Something new under the sun

Zeuzzz said:
So if his material (and others) is so drastically wrong and 'crackpot', why do so many established scientists seem to approve this work? Are they all crackpots too?
Click to expand...


Somebody should tell this clown that in science, stuff written up in papers isn't the basis of reality. Scientific consensus and reality is guided by the data, and if all those people listed in those papers are proposing ideas inconsistent with the data, then yes -- they are wrong.

If they're shown definitively to be wrong, yet they insist on pushing their claims, then yes -- they are crackpots.

Now Zeuzzz is attempting to rely upon bogus arguments from authority (from crackpots no less). Sad to see... :rolleyes:

I say we let this troll starve...
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
Its not just Crothers, plenty of other scientsts have shown some of the tacit assumptions in black hole mathematics. You are so quick to conveniently brand anyone who questions the black hole as a crackpot. Unfortunately for you, that does not alter the facts. You must also include Schwarzschild himself as a crank since his paper invalidates the black hole outright, as does Brillouin's, and Droste's. You must also label Einstein a crackpot, because Einstein always rejected the idea of the black hole, claiming in his research papers and other writings that it is not physical, and that singularities in the field nullify the theory of General Relativity. He was convinced that nature had a way, not yet discovered by physicists, to protect us from what he considered an absurd implication of his theory.
Click to expand...

Isn't it interesting that every person you list here was born in the 19th century? In the very early days of general relativity there was a lot of confusion about black holes, that's true. Einstein didn't like them because they are singular, and he didn't want them in his theory.

In any case you're making the classic error of argument from authority, an error compounded by the fact that 99.9% of all the authorities in the world today totally disagree with you.

These claims are patently false, and G. C. McVittie has made some conclusive arguments which invalidate these ridiculous claims, which can be seen here
Click to expand...

McVittie was writing in the 1930s, and was extremely confused. I've read several of his papers from that era carefully. Looks like he remained confused as an old man.

Heres a few other publications, not by Crothers, but getting at the same thing
<snip a few crank references>
And also many scientists that have read Crothers' work can find no errors
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I just read it and found nearly everything to be in error. I doubt very many other experts have wasted their time.

So if his material (and others) is so drastically wrong and 'crackpot', why do so many established scientists seem to approve this work? Are they all crackpots too?
Click to expand...

This is exactly the same argument creationists make about evolution, and it has if anything even less validity here (since we're talking about math). Are you a creationist?

Go look at ANY book on general relativity (there are many). Do a search on "black hole" and see how many hits you get. Better yet, stop trolling and learn a little physics - deriving the Schwarzschild solution is one of the first things students do in a GR course. I did it as an third year undergrad.


EDIT - I like how you and your fellow cranks argue. Earlier you accused me of not addressing the math in Crother's nonsense. So I did so, and you completely ignored my response and shifted your ground to another fallacious argument (this time authority). Now that that's been totally demolished you will probably squirm and flipflop again, to a new and different way of being wrong.

Any bets on what will be the next logical fallacy you try?
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
EDIT - I like how you and your fellow cranks argue. Earlier you accused me of not addressing the math in Crother's nonsense. So I did so, and you completely ignored my response and shifted your ground to another fallacious argument (this time authority). Now that that's been totally demolished you will probably squirm and flipflop again, to a new and different way of being wrong.
Click to expand...



The orthodox concepts of gravitational collapse and the black hole owe their existence to a confusion as to the true nature of the r-parameter in the metric tensor for the gravitational field.

The error in the conventional analysis of Hilbert’s solution is twofold in that two tacit and invalid assumptions are made:
(a) r is a coordinate and radius (of some kind) in the gravitational field;
(b) The regions 0<r<α=2m and α<r<∞ are valid.

Contrary to the conventional analysis the nature and range or the r-parameter must be determined by rigorous mathematical means, not by mere assumption, tacit or otherwise. When the required mathematical rigour is applied it is revealed that r0 =α denotes a point, not a 2-sphere, and that 0<r<α is undefined on the Hilbert metric.
sol invictus said:
This is gibberish from the start. r is a coordinate by definition - it's one of the four coordinates in the metric. Saying it's not is like saying it's not a letter. Furthermore it is a radius, at least outside the horizon, as you can check trivially. So (a) is not even wrong. (b) is again total nonsense - regions in a metric can't be valid or invalid. There might be a physical problem somewhere (like a singularity or a closed timelike curve) but then that's what needs to be shown. And there is no such problem in the region outside.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...


He is not saying it is not a co-ordinate, he is saying that r is not the same value for both of them when certain considerations are taken into account. I cant be bothered to type out all his equations in latex, i'll just copy directly, but it wont make that much sense, you have to view the original for the full equations.

If you had read the whole paper, and not just the part that i quoted, the reason for this statement becomes apparent. He outlines this in section two.


http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-01-09.PDF
The general metric for Special Relativity is,
ds2 = dt2 − dr2 − r2 ( dθ2 + sin2 dϕ2) (8)

and the radial distance (the proper distance) between two points is,
[.......]

Let a test particle be located at each of the points r0 and r > r0 (owing to the isotropy of space there is no loss of generality in taking r > r0 > 0). Then by (9) the distance between them is given by

d = r − r0 ,

and if r0 =0, d ≡ r in which case the distance from r0 =0 is the same as the radius (the curvature radius) of a great circle, the circumference χ of which is from (8),

χ = 2π√r2 = 2πr . (10)

In other words, the curvature radius and the proper radius are identical, owing to the pseudo-Euclidean nature of (8). Furthermore, d gives the radius of a sphere centred at the point r0. Let the test particle at r0 acquire mass. This produces a gravitational field centred at the point r0 > 0. The geometrical relations between the components of the metric tensor of General Relativity must be precisely the same in the metric of Special Relativity. Therefore the distance between r0 and r>r0 is no longer given by (9) and the curvature radius no longer by (10). Indeed, the proper radius Rp, in keeping with the geometrical relations on (8), is now given by; [...........]

Therefore (7) is singular only at r =r0, where C(r0)= =α2 and g00 =0 8 r0, irrespective of the value of r0. C(r0)=α2 emphasizes the true meaning of α, viz., α is a scalar invariant which fixes the spacetime for the pointmass from an infinite number of mathematically possible forms, as pointed out by Abrams. Moreover, α embodies the effective gravitational mass of the source of the field, and fixes a boundary to an otherwise incomplete spacetime. Furthermore, one can see from (13) and (14) that r0 is arbitrary, i. e. the point-mass can be located at any point and its location has no intrinsic meaning. Furthermore, the condition g00 =0 is clearly equivalent to the boundary condition r→r0)Rp→0, from which it follows that g00 =0 is the end result of gravitational.
Click to expand...



All the particular solutions of (17) are inextendible, since the singularity when r =r0 is quasiregular, irrespective of the values of n and r0. Indeed, the circumference χ of a great circle becomes, [....]

lim r→r0 χ

Rp → ∞, (20)

shows that Rp(r0)≡0 is a quasiregular singularity and cannot be extended.
Equation (19) shows that χ=2πα is also a scalar invariant for the point-mass.
It is plain from the foregoing that the Kruskal-Szekeres extension is meaningless, that the “Schwarzschild radius” is meaningless, that the orthodox conception of gravitational collapse is incorrect, and that the black hole is not consistent at all with General Relativity. All arise wholely from a bungled analysis of Hilbert’s solution.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
He is not saying it is not a co-ordinate, he is saying that r is not the same value for both of them when certain considerations are taken into account.
Click to expand...

Same value? Both of what? Certain considerations?

What the heck are you talking about??

He says:
The error in the conventional analysis of Hilbert’s solution is twofold in that two tacit and invalid assumptions are made:
(a) r is a coordinate and radius (of some kind) in the gravitational field
(b) The regions 0<r<α=2m and α<r<∞ are valid.
Click to expand...

That r is a coordinate is not an assumption and cannot be invalid. That simply doesn't make any sense. It is one of the coordinates in the metric; that's a definition, not an assumption.

As for whether it's a radius, just take the Schwarzschild metric at large r, and you will see it reduces to the form of the metric on flat space you have in your quote, with r the radial distance from the origin. So the second part of the statement is wrong too.

As for the rest of the paper, I will not waste my time looking through it to find where else he is wrong. Like I said, pick up any book on GR of the tens available, and you will find a derivation of the Schwarzschild solution along with a proof that it's the unique asymptotically flat vacuum metric with spherical symmetry (that statement is called Birkhoff's theorem). This is standard stuff; it's been understood for over half a century, and I myself have derived the metric and proven the theorem (it's really not hard).
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Zeuzz, I assume that you are ignoring the observational evidence for the existence of black holes as support for GR?
Click to expand...


RC, here are two quotes from Zeuzzz:

1. "General relativity is a well-established and tested theory." - AND -

2. "The big bang is a joke."

Drumroll... general relativity predicted the big bang cosmology and explains it. The physical theory of BBC is GR! Oh no! :eek:

I would love to watch Zeuzzz squirm trying rectify these two statements, if he'd ever stand his ground and actually try doing so as opposed to weaseling away into troll land...
 
Zeuzzz;3516873 [url said:
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2005/PP-01-09.PDF[/url]
Click to expand...

I took a more careful look at this paper. Take a look at equation 7. That is indeed the most general solution to Einstein's equations in vacuum with spherical symmetry. In fact it's nothing but the Schwarzschild solution, once we require asymptotic flatness.

To see that, simply make a change of variables which puts the dr^2 term in a standard Schwarzschild form. Such a transformation is always possible, and integrating it gives the function C as a function of the Schw. radial coordinate. Following that through with the other terms shows that the whole metric is Schwarzschild.

But now we are done. There is a horizon, which is NOT a point (it's a sphere cross a null coordinate) and a singularity at the origin of coordinates. In other words it's a black hole.

EDIT - this is even more stupid than I thought. Equation (6) IS the standard Schw. metric, which Crothers actually doesn't derive. He just assumes it (he says you get it in the "usual way"). I didn't notice he had it, and had just re-derived it starting from (7).

In going from 6 to 7 Crothers is displaying a total lack of understanding of the basics of GR. The equations are correct, but the function C is NOT a free function - it's simply a gauge which results from the freedom to reparametrize the variable he calls r*. Since 6 is simpler it's much better to keep it in that form. In any case he then goes on to make a series of false statements, such as that the horizon is a point.

So the mistake is even more basic than I thought at first.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
What makes you think the mass estimate of the M87 "black hole" is any more precise than the Milky Way's? I would hazard that it's even less precisely known given it's great distance.
Click to expand...
BAC, Let us assume that the M87 mass estimate has an error of an order of magnitude. This means that it is between 300 and 30,000 million solar masses. So we still have a black hole that is much bigger than the one in the center of the Milky Way.
 
sol invictus said:
Isn't it interesting that every person you list here was born in the 19th century?
Click to expand...

Oh yes ... except for a few "crackpots", today's scientists are all in agreement with the black hole concept. :rolleyes:

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/621/1 "No More Black Holes? By Phil Berardelli ScienceNOW Daily News, 21 June 2007 ... snip ... Scientists at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, Ohio, have constructed mathematical formulas that conclude black holes cannot exist. ... snip ... In 1974, theoretical physicist Stephen Hawking showed that thanks to quantum mechanics matter can escape black holes in a tricky way. By random chance, a particle-antiparticle pair can flit into existence straddling the event horizon. One partner falls into the hole, while the other just barely makes it free. Because of this effect, dubbed Hawking radiation, a black hole slowly evaporates, so that anything that enters is eventually released over billions or even trillions of years. But how can black holes be both airtight and leaky? Physicist Lawrence Krauss and Case Western Reserve colleagues think they have found the answer to the paradox. In a paper accepted for publication in Physical Review D, they have constructed a lengthy mathematical formula that shows, in effect, black holes can't form at all. ... snip ... Asked why then the universe nevertheless seems to be full of black holes, Krauss replies, "How do you know they're black holes?" No one has actually seen a black hole, he says, and anything with a tremendous amount of gravity--such as the supermassive remnants of stars--could exert effects similar to those researchers have blamed on black holes. "All of our calculations suggest this is quite plausible," Krauss says."

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=mg18925423.600&print=true "Three cosmic enigmas, one audacious answer, 09 March 2006, New Scientist, Zeeya Merali ... snip ... A new and as yet undiscovered kind of star could explain both phenomena and, in turn, remove black holes from the lexicon of cosmology. The audacious idea comes from George Chapline, a physicist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California, and Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin of Stanford University and their colleagues. Last week at the 22nd Pacific Coast Gravity Meeting in Santa Barbara, California, Chapline suggested that the objects that till now have been thought of as black holes could in fact be dead stars that form as a result of an obscure quantum phenomenon. These stars could explain both dark energy and dark matter. This radical suggestion would get round some fundamental problems posed by the existence of black holes. One such problem arises from the idea that once matter crosses a black hole's event horizon - the point beyond which not even light can escape - it will be destroyed by the space-time "singularity" at the centre of the black hole. Because information about the matter is lost forever, this conflicts with the laws of quantum mechanics, which state that information can never disappear from the universe. Another problem is that light from an object falling into a black hole is stretched so dramatically by the immense gravity there that observers outside will see time freeze: the object will appear to sit at the event horizon for ever. This freezing of time also violates quantum mechanics. ... snip ... Chapline has dubbed the objects produced this way "dark energy stars". ... snip .... "Dark energy stars and black holes would have identical external geometries, so it will be very difficult to tell them apart," Lobo says. ... snip ... He and his colleagues have also calculated the energy spectrum of the released gamma rays. "It is very similar to the spectrum observed in gamma-ray bursts," says Chapline."

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/space/01/22/gravastars/index.html "s black hole theory full of hot air?, January 22, 2002 ... snip ... (CNN) -- Arguing that black holes are riddled with contradictions, astronomers have devised what they consider a more plausible destiny for imploding stars. Taking into account quantum physics, two U.S scientists suggest that giant dying stars transform themselves into what they call gravastars, shells of extremely dense matter with exotic space inside. ... snip ... According to conventional theory, some giant stars near the end of their lives explode into supernovas, leaving behind cores so dense that they collapse into a "singularity," or point of infinite density, otherwise known as a black hole. ... snip ... Emil Mottola of the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico and Pawel Mazur of the University of South Carolina are not convinced. ... snip ... The first black hole proponents were ignorant of quantum fluctuations in the universe that affect everything from light particles to gravity, Mottola and Mazur observed. ... snip ... Without quantum mechanics, the early theorists made crucial mistakes in envisioning black holes and their relationship with space and time, the two say. ...snip ... In a paper submitted to Physical Review Letters, Mottola and Mazur argue that gravastars are consistent with classical laws of physics but do not have embarrassing inconsistencies as do black holes. Moreover, from Earth, they would appear much the same as classical black holes."

http://www.physorg.com/news73057202.html "Astronomer Rudy Schild of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA) and his colleagues studied the quasar known as Q0957+561 ...snip ... Most would consider that object to be a 'black hole,' but ... snip ... 'We don't call this object a black hole because we have found evidence that it contains an internally anchored magnetic field that penetrates right through the surface of the collapsed central object, and that interacts with the quasar environment' ... snip ... Schild and his colleagues found that the jets appear to emerge from two regions 1,000 astronomical units in size (about 25 times larger than Pluto-Sun distance) located 8,000 astronomical units directly above the poles of the central compact object. ... snip ... However, that location would be expected only if the jets were powered by reconnecting magnetic field lines that were anchored to the rotating supermassive compact object within the quasar. By interacting with a surrounding accretion disk, such spinning magnetic field lines spool up, winding tighter and tighter until they explosively unite, reconnect and break, releasing huge amounts of energy that power the jets. ... snip ... "Our finding challenges the accepted view of black holes," said Leiter. "We've even proposed a new name for them - Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Objects, or MECOs".
 
BeAChooser said:
Oh yes ... except for a few "crackpots", today's scientists are all in agreement with the black hole concept. :rolleyes:
...
Links to 4 articles
....
Click to expand...
Your links merely reflect that scientists are always testing the established theories. Thus there will always be papers that state that the theories are incorrect. This is good - science should always be challenged.

