepit wrote:Many cosmologists say that black holes don't obey the established laws of physics.

Whose opinion carries the most weight about something that cannot be observed?
09-09-2023 11:50
Robert Wagner
★☆☆☆☆
(68)
The opinion of those who are omniscent of course, troll.


Only fools keep denying man made climate change.
09-09-2023 12:47
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
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.


Everything obeys physics, if not then the physics is simply wrong


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
09-09-2023 20:37
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
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...
09-09-2023 20:37
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
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...
09-09-2023 21:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
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"?

RQAA


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-09-2023 21:59
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
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


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
09-09-2023 22:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
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.




Super dense stars exist. So dense that most light cannot escape. We call them 'black holes' here in America. The Russians don't. 'Black Hole' has a negative connotation in Russia.

Hawking never said such stars are infinitely small or have infinite mass.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-09-2023 22:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
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.

The Theory of the Big Bang is not the same as the Theory of Creation. Neither are theories of science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-09-2023 22:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
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.

Go learn what a mathematical tensor is.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-09-2023 22:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-09-2023 22:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
keepit wrote:
Many cosmologists say that black holes don't obey the established laws of physics.

How do they know this?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-09-2023 22:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
Robert Wagner wrote:
Only fools keep denying man made climate change.

Climate cannot change. The word 'climate' is man made.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-09-2023 22:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21901)
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

You don't any anyone's mind but your own, Sock.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-09-2023 23:19
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
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.


Get help from your Mommy with this

Since the 1970s, it has been known that black holes are not completely black. In fact, they emit very low-energy radiation called Hawking radiation. The lower the mass of a black hole, the higher the energy of the emitted Hawking radiation. As a black hole radiates, its mass decreases, and it starts emitting more and more radiation, causing it to evaporate more and more rapidly. Eventually, it shrinks to around the Planck mass, the point at which its DeBroglie wavelength is equal to the Schwarzschild radius. At this point, we no longer know what happens, since to describe physics at the Planck scale requires a theory of quantum gravity.

The apparent paradox here is that the radiation being emitted from a black hole is completely thermal, at least to lowest order (so perhaps black holes are black after all - black bodies, that is). 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. Looking at this process in reverse, thermal radiation combines to make a white hole, and then anything at all can come out of it. There is no way, even in principle, to predict what it will be.

https://www2.perimeterinstitute.ca/personal/dgottesman/infoloss.html#:~:text=As%20a%20black%20hole%20radiates,equal%20to%20the%20Schwarzschild%20radius.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
10-09-2023 10:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14514)


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.

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
10-09-2023 12:44
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5734)
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.

.


Get help from your Mommy with this

Since the 1970s, it has been known that black holes are not completely black. In fact, they emit very low-energy radiation called Hawking radiation. The lower the mass of a black hole, the higher the energy of the emitted Hawking radiation. As a black hole radiates, its mass decreases, and it starts emitting more and more radiation, causing it to evaporate more and more rapidly. Eventually, it shrinks to around the Planck mass, the point at which its DeBroglie wavelength is equal to the Schwarzschild radius. At this point, we no longer know what happens, since to describe physics at the Planck scale requires a theory of quantum gravity.

The apparent paradox here is that the radiation being emitted from a black hole is completely thermal, at least to lowest order (so perhaps black holes are black after all - black bodies, that is). 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. Looking at this process in reverse, thermal radiation combines to make a white hole, and then anything at all can come out of it. There is no way, even in principle, to predict what it will be.

LOL you take stuff apart like it matters to someone, so are you in charge of the local franchise of schizzo lives matter?

Silly


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
10-09-2023 23:11
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1036)
Some quotes:


"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]



However, no finite mass possesses zero volume, infinite density, or
infinite gravity, anywhere. ( Crothers)



Black holes are spawned from Einsteins faulty mathemathics. It is bunkum.
10-09-2023 23:17
Xadoman
★★★★☆
(1036)
LIGO, LISA Destined to Detect Nothing

https://vixra.org/pdf/1602.0139v1.pdf

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
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate stephen hawking:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Retired Supreme court justice Stephen Breyer going back to work at Harvard519-07-2022 22:11
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact