Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

 International Skeptics Forum mathematics of black hole denialism

 Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
 Tags black holes , electric universe , Leonard Abrams , relativity , Stephen Crothers

 13th March 2012, 04:31 AM #41 tensordyne Muse     Join Date: May 2010 Posts: 693 So, Mr. Crothers is an all around tard then. __________________ I learned much from the Order of the Jesuits. Until now, there has never been anything more grandiose, on the earth, than the hierarchical organization of the Catholic church. I transferred much of this organization into my own party. — Hitler, 1933
 13th March 2012, 08:33 AM #42 sol invictus Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 8,613 Originally Posted by Vorpal I don't think the Ricci scalar is a particularly natural generalization of Gaussian curvature. Really? The Gaussian curvature of a 2D manifold is the Ricci scalar of that manifold, at least up to some numerical factor of order 1. Quote: It's defined as the product of principal curvatures of a submanifold, and so in general not proportional to the Ricci scalar. Gaussian curvature - at least in every definition I've ever heard - is defined for a 2D manifold (which can be a submanifold if you like). The Ricci scalar on the other hand is defined for any dimension, and it coincides with the Gaussian curvature in 2D. It's also the most important scalar curvature in higher dimensions, in a certain relevant technical sense. So....?
 13th March 2012, 08:36 AM #43 sol invictus Philosopher     Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 8,613 Originally Posted by tensordyne So, Mr. Crothers is an all around tard then. I suspect he's an intelligent person, at least in the narrow sense that he would score relatively highly on an IQ test. The problem is that some people get obsessed with certain topics to the point that they cannot think rationally about them, because the pain of being wrong about something they've invested so much time and effort in causes extreme cognitive dissonance. It seems to be a common phenomenon, especially on the internet (which allows that natural tendency to grow unchecked, since there are few social consequences).
 13th March 2012, 08:37 AM #44 DeiRenDopa Master Poster   Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 2,582 Originally Posted by tensordyne So, Mr. Crothers is an all around tard then. To quote Zwicky*, a spherical bastard, perhaps? Why? Because no matter what angle you look at him at, he's still a bastard! * well, that's how I remember it; maybe it's an urban myth ...
 13th March 2012, 03:31 PM #45 Vorpal Extrapolate!   Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 1,104 Originally Posted by sol invictus Really? The Gaussian curvature of a 2D manifold is the Ricci scalar of that manifold, at least up to some numerical factor of order 1. Yep. Perhaps I don't understand in what way it's natural, but a generalization based on a single match doesn't seem particularly impressive. Originally Posted by sol invictus Gaussian curvature - at least in every definition I've ever heard - is defined for a 2D manifold (which can be a submanifold if you like). The Ricci scalar on the other hand is defined for any dimension, and it coincides with the Gaussian curvature in 2D. The most common definition is applicable to 2-surfaces in E³, with mean and Gaussian curvature being the sum and product of the principal curvatures, respectively, up to a constant. This has a very obvious generalization to n-surfaces in En+1 via the trace and determinant of the shape operator, and from there any submanifold of codimension 1 anywhere. This directly applies the original definition in terms of the extrinsic principal curvatures to higher dimensions. Originally Posted by sol invictus It's also the most important scalar curvature in higher dimensions, in a certain relevant technical sense. So....? It is indeed. So there is no problem in considering the Ricci scalar important in its own right without making analogies to the Gaussian curvature except as a purely coincidental match 2-manifolds. __________________ For every philosopher, there exists an equal and opposite philosopher. They're both wrong.
 14th March 2012, 08:28 AM #46 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,852 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger Ziggurat answered your non-mathematical (scientific) question. The trouble you're having with the mathematical argument is likely to be my fault. The steps of that argument go as follows:The Painlevé-Gullstrand metric is equal to the familiar Schwarzschild metric outside the event horizon.That's exercise 25 in the "Black holes" thread. Given exercise 24, the proof of exercise 25 is just a trivial calculation using high school algebra. The r, θ, and φ coordinates of the Painlevé-Gullstrand metric are identical to the r, θ, and φ coordinates of the Schwarzschild metric (by exercise 25). The Painlevé-Gullstrand metric satisfies Einstein's field equations for empty space.(I didn't prove that, because the proof is both tedious and uncontroversial. Even Crothers agrees that the familiar Schwarzschild metric satisfies Einstein's field equations for empty space. Combined with exercise 25, that implies that the Painlevé-Gullstrand metric satisfies Einstein's field equations outside the event horizon. The coefficients of the metric are analytic in the coordinates, so the Painlevé-Gullstrand metric must satisfy the field equations at the event horizon as well. That's all we need for the following steps.) According to general relativity, light follows null geodesics. For null geodesics, ds=0. For radial geodesics, which are directed entirely toward or entirely away from the center of spherical symmetry, the conventional spherical coordinates θ (elevation) and φ (azimuth) don't change. For radial geodesics, therefore, dθ=dφ=0. At the event horizon, r=2m so β=1. Substituting ds=dθ=dφ=0 and β=1 into the Painlevé-Gullstrand metric, we find that null radial geodesics at the event horizon satisfy  0 = dr (dr + 2 d \tau) \end{align*} That means one of the two factors must be zero. That means dr=0 or dr=-2dτ. That means dr/dτ=0 or dr/dτ= - 2. That means the world line for inwardly directed radial light has coordinate velocity dr/dτ= - 2 at the event horizon. (The radial coordinate for inwardly directly radial light at the event horizon is decreasing as the time coordinate τ advances into the future.) That means the world line for outwardly directed light has coordinate velocity dr/dτ=0 at the event horizon. (The radial coordinate for outwardly directly radial light at the event horizon isn't changing.) That means a photon that's emitted radially outward at the event horizon never escapes beyond the event horizon. It stays forever at the event horizon. That also means a photon that's emitted radially inward at the event horizon proceeds rapidly toward the central singularity, contra Crothers and Farsight. If you don't understand how one of those steps follows from preceding steps, or you don't understand how one of those steps is derived, please let me know which steps require elaboration. The "fault" is mine. That's very helpful, thanks. __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 1st March 2015, 05:54 PM #48 Slings and Arrows Graduate Poster     Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: USA Posts: 1,162 "On Certain Conceptual Anomalies in Einstein’s Theory of Relativity" By Stephen J. Crothers, January 2008 (Sorry, can't post link to the article; new member -- use Google) Originally Posted by Stephen J. Crothers 4 Misconception: that Ricci = 0 is admissible Ruv=0 is inconsistent with the physical foundations of General Relativity as adduced by Einstein in that it violates Einstein’s Principle of Equivalence, and so writing Ruv=0 is erroneous in the first place. Coincidently, that Ruv=0 is inadmissible was realised independently and at about the same time as the Author, by M.W. Evans, via a different line of thought — by using ECE theory. Well, there you have it; proof positive -- small minds do think alike. Last edited by Slings and Arrows; 1st March 2015 at 06:02 PM.
 21st June 2015, 09:43 PM #49 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,355 The forum's software no longer renders LaTeX correctly, making this thread's equations unreadable. I have therefore translated my contributions to this thread into HTML hosted at another site.
 21st June 2015, 10:25 PM #50 Slings and Arrows Graduate Poster     Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: USA Posts: 1,162 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger The forum's software no longer renders LaTeX correctly, making this thread's equations unreadable. I have therefore translated my contributions to this thread into HTML hosted at another site. Excellent! Thank you for your time and effort, it is greatly appreciated. I have been anxiously waiting for months, hoping you would update the thread with readable equations. Many thanks!
 22nd June 2015, 08:07 AM #51 Slings and Arrows Graduate Poster     Join Date: Feb 2015 Location: USA Posts: 1,162 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger The forum's software no longer renders LaTeX correctly, making this thread's equations unreadable. I have therefore translated my contributions to this thread into HTML hosted at another site. I have been reviewing the equations, and it looks like you mistakenly repeated the same equation twice; probably just linked to the wrong graphical image: Leonard S. Abrams http://www.cesura17.net/~will/Epheme...hers/isf8.html
 22nd June 2015, 08:39 AM #52 W.D.Clinger Illuminator     Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 3,355 Now fixed. Thank you for spotting this.
 22nd June 2015, 12:01 PM #53 TubbaBlubba Knave of the Dudes Moderator   Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 12,590 Originally Posted by W.D.Clinger The forum's software no longer renders LaTeX correctly, making this thread's equations unreadable. I have therefore translated my contributions to this thread into HTML hosted at another site. Fantastic, this is one of my favourite threads on this forum! I very much enjoy your straightforward and understandable, yet rigorous explanations. Thank you. __________________ "The president’s voracious sexual appetite is the elephant that the president rides around on each and every day while pretending that it doesn’t exist." - Bill O'Reilly et al., Killing Kennedy
 22nd June 2015, 01:21 PM #54 BazBear Possible Suspect     Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Slightly Over The Hill, Not Too Far Around The Bend Posts: 2,569 Originally Posted by sol invictus I suspect he's an intelligent person, at least in the narrow sense that he would score relatively highly on an IQ test. The problem is that some people get obsessed with certain topics to the point that they cannot think rationally about them, because the pain of being wrong about something they've invested so much time and effort in causes extreme cognitive dissonance. It seems to be a common phenomenon, especially on the internet (which allows that natural tendency to grow unchecked, since there are few social consequences). I'd add that the internet also allows people like Crothers to recruit acolytes and find fellow travellers, forming an echo chamber that tends to further reinforce the belief that their "theories" are right. __________________ I don't see how an article of clothing can be indecent. A person, yes. - Robert A. Heinlein If Christ died for our sins, dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules Feiffer If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill
 23rd June 2015, 10:22 AM #55 Perpetual Student Illuminator     Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 4,852 My favorite Crothers quote: Quote: The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is not cosmic in origin, it is produced by the Earth’s oceans. __________________ It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong. - Richard P. Feynman ξ
 23rd June 2015, 11:30 AM #56 ben m Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,387 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student My favorite Crothers quote: Quote: The cosmic microwave background (CMB) is not cosmic in origin, it is produced by the Earth’s oceans. That's not Crother's idea, though, he's just repeating what he heard from Robitaille. They're birds of a feather, of course. In the same way that Crothers' crackpottery involves reading 100-year-old Schwarzschild papers and thinking he's the only one to have checked the math on basic GR. Robitaille's crackpottery involves reading 150-year-old Kirchhoff papers and thinking he's the only one to have done the logic on basic thermodynamics. Crothers thinks his "correct" Schwarzschild reading justifies his rejection of black holes, Robitaille thinks his "correct" reading of Kirchhoff lets him reinterpret Cosmic Microwave Background data as some sort of misidentified Earth background noise.
 23rd June 2015, 11:34 AM #57 BazBear Possible Suspect     Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Slightly Over The Hill, Not Too Far Around The Bend Posts: 2,569 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student My favorite Crothers quote: Maybe he's never heard of WMAP... or more likely he's ignored it. __________________ I don't see how an article of clothing can be indecent. A person, yes. - Robert A. Heinlein If Christ died for our sins, dare we make his martyrdom meaningless by not committing them? - Jules Feiffer If you are going through hell, keep going - Winston Churchill
 23rd June 2015, 12:58 PM #58 theprestige Penultimate Amazing   Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 26,630 Originally Posted by Perpetual Student My favorite Crothers quote: That seems either profoundly dickish or flatly insane.
 23rd June 2015, 01:25 PM #59 Darwin123 Graduate Poster   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 1,413 Originally Posted by theprestige That seems either profoundly dickish or flatly insane. This is a profoundly false dichotomy!
 23rd June 2015, 03:07 PM #60 ben m Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,387 Originally Posted by BazBear Maybe he's never heard of WMAP... or more likely he's ignored it. Well, what Robitaille does is: a) Complain about how blackbody radiation only occurs in solid-state cavities b) "Therefore" it's impossible that COBE saw blackbody radiation from deep space c) Since space is infinite, filling it with blackbody radiation ("COBE detected something with huge signal to noise!") requires an infinite power source infinitely far away (or something?) d) Makes more sense to look for a close-up solid state. Probably the Earth! e) f) g) h) Therefore cosmology is wrong! When do I get my Nobel? Or at least my Telesio prize? But he has heard of WMAP and doesn't *ignore* it per se. He just gets himself good and confused until he's convinced he's predicted that WMAP will pick up a huge Earth background and mistake it for a CMB monopole. Last edited by ben m; 23rd June 2015 at 03:08 PM.
 23rd June 2015, 03:19 PM #61 JeanTate Graduate Poster   Join Date: Nov 2014 Posts: 1,649 Some of the ben m glides over is, um, curious/funny. For example, it seems to include things like (my glosses) "water is everywhere", "water does crazy/strange/whatever things in the WMAP microwave bands", "THEREFORE WMAP detected water", "what's the biggest source of water? The Earth's oceans!", "THEREFORE WMAP detected microwave emission from the Earth's oceans! (it cannot have come from anywhere else)".
 23rd June 2015, 03:19 PM #62 hecd2 Muse     Join Date: Oct 2013 Posts: 692 Originally Posted by ben m Well, what Robitaille does is: ... But he has heard of WMAP and doesn't *ignore* it per se. He just gets himself good and confused until he's convinced he's predicted that WMAP will pick up a huge Earth background and mistake it for a CMB monopole. ignoring the fact that COBE and WMAP data are consistent and COBE was in earth orbit and WMAP at L2.
 23rd June 2015, 04:40 PM #63 ben m Philosopher   Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 6,387 Originally Posted by hecd2 ignoring the fact that COBE and WMAP data are consistent and COBE was in earth orbit and WMAP at L2. Not "ignoring" precisely. Robitaille mentions that WMAP was at L2, then subsumes it into the miasma of gibberish as though of course a satellite at L2 would be swamped by Earth radiation! He also seems aware that COBE and WMAP are reported to be consistent, but of course that's what they WOULD say.

International Skeptics Forum

 Bookmarks Digg del.icio.us StumbleUpon Google Reddit