So if sol invictus had said that " 99.9% of today's scientists are in agreement with the black hole concept", would you agree with him?

PS. I noticed that I have not answered your question "And would a mass of 40,000 suns in a region 1 AU in diameter be a black hole?". The answer is that a mass of 20 solar masses in a region 1 AU in diameter is a black hole (look up the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit).
 
Last edited:
MattusMaximus said:
general relativity predicted the big bang cosmology and explains it. The physical theory of BBC is GR!
Click to expand...

That can only be said of one specific solution to GR. There are other solutions. And let's be honest, GR as envisioned by Einstein and BB as envisioned by Friedmann did not predict inflation, dark matter, nor dark energy. Those gnomes were invented to prop up the BB cosmology. Those gnomes aren't apparently needed in cosmologies derived using the alternative solutions to GR. Also, calling BBC a "physical theory" is rather funny, when almost the entire universe under that theory now consists of ghost-like dark matter and dark energy ... that can't be directly detected and which it's proponents still can't identify even after 30 years of looking. :D
 
BeAChooser said:
That can only be said of one specific solution to GR. There are other solutions. And let's be honest, GR as envisioned by Einstein and BB as envisioned by Friedmann did not predict inflation, dark matter, nor dark energy. Those gnomes were invented to prop up the BB cosmology. Those gnomes aren't apparently needed in cosmologies derived using the alternative solutions to GR. Also, calling BBC a "physical theory" is rather funny, when almost the entire universe under that theory now consists of ghost-like dark matter and dark energy ... that can't be directly detected and which it's proponents still can't identify even after 30 years of looking. :D
Click to expand...

Yes, you're right no one has found a lump of dark energy in the 30 years since 1998.
 
Reality Check said:
BAC, Let us assume that the M87 mass estimate has an error of an order of magnitude. This means that it is between 300 and 30,000 million solar masses.
Click to expand...

Why should we assume an error of an order of magnitude for M87, when the one for the Milky Way ... for which we have much better observations ... is larger? If you wanted to use the same degree of uncertainty in M87 as in the Milky Way (which the source I linked said has a 4 million sun mass), then you are talking about at least 2 orders of magnitude.

But the reality is that the evidence suggesting a 3 billion sun black hole in M87 is a LOT more tenuous than that suggesting a large mass in the Milky Way core. The latter is based on observed motions of individual stars within light years of the supposed Milky Way black hole. The former is based on Doppler measurements made on the plasma of M87 near the central region, not specific star motions. Do you know the velocity of the gases near the supposed M87 black hole? On the order of 500 kms (http://seds.org/messier/more/m087_hst.html ). Do you know the measured velocity of plasmas near the center of the Milky Way? As much as 700 kms, much faster than the stars in the area. So how can you be sure of the M87 mass estimate? And you do know, don't you, that these plasmas would be affected by any electromagnetic forces operating in the region, not just gravity? So a homopolar motor with a plasmoid near the center ...
 
BeAChooser said:
Why should we assume an error of an order of magnitude for M87, when the one for the Milky Way ... for which we have much better observations ... is larger? If you wanted to use the same degree of uncertainty in M87 as in the Milky Way (which the source I linked said has a 4 million sun mass), then you are talking about at least 2 orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...

Do we definitely have much better observations? From personal experience, its much easier to measure the rotational velocity of Andromeda than the Milky Way.
 
Reality Check said:
PS. I noticed that I have not answered your question "And would a mass of 40,000 suns in a region 1 AU in diameter be a black hole?". The answer is that a mass of 20 solar masses in a region 1 AU in diameter is a black hole
Click to expand...

I think that would surprise astronomers since there are 20+ solar mass stars that have diameters less than 1 AU which are not black holes. What do you think Betelgeuse was before it ballooned into a red giant?
 
BeAChooser said:
Why should we assume an error of an order of magnitude for M87, when the one for the Milky Way ... for which we have much better observations ... is larger? If you wanted to use the same degree of uncertainty in M87 as in the Milky Way (which the source I linked said has a 4 million sun mass), then you are talking about at least 2 orders of magnitude.

But the reality is that the evidence suggesting a 3 billion sun black hole in M87 is a LOT more tenuous than that suggesting a large mass in the Milky Way core. The latter is based on observed motions of individual stars within light years of the supposed Milky Way black hole. The former is based on Doppler measurements made on the plasma of M87 near the central region, not specific star motions. Do you know the velocity of the gases near the supposed M87 black hole? On the order of 500 kms (http://seds.org/messier/more/m087_hst.html ). Do you know the measured velocity of plasmas near the center of the Milky Way? As much as 700 kms, much faster than the stars in the area. So how can you be sure of the M87 mass estimate? And you do know, don't you, that these plasmas would be affected by any electromagnetic forces operating in the region, not just gravity? So a homopolar motor with a plasmoid near the center ...
Click to expand...
I am sure about the mass of the M87 black hole because this is the mass that is stated by the very link that you have.
NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has obtained this image of a spiral-shaped disk of hot gas in the core of active giant elliptical galaxy M87. HST measurements show the disk is rotating so rapidly as it contains a massive dense object at its hub. This central object weights as much as three billion suns, but is concentrated in a volume of at most a few light-years diameter.
Now that astronomers have seen the signature of the tremendous gravitational field at the center of M87, it is probable that the region contains only a fraction of the number of stars that would be necessary to create such a powerful attraction. Earlier observations suggested the presence of such a supermasive object, but were not decisive. Many astronomers believe that this object may be a supermassive black hole. If it should be a black hole, it would be an object that is so massive yet compact nothing can escape its gravitational pull, not even light. The object at the center of M87, which weights as much as three billion suns, would then be concentrated into a space no larger than our solar system.
Click to expand...
In other words: Before this image was taken in 1999 there were doubts about the existence of the M87 black hole. The image removed those doubts.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
I think that would surprise astronomers since there are 20+ solar mass stars that have diameters less than 1 AU which are not black holes. What do you think Betelgeuse was before it ballooned into a red giant?
Click to expand...
You are right: It is more exact to say that any star that is more than 20 solar masses will form a black hole at the end of its life (look up the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit).
Of course a plasma that packs 20+ solar masses into a small volume like 1 AU does not have any fusion to counter gravity and will form a black hole.
 
Last edited:
I have a question for the cranks here.

You obviously don't understand the math (or physics) of general relativity. So you have to rely on others, who do understand (or at least say they do).

But those others disagree with each other. A tiny minority thinks black holes don't exist; all the rest think they do.

So - given that you can't understand the arguments either way - how do you decide which camp to go along with? Do you always root for the underdogs? Or pick the ones that seem closest to you politically, or in some other way? Or is it that since you can't comprehend the notion of a black hole, you believe anyone that tells you it doesn't exist?
 
sol invictus said:
I have a question for the cranks here.

You obviously don't understand the math (or physics) of general relativity. So you have to rely on others, who do understand (or at least say they do).

But those others disagree with each other. A tiny minority thinks black holes don't exist; all the rest think they do.

So - given that you can't understand the arguments either way - how do you decide which camp to go along with? Do you always root for the underdogs? Or pick the ones that seem closest to you politically, or in some other way? Or is it that since you can't comprehend the notion of a black hole, you believe anyone that tells you it doesn't exist?
Click to expand...

I have often wondered about this. I can understand that someone with no training in physics can distrust the ideas of black holes, dark mater, etc. What I cannot understand is how people that obviously don't know anything about physics and can't understand the papers they keep linking can dedicate so much time and energy to this.
 
BeAChooser said:
What makes you think the mass estimate of the M87 "black hole" is any more precise than the Milky Way's? I would hazard that it's even less precisely known given it's great distance.
Click to expand...

And you still haven't explained how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse?

No, you haven't. You haven't even engaged in the arm waving and misdirection , yet.
 
BeAChooser said:
That can only be said of one specific solution to GR. There are other solutions. And let's be honest, GR as envisioned by Einstein and BB as envisioned by Friedmann did not predict inflation, dark matter, nor dark energy. Those gnomes were invented to prop up the BB cosmology. Those gnomes aren't apparently needed in cosmologies derived using the alternative solutions to GR. Also, calling BBC a "physical theory" is rather funny, when almost the entire universe under that theory now consists of ghost-like dark matter and dark energy ... that can't be directly detected and which it's proponents still can't identify even after 30 years of looking. :D
Click to expand...


Except for the fact that you have your own 'gnomes' BAC and you refuse to address them:

1. The sampling error in Arp's association of QSOs and disrupted galaxies.
2. The magnetic field needed to make Perrat's model of galaxy rotation work.
3. A demonstration of how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse.
4. The electric sun and z-pinch fusion will not provide the energy of the sun, at the level it exhibits.
5. A simple answer as to wether the anamalous red shift applies to only QSOs or if there is no consmological red shift.

These are glaring issues that you have failed to address, you are avoiding them in fact. Mere arm waving will not resolve them.


So your garden is filled with gnomes, there are many more.
 
Last edited:
BeAChooser said:
Why should we assume an error of an order of magnitude for M87, when the one for the Milky Way ... for which we have much better observations ... is larger? If you wanted to use the same degree of uncertainty in M87 as in the Milky Way (which the source I linked said has a 4 million sun mass), then you are talking about at least 2 orders of magnitude.
Click to expand...
Funny, you still haven't addressed how a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoids gravitational collapse have you?
But the reality is that the evidence suggesting a 3 billion sun black hole in M87 is a LOT more tenuous than that suggesting a large mass in the Milky Way core.
Click to expand...
What is really tenuous is your answer to many specific question, funny that.

How does a 40,000 solar mass plamoid avoid gravitational collapse?
The latter is based on observed motions of individual stars within light years of the supposed Milky Way black hole. The former is based on Doppler measurements made on the plasma of M87 near the central region, not specific star motions. Do you know the velocity of the gases near the supposed M87 black hole?
Click to expand...
Do you know how a 40,000 solar mass plasmoid avoids gravitational collapse?
Do you know what size a magnetic field would have to be to make for galaxy rotation in Perrat's model?
On the order of 500 kms (http://seds.org/messier/more/m087_hst.html ). Do you know the measured velocity of plasmas near the center of the Milky Way? As much as 700 kms, much faster than the stars in the area. So how can you be sure of the M87 mass estimate? And you do know, don't you, that these plasmas would be affected by any electromagnetic forces operating in the region, not just gravity? So a homopolar motor with a plasmoid near the center ...
Click to expand...


So how does the orbit of stars around the massive object at the center of the galaxy get effected by this? Will your homopolar motor do that? No, it won't.

Does it matter?

How does a plasmoid of 40,000 solar masses avoid gravitational collapse?
 
MattusMaximus said:
RC, here are two quotes from Zeuzzz:

1. "General relativity is a well-established and tested theory." - AND -

I would love to watch Zeuzzz squirm trying rectify these two statements, if he'd ever stand his ground and actually try doing so as opposed to weaseling away into troll land...
Click to expand...


Well, i spent three years studying physics and relativity and I was an adament believer in relativity by the end of it. Now i'm not so sure. I always keep an open mind when dealing with relativity, as it has many people who oppose it, but so many mathematicians that love it. For example there are many experiments that seem to verify GR, which is why i used to beleive it. But it is very hard to come up with tests that will falsify it, as it is based on an ill defined unit which is used as a dimension in itself; time. If a theory is unfalsifyable, then it cant be an accurate theory. The theory of relativity is unfalsifiable because no experiment can refute it because there really is no way to test the theory in a true inertial frame since all practical experiments must be performed in non-inertial frames, as a matter of necessity.

I said i fully agree with it previously as i didn't want this thread to end up as another one arguing about the correctness of relativity, and knew the usual barrage of woo hoo comments would be aimed at me after I stated that. I dont even deny relativity, the maths obviously works very well, but I think it is often used to prove things beyond it predictive capability, especially when talking about the Big Bang, Black Holes and other questionable metaphysical areas.

There is no one experiment which "proves" relativity, and yet so many experiments have provided consistency with the "theories", that most scientists accept them as being extremely accurate in their descriptions of reality.

Einstein basically redefined Newtonian gravity by placing it in a metaphysical framework by combining the three measurable physical dimensions of space with a mathematical ‘dimension’ that cannot be measured with a ruler, time.

The claimed success of Einstein’s ‘thought experiments’ encouraged mathematicians to follow his lead, and they have dominated physics and cosmology ever since. It must be said that Einstein himself showed integrity by doubting his own work. But his followers have shown no such restraint. In their devotion to mathematical abstractions, cosmologists have written themselves a blank check, with the freedom to invent anything necessary to save the theory when observations didn’t fit.

D. E. Pressler, “By definition, time cannot be measured in a single line so the use of the term dimension is ambiguous... any conclusions drawn from a fallacious argument is meaningless.” from a lecture at the 12th Relativity Meeting at Chicago University, 2002.
Click to expand...
 
BeAChooser said:
I think that would surprise astronomers since there are 20+ solar mass stars that have diameters less than 1 AU which are not black holes. What do you think Betelgeuse was before it ballooned into a red giant?
Click to expand...

More arm waving!

What happens when the energy from fusion is no longer available to keep the stars mass expanded against gravity? (And please avoid using some gnome of your imagination to keep the star extended)

What will happen when there is no longer the thermal energy needed to provide the kinetic energy that maintains the atmosphere of the star in an expanded state?

Hmmm?

Simple question BAC, are you still trying to say that photons are not effected by gravity?
 
Reality Check said:
You are right: It is more exact to say that any star that is more than 20 solar masses will form a black hole at the end of its life (look up the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff limit).
Of course a plasma that packs 20+ solar masses into a small volume like 1 AU does not have any fusion to counter gravity and will form a black hole.
Click to expand...


And the only response you will get to a direct statement from BAC is through a dark posting and dark knowledge that does not interact with any postings on the JREF but whose existance can only be surmised from BAC's statements that they exist.
 
Zeuzzz said:
For example there are many experiments that seem to verify GR, which is why i used to beleive it. But it is very hard to come up with tests that will falsify it, as it is based on an ill defined unit which is used as a dimension in itself; time.
Click to expand...

That is completely untrue. GR makes an infinite number of almost arbitrarily precise predictions about everything affected by gravity (i.e., everything). If any one of those is wrong, GR is wrong.

The only thing that makes it hard to verify is that it agrees to high accuracy with Newtonian gravity in the situations we can easily access (although today there are many independent tests which rule out Newton and agree with GR). But it's extremely easy to falsify.

If a theory is unfalsifyable, then it cant be an accurate theory. The theory of relativity is unfalsifiable because no experiment can refute it because there really is no way to test the theory in a true inertial frame since all practical experiments must be performed in non-inertial frames, as a matter of necessity.
Click to expand...

Again, you exhibit total incomprehension of the theories you attack. Relativity makes perfect sense in non-intertial frames. In fact part of the point of general relativity was to generalize special relativity to arbitrary frames and to curved manifolds.

There is no one experiment which "proves" relativity,
Click to expand...

Completely empty statement. According to science, there is no experiment that proves any theory.

and yet so many experiments have provided consistency with the "theories", that most scientists accept them as being extremely accurate in their descriptions of reality.
Click to expand...

Umm.... try re-reading that.

It must be said that Einstein himself showed integrity by doubting his own work. But his followers have shown no such restraint. In their devotion to mathematical abstractions, cosmologists have written themselves a blank check, with the freedom to invent anything necessary to save the theory when observations didn’t fit.
Click to expand...

More nonsense. Many people work on finding alternative theories of gravity. Many people work on designing experiments to test it. Many people make observations of the sky, in part because that's another arena for testing GR. And very few people, when they look out and see black holes just as predicted by the theory, continue to deny their existence.
 
MattusMaximus said:
Now Zeuzzz is attempting to rely upon bogus arguments from authority (from crackpots no less). Sad to see... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...


I really find it hard to take you seriously when you have stated previously that plasma cosmolgy is a pseudoscience, despite the large amount of academics in that field, and also that scientists that do not believe in the big bang are crackpots too.

Heres a brief list some of the people you think are crackpots, as they are plasma cosmologists or they dont believe in the Big Bang Theory;

* Hannes Alfven - Plasma cosmologist, Won Nobel Prize
* Lewis E. Franks - PhD, Stanford University, Professor Emeritus and Head of the Department of Electrical & Computer Engineering, University of Massachusetts
* Timothy E. Eastman - PhD, Head of Raytheon's space physics and astrophysics groups.
* Anthony L. Peratt, PhD, USC, Fellow of the IEEE (1999), former scientific advisor to the U.S. Department of Energy and member of the Associate Laboratory Directorate of the Los Alamos National Laboratory.
* Prof P. Evans - British and Commonwealth Civil List Scientist, Welsh Scientific Advisory Committee (WSAC)
* Gerrit L. Verschuur - PhD, University of Manchester.
* Jeremy Dunning-Davies - senior lecturer in physics at the University of Hull and fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society
* Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik
* Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
* Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
* Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries
* Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
* Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
* Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.
*Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus)
* Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
* Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA)
* Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
* Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
*Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
* Menas Kafatos, George Mason University
* Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics, Executive director of the Focus Fusion Society and president of Lawrenceville Plasma Physics
* Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired)
* Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di * Padova (Italy)
* Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
* Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
* Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA(emeritus) and College de France (India, France)
* Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
* Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
* R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
* Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
* Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
* Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
* David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
* Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
* Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA)
* Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
* Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais
* John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
* James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton


They obviously have good reasons to doubt BBT or believe in plasma cosmology, they are not doing this (as you would have us believe) solely because they are cranks. Can you accept the fact that these people have viable scientific reasons for thier opinions?

I dont like to make arguments on peoples status alone, but when you think that all these people are crackpots, I think that it is you with the problem, not them.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
<snip>
Click to expand...

Many of the people on that list are dead, and some are not physicists. But, just to be nice to you, let's ask how many living physicists believe in BBC and compare.

Well, the American Physical Society has 40,000 members. Perhaps a few of the people on your list are members, so we can subtract them from that figure. That leaves 40,000 :). Including Europe will probably double that number. With the rest of the world, there must be more than 100,000 physicists in the world. Guess what - other than the tiny handful you've listed and a few more you didn't, they all believe in BBC. You list has well under 100, so we're talking about 99.9%.

So you've just proven that everyone on your list is a crackpot - by definition (the definition being someone that believes nearly everyone else is wrong).
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
Many of the people on that list are dead, and some are not physicists. But, just to be nice to you, let's ask how many living physicists believe in BBC and compare.
Click to expand...


Many? A couple, perhaps, but many????

And since when does the fact that someone was dead discount their opinion? Maybe we should forget all about the theory of relativity because Einstein is dead?

I could have posted about 500-1000 or so more, but i figured that would be classed as spamming.


Well, the American Physical Society has 40,000 members. Perhaps a few of the people on your list are members, so we can subtract them from that figure. That leaves 40,000 :).
Click to expand...


You should discount all the people (probably about 96% of them) that are not experts in astrophysics or astronomy, as these people are usually taught the Big Bang as a fact and not a theory, and since they do not study this area they will not have any reasons to dismiss it. If you look at my list nearly all of them are experts in astronomy or cosmology.

If an expert in the physics of molecular bonding believes in the Big Bang theory this does not add any more credence to the theory, you have to look at the opinions of people in that field.

So you've just proven that everyone on your list is a crackpot - by definition (the definition being someone that believes nearly everyone else is wrong).
Click to expand...


The thing is, you have to have a valid scientific reason to dismiss their claims, or it is you that is the crackpot. So far i have heard none.

If you can find one single article, webpage or science paper that refutes any of the observations the above astronomers have made, I will consider it. I am still waiting for any source that purports to debunk plasma cosmology, i have asked about seven times now, and still no-one can come up with any consistant reason to dismiss it past yelling crackpot at everyone.
 
Zeuzzz said:
Many? A couple, perhaps, but many????
Click to expand...

I'm not going to waste my time checking the rest, but of the five or six I know of, two (Bondi and Alfven) are dead and the others very old.

And since when does the fact that someone was dead discount their opinion?
Click to expand...

When new evidence has emerged since the time they were capable of learning about it.

I could have posted about 500-1000 or so more, but i figured that would be classed as spamming.
Click to expand...

I very much doubt that.

You should discount all the people (probably about 96% of them) that are not experts in astrophysics or astronomy, as these people are usually taught the Big Bang as a fact and not a theory, and since they do not study this area they will not have any reasons to dismiss it. If you look at my list nearly all of them are experts in astronomy or cosmology.
Click to expand...

That appears to be false. I just looked at a few of them, and they are neither astrophysicists or cosmologists.

If an expert in the physics of molecular bonding believes in the Big Bang theory this does not add any more credence to the theory, you have to look at the opinions of people in that field.
Click to expand...

Again, many - most, for all I know - of the people on your list are not experts in the field. Here - I picked two randomly:

Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)

http://www.earthtech.org/michael/bio/index.htm
http://www.earthtech.org/michael/bio/publication_list.htm

This guy got his degree in laser physics, and works on a variety of crank stuff. Some of it does have to do with cosmo, but I certainly wouldn't call him an expert on it.

Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)

http://www.aa.washington.edu/faculty/jarboe/

This guy is a plasma physicist, working on controlled fusion. There is no mention anywhere on his website of any research in astro or cosmo (not counting propulsion systems for spacecraft, obviously).

Two strikes and you're out.

Now that we've reduced your list further, we can ask how many astrophysicists and astronomers there are in the world. Based on the relative sizes of astro versus physics departments at US university, I would conservatively estimate at least 20,000. So we're still quite comfortably at the 99.9% level.

The thing is, you have to have a valid scientific reason to dismiss their claims, or it is you that is the crackpot. So far i have heard none.
Click to expand...

You've heard many, and ignored all of them.

If you can find one single article, webpage or science paper that refutes any of the observations the above astronomers have made, I will consider it. I am still waiting for any source that purports to debunk plasma cosmology, i have asked about seven times now, and still no-one can come up with any consistant reason to dismiss it past yelling crackpot at everyone.
Click to expand...

Same thing - many have been offered, all have been ignored. The fact is there while there are plenty of websites, there aren't very many papers on that, any more than there are many scientific papers debunking creationism. It's a waste of time to write such a thing.
 
Last edited:
Zeuzzz said:
You should discount all the people (probably about 96% of them) that are not experts in astrophysics or astronomy, as these people are usually taught the Big Bang as a fact and not a theory, and since they do not study this area they will not have any reasons to dismiss it. If you look at my list nearly all of them are experts in astronomy or cosmology.
Click to expand...
It's a fact and a theory. See innumerable discussions with creationists for a further explanation of this.

Also, in my experience the less people know about astronomy and cosmology the more likely they are to dismiss the Big Bang, as they are more likely not to understand it or the evidence for it.

If you can find one single article, webpage or science paper that refutes any of the observations the above astronomers have made, I will consider it. I am still waiting for any source that purports to debunk plasma cosmology, i have asked about seven times now, and still no-one can come up with any consistant reason to dismiss it past yelling crackpot at everyone.
Click to expand...

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html ?
 
sol invictus said:
Same thing - many have been offered, all have been ignored. The fact is there while there are plenty of websites, there aren't very many papers on that, any more than there are many scientific papers debunking creationism. It's a waste of time to write such a thing.
Click to expand...



debunking creationism? what on earth does plasma cosmology have to do with creationism? No wonder you are so unaccepting of plasma cosmology is you think it is creationism. Is it the fact that your brain cant comprehend a universe without a Big Bang mean that any alternative must be creationism? That is a luicrous position to take.

contrary to popular belief, the Big Bang doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe.

BBT excels at explaining how the universe evolved from an incredibly hot, dense volume about 13.7 billion earth-time years ago. But, it is silent on the 'origin' of that volume. It also does not assert the universe is finite in age or size, merely the observationally accessible slice.
 
edd said:
It's a fact and a theory. See innumerable discussions with creationists for a further explanation of this.

Also, in my experience the less people know about astronomy and cosmology the more likely they are to dismiss the Big Bang, as they are more likely not to understand it or the evidence for it.

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/errors.html ?
Click to expand...


I'm glad you metioned Ned's material, as most plasma cosmologists have addressed his points and thouroughly debunked his material. And his other points have been addressed too.

Dr. Wright is Wrong, a reply to Ned Wright's "Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened"

A number of people have asked me to reply to Ned Wright's critique of the BBN. Observation since the last edition of the book was published in 1992 have only served to make the arguments in it stronger and to further contradict Wright's assertions.[......]

Similar errors occur in Wright's comments on production of lithium in cosmic rays. Since this occurs when protons in cosmic rays collide with CNO atoms, naturally the abundance of lithium is relatively high in current cosmic rays, give the interstellar medium contains a few percent CNO. But in very young, formative galaxies, where only one ten-thousandth of the current levels of CNO were yet produced, Li production was reduced by a comparable amount. Indeed we find that stars with heavy element abundance 10-4 that of the sun, and a few thousand times less than the ISM, have D/Li ratios that are also a few thousand times less than the 80-to-1 ratio Wright quotes. Typically, he misquotes the ratio of D to Li observed in the oldest stars, which is about 150,000 to 1, not 6 million to 1. But to a true Big Bang believer like Dr. Wright, making an error of a factor of forty in regards to mere observations is no cause of concern. Observations, after all, do not affect faith.
Click to expand...
 
Zeuzzz said:
debunking creationism? what on earth does plasma cosmology have to do with creationism?
Click to expand...

Quite a lot.

It is rejected by the scientific mainstream, but its proponents try to make it seem as if there is no consensus by compiling lists of cranks in their camp.

It is based on faith rather than reason. In the case of plasma cosmology, that manifests itself in the lack of a mathematical, quantitative theory and the denial of all evidence.

It exists because of a tendency for humans to resist change or accept ideas their limited experience makes counterintuitive.

The proponents of both hold lots of other irrational and anti-scientific beliefs about other topics.

No wonder you are so unaccepting of plasma cosmology is you think it is creationism. Is it the fact that your brain cant comprehend a universe without a Big Bang mean that any alternative must be creationism? That is a luicrous position to take.
Click to expand...

I can easily comprehend a universe without a big bang - in fact it's much easier to comprehend. I can also prove it's wrong in many, many ways.

contrary to popular belief, the Big Bang doesn't say anything about the origin of the universe.
Click to expand...

There is no such popular belief, and anyway it's not relevant to my opinion (which is an expert opinion, not a popular belief).

BBT excels at explaining how the universe evolved from an incredibly hot, dense volume about 13.7 billion earth-time years ago. But, it is silent on the 'origin' of that volume. It also does not assert the universe is finite in age or size, merely the observationally accessible slice.
Click to expand...

That's almost correct, yes. So?

Does plasma cosmology explain where the universe came from?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom