classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Plasma and electricity in space. Failure of gravity-only cosmology. Exposing the myths of dark matter, dark energy, black holes, neutron stars, and other mathematical constructs. The electric model of stars. Predictions and confirmations of the electric comet.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Locked
User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz
Contact:

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by davesmith_au » Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:05 pm

Physicist wrote:I suspect they were just trying to get rid of him as quickly as possible ;)

This is a problem every well-known scientist encounters - a stream of scientifically mad people, each of them with the answers to life, the universe and everything, desperate for recognition and approval. It's an interesting phenomenon, and a little sad.


Ah yes, when all else fails, belittle the 'non-believer'.
Physicist wrote:... It involves what we can say about the properties of black holes ...
We cannot say a whole lot about the properties of something which only exists as a quaint theory except to say that the theory suggests "x". As we have never actually found or observed a black hole, and by definition we cannot observe them, we are left to discuss only a theory. That black holes have been given almost a life of their own is a sad indictment of the state of astrophysics and cosmology today. That the well-trained think that they are well-educated is a sad indictment of our education systems.

Cheers, Dave.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster

Physicist
Guest

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by Physicist » Sun Nov 21, 2010 3:32 pm

Ah yes, when all else fails, belittle the 'non-believer'.
Note that I'm not dismissing him on the basis of any belief system - I'm dismissing him on the basis of the fact that I've read his paper. And it didn't make sense.
We cannot say a whole lot about the properties of something which only exists as a quaint theory except to say that the theory suggests "x". As we have never actually found or observed a black hole, and by definition we cannot observe them, we are left to discuss only a theory. That black holes have been given almost a life of their own is a sad indictment of the state of astrophysics and cosmology today. That the well-trained think that they are well-educated is a sad indictment of our education systems.
Dave - I think you have to do better than these little attacks on astrophysics and cosmology and education. If black holes don't exist, then our understanding of general relativity can't be correct, and to give Mr Crothers his due that's essentially what he's trying to demonstrate.

mharratsc
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by mharratsc » Sun Nov 21, 2010 4:16 pm

Ok, with all due respect, Physicist, I feel the need to interject here.

I'm going to kick in the 'K.I.S.S.' principle here, because I'm a layman, and I feel the need to fall back on the simplest logic, ok?

I am 45 years old. In this (relatively!) short period of time, I have seen the concept of black holes evolve from 'singularities that nothing could escape from (that actually used to be a defining characteristic about the suckers you know) to the various hypotheses we see today- collapsed matter with 'disks' around them that have enormous centrifugal force that slings plasma out in collimated jets for thousands of light years.

When I came to Thunderbolts, it really was in regards to learning more about the changes in the descriptions of black holes that science was throwing out there. I was just following different links off Google and saw a link to Thunderbolts from there. I learned about their theory that they expected that the scalar nature of plasma phenomena would have the centers of galaxies look exactly like a plasmoid, just as they suspected that pulsars would, as well as possibly other energetic phenomena such as supernovae.

Pulsar:

Image

Milky Way core:

Image

Now you tell me- does THAT look like what a 'black hole' has been described as to you?

THIS is what convinced me to further explore the 'Electric Universe'. With no vested interest in 'mainstream' science, and not having a head full of 'what they taught me at the U'... I had to say that EU presented a much more believable picture than did the mathematical models of Stephen Hawking, and various others.

One other thing I might add also- I can add one glaring oversight that has been made by proponents of thermodynamic models of the Universe and everything in it:

You're not incorporating plasma behaviors at the smallest scale, and working your way upward.

'Old School' thermodynamics seems to be so very entrenched that- when 'plasma' is even mentioned in mainstream- it is mentioned only briefly, to describe some observation that absolutely, positively cannot be described by any other means.

That is not good enough.

Plasma dynamics begin to be important the moment electrons leave the valence shells of any atom and ionize it.

This is *inescapable* logic that just isn't being considered by various branches of physics (astronomy, astrophysics, meteorology, geology, what have you) and no matter how well a strictly thermodynamic explanation may suffice in describing an observation, said explanation CANNOT be considered complete without adequately describing the electromagnetic forces at work in the observation also.

Does that make sense? You simply cannot admit "Yes, electrodynamics are relevant" and then NOT incorporate them in observations... no matter how well you feel a thermodynamic explanation will suffice! Because they are there- they matter! Right? o.O

Physicist said:
Dave - I think you have to do better than these little attacks on astrophysics and cosmology and education. If black holes don't exist, then our understanding of general relativity can't be correct, and to give Mr Crothers his due that's essentially what he's trying to demonstrate.
Yes, I think you are correct- Mr. Crothers, and many others, are actually trying to point out that GR and SR are not proven incontrivertibly, and thus may be incorrect in many ways.

If you are truly a scientist- you should at least acknowledge this, no matter how convinced you are that the suspicions of mainstream science are correct, or your faith that Einstein was infallible.

As for me in Layman's Land- I have to state that I see many glaring issues that are unresolved on the Relativity side, that the folks in the EU/PC camp handle with aplomb. The failure of self-sustained fusion, non-neutrality of (first) interplanetary space, then (later) the non-neutrality of interstellar plasma, the filiamentary nature of large scale structure in the Universe, to name a few.

All these things were predicted by EU, and were "surprises" for the mainstream camp. From a layman's perspective- ok, from MY perspective (I can't speak for all laymen I suppose)- 'surprises' = you're missing something important. :?

With respects to those who've worked hard at becoming educated and labor with an honest desire to advance the knowledge of Mankind, regardless of your stance on EU. I can 'agree to disagree' and still respect the hard work put forth- on both sides of the battle. :)
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

kiwi
Posts: 564
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2010 3:58 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by kiwi » Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:15 pm

Nereid wrote:
kiwi wrote:
and that the fundamental forces and processes are actually very different
the quantum enigma deals with exactly that :)
Sorry kiwi, I still don't get it.

The part of my post you quoted was about reductionism/emergent properties (or behaviour) with respect to thermodynamics; how does 'the quantum enigma' (whatever that means) relate to thermodynamics?

Anyway, taking a hint from Aristarchus' last post, perhaps we need to stop this discussion here, in this thread?

I maybe should have qouted your comment in full that suggested you were uncertain as to the nature of and the relevance of quantum observations in science
and that the fundamental forces and processes are actually very different (QED - quantum electrodynamics - I think)?
Your confusion as to the connection I made confuses me ..... Im sure you would enjoy the book regardless
Returning to a different strand of this convoluted thread...

kiwi wrote:
could you comment on the claim made by Stephen Crothers that the accepted "Schwarzschild" model is an interpretation of the original,... and in fact the only model that cannot be worked forward and back to fit with the original, unlike the papers of Droste and others? ... yet Hilberds model is the accepted scientific basis for the propigation of Black Holes?

I can't comment on the history of the Schwarzschild solution, because I'm not a historian.
The history is there for any to read, .... http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... -05-10.PDF unless you talk physics "only", dinner partys must be quiet affairs at your place, how can you hold an opinion on anything historical?

and below is a list of associated work
Here are some important papers that deal with the Black Hole and the Big Bang. They prove that these theories are not consistent with General Relativity and have no basis in theory whatsoever.

1. On the Gravitational Field of A Sphere of Incompressible Fluid According to Einstein's Theory.
Another masterful 1916 paper by Karl Schwarzschild, also suppressed by the relativistists.

2. The field of a single centre in EINSTEIN'S theory of gravitation, and the motion of a particle in that field.
Droste's 1917 paper in which he derives for the first time the metric obtained later and corrupted by Hilbert, erroneously attributed to Schwarzschild by the experts. There is no black hole.

3. On the Theory of Gravitation.
Hermann Weyl's 1917 paper in which he obtains Droste's solution by another method. I am currently translating this paper into English from the German. Here is an incomplete and rather rough translation, but still with all the facts. I will improve it if and when I get an opportunity.

4. Black Holes: The Legacy of Hilbert's Error.
A brilliant paper by Leonard S. Abrams which demonstrates the invalidity of the Hilbert solution and the black hole.

5. The Total Space-Time for the Point Charge and its Consequences for Black Holes.
Another brillant paper by Abrams demonstrating the invalidity of the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole.

6. The Total Space-Time of a Point-Mass when λ ≠ 0, and its Consequences for the Lake-Roeder Black Hole.
Yet another interesting paper by Abrams in which he also demonstrates the invalidity of the aforesaid black hole (but his arguments are incomplete).

7. On a paper by J. Smoller and B. Temple.
A first-class demonstration by Nikias Stavroulakis (2002) that the black hole is universally inconsistent with General Relativity. The paper by Smoller and Temple shows that black holes never form in solutions of the Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations, but they do not treat of the black hole concept in general. Stavroulakis does.

8. On the Principles of General Relativity and the SΘ(4)-invariant Metrics.
A very well argued paper showing that the standard manifold with boundary is inadmissible and that a gravitating body cannot collapse to a material point. Stavroulakis also discusses in detail the invalidity of the implicit transformations routinely employed by the orthodox relativists.

9. A Statical Smooth Extension of Schwarzschild's Metric.
This is an early paper by Stavroulakis (1974) in which he disproves the black hole in general, by eliminating the manifold with boundary from all consideration, and obtains the metric for an extended spherically symmetric body.

10. Non-Euclidean Geometry and Gravitation.
Another cogent paper by Stavroulakis. This paper was published in Progress in Physics.
Here are some important papers dealing with the localisation of gravitational energy.

11. Mechanics. - On the Analytical Expression that must be given to the Gravitational Tensor in Einstein's Theory.
A very nice paper by T. Levi-Civita in 1917, one of the inventors of Tensor Calculus, showing that Einstein's pseudo-tensor is nonsense because it leads to the requirement for a first-order, intrinsic, differential invariant, which, as is well known to the pure mathematicians, does not exist! This too has been ignored by the relativists.

12. How far can one get with a Linear Field Theory of Gravitation in Flat Space-Time?.
An interesting treatment by Hermann Weyl (1944) demonstrating that the standard linearization of Einstein's equations is inadmissible because it leads to the requirement of a tensor, which, except for the trivial case of being zero, does not otherwise exist! It is in English. Another important paper ignored by the orthodox physicists.
My papers.


1. On the General Solution to Einstein's Vacuum Field and its Implications for Relativistic Degeneracy.
A derivation of the general solution for the simple 'point-mass'. It also demonstrates that the Hilbert solution (invariably and incorrectly called the "Schwarzschild solution" in the textbooks and the bulk of the research literature) does not admit a black hole, and that black holes are nonsense. It is impossible for a black hole to be derived from Schwarzschild's true solution without violating the geometry of his solution (which is precisely what the orthodox relativists have always done to get their black holes and big bangs). This paper was published in Progress in Physics. Karl Schwarzschild's original paper (in English) can be obtained here.

2. On the Ramifications of the Schwarzschild Space-Time Metric.
A derivation of the general solution for the point-charge, the rotating point-mass, and the rotating point-charge. It also demonstrates that the Reissner-Nordström solution, the Kerr solution, and the Kerr-Newman solution, do not admit black holes, and that black holes are nonsense. This paper was published in Progress in Physics.

3. On the Geometry of the General Solution for the Vacuum Field.
A detailed discussion of the significance of the coordinate radius r in the metric for the vacuum field. I show that r in general is neither a radius nor a coordinate in the gravitational field and is in fact only a real-valued parameter, and that the proper radius and the radius of curvature, both functions of r, and which are not the same in Einstein's gravitational field, are the relevant radial quantities in Einstein's gravitational field. The assumption by Hilbert and the conventional relativists that r is 'the' radius in the gravitational field is a grave error, as is the assumption that 0 < r < 2m and 2m < r < ∞ are valid ranges for r, and the assumption that a singularity can only occur in the gravitational field where the Riemann tensor scalar curvature invariant (the Kretschmann scalar), f = RαβσρRαβσρ, is unbounded. One cannot talk of r as a radius or of its range by mere assumption. Mathematical rigour must determine the nature and range of r appearing in the metric for the gravitational field, and the nature of a singularity in the field. The orthodox analysis has completely failed to appreciate that the structure of the manifold is contained in the intrinsic and invariant geometry of the metric. I rigorously prove that the orthodox assumptions are invalid. This paper was published in Progress in Physics. Errata: An incorrect statement in this paper, relating to great circles, has been corrected in this paper <A href="http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/ ... 04.PDF">On Line Elements: A Correction, also published in Progress in Physics.

4. On the Generalisation of Kepler's 3rd Law for the Vacuum Field of the Point-Mass.
I generalise Kepler's 3rd Law to the rotating point-charge, from which the expressions for Kepler's 3rd Law for all other configurations of the material point can be easily recovered. Contrary to the allegations of the relativists, Kepler's Law is modified significantly by General Relativity. This paper was published in Progress in Physics.

5. On the Vacuum Field of a Sphere of Incompressible Fluid.
In this paper I generalise Schwarzschild's solution for the gravitational field of a sphere of incompressible fluid. I also obtain an expression for Kepler's 3rd Law for this sphere. There are no singularities anywhere the gravitational field of this case. The 'point-mass' is shown to be rightly the centre of mass of an extended body. This paper was published in Progress in Physics.

6. On the General Solution to Einstein's Vacuum Field for the Point-Mass when λ ≠ 0 and its Implications for Relativistic Cosmology.
This paper proves that Einstein's General Relativity does not predict an expanding Universe, contrary to the claims of the orthodox relativists. The Friedmann solution, the Einstein-de Sitter solution, and all the general relativistic 'solutions' purporting an expanding Universe are invalid. There is no theoretical substantiation of the Big Bang hypothesis. The conventional interpretations of the Hubble relation and the Cosmic Microwave Background are inconsistent with General Relativity. This paper has been published in Progress in Physics.
Errata: In the paragraph immediately before equation (13), replace the words "... cannot be solved exactly..." with the words "... cannot be easily solved exactly ...".

7. Introducing Distance and Measurement in General Relativity: Changes for the Standard Tests and the Cosmological Large Scale.
I treat the four standard tests of General Relativity in terms of the correct general solution for the field equations, on the standard manifold with boundary, and show that there are serious practical limitations to the application of General Relativity in that only the circumference of a great circle is a measurable distance in the gravitational field. There are no practical means by which this circumference can be measured. This paper was published Progress in Physics.

8. A Short Discussion of Relativistic Geometry.
This paper was published in the Bulletin of Pure and Applied Science E (Mathematics). It gives a simple explanation of the geometrical structure of the line element and the geometrical form of spacetime, and indicates the fatal consequences for black holes and cosmology.

9. A Brief History of Black Holes.
This paper gives, in non-technical terms, a true and accurate account of the historical development of the idea of the black hole, verifiable by the literature, and shows how General Relativity has been incorrectly used to obtain it, exposing how an error in analysis has grown into a fully fledged scientific fraud. This paper was published in Progress in Physics.

10. On Isotropic Coordinates and Einstein's Gravitational Field.
In this paper I prove that (dx2 + dy2 + dz2)½ is not a co-ordinate distance in the gravitational field, contrary to the claims of the orthodox relativists concerning the standard line-element in isotropic co-ordinates. This paper was published in Progress in Physics.

11. On the Regge-Wheeler Tortoise and the Kruskal-Szekeres Coordinates.
In this paper I prove that the Regge-Wheeler (Tortoise) coordinates are inadmissible and highlight the fact that the Kruskal-Szekeres extension does not extend the Droste/Weyl/(Hibert) solution into a trapped surface but is in fact a completely separate pseudo-Riemannian manifold that has nothing to do with the gravitational field and is therefore meaningless. This paper was published in Progress in Physics.

12. Planck Partilces and Quantum Gravity.
In this paper Jeremy Dunning-Davies and I show that the so-called 'Planck particles' are not particles at all. It is proved that the claim that Planck particles are black holes is entirely false. This paper was published in Progress in Physics.

13. Relativistic Geometry and its Implications for Black Holes and Cosmology.
This paper is my presentation at the IXth International Conference, SPACE, TIME & GRAVITATION, St. Petersburg, Russia, August 7-11 2006. It expounds the fundamental geometry of Einstein's gravitational field and indicates the fatal consequences thereof for the theories of black holes and big bangs.

14. Concerning the Mistakes Committed by F. W. Hehl, C. Kiefer, et al. on Black Holes, Expansion of the Universe, and Big Bangs.
Prof. Dr. F. W. Hehl is a senior member of the Gravitation and Relativity Group of the University of Cologne. This paper is a thorough refutation of the work of Hehl, Prof. Dr. C. Kiefer, and their Group, on black holes and cosmology. Neither Hehl nor any member of his Group has responded to this refutation, despite request to do so before an international forum of scientists which also has a copy of the document and which has acknowledged it to be correct. Hehl received a copy of this document on or about 4th December 2006 and all the other members of the Cologne Group received a copy of this document on or about 6th December 2006. It is evident that Hehl, who is an editor of the journal Annalen Der Physik, and the members of his Cologne Group, think that ignoring facts and arguments which completely invalidate their work is scientific method. That is in fact scientific fraud. The international forum of scientists has also posted this document to the website of the Alpha Institute for Advanced Study.

15. Concerning the Mistakes Committed by the Relativists on Black Holes, Expansion of the Universe, and Big Bangs.
( On the Occasion of the XXIII Texas Symposium on Gravitation and Relativity, Melbourne, Australia, December 2006.)
On or about the 13th December 2006, in formal protest against the proposed funding in the sum of $20m for stage II of the Australian International Gravitational Observatory at Gingin in Western Australia, this variant of the Hehl refutation paper, in company with four other papers by different authors, was sent to the Federal Minister for Education, Science and Training, Julie Bishop MP; the Leader of the Federal Opposition, Mr. Kevin Rudd; the Minister for Science and Innovation Western Australia, Mr. Francis Logan; the Shadow Minister for Science and Innovation Western Australia, Mr. Barry House; the Director of the Australian International Gravitational Research Centre, Prof. David Blair, at the University of Western Australia; the Chariman of the ACIGA, Prof. David E. McClellend at the Australian National University; the editors of the following newspapers - The Australian, The Sydney Morning Herald, The West Australian, The Courier Mail, The Age, The Advertiser; the Executive Director of 'A Current Affair', TCN Channel 9 Sydney; and Mr. Robyn Williams, The Science Show, ABC Radio National. Go here for full details about the protest before the Australian Federal Government and the State Government of Western Australia.

This paper was also sent to all persons who presented papers dealing with aspects of black holes or big bang cosmology before the biannual Congress of the Australian Institute of Physics held in Brisbane 3 Dec. to 8 Dec. 2006, to all website lisited officials of the Australian Institute of Physics, and to all persons who presented papers dealing with aspects of black holes of big bang cosmology before the XIII Texas Symposium on Gravitational, Relativity and Cosmology held at the University of Melbourne during the week commencing Monday 11 Dec. 2006. None of the Australian Institute of Physics scientists responded, none of the contacted participants of the AIP Congress or the XXIII Texas Symposium responded.

Prof. Regind T. Cahill of Flinders University in South Australia presented an important address at the AIP Congress in Brisbane. However, I received a report that the AIP would deliberately omit professor Cahill's paper from the published Proceedings of the Congress, evidently because of its implications for the currently accepted theories and current research projects in gravitation. I sent an email inquiry to the President of the AIP requesting an explanation. Copies were sent to all AIP officials as listed on its website. The AIP ignored the inquiry. Here is the letter of inquiry. It is plain that the AIP actively engages in the suppression of science to further its own ends and those of its colleagues.

In addition these letters of protest were sent to Government and Shadow Ministers, AIGRC Director and ACIGA Chairman, with copies to the aforementioned media concerning the misdirected funding of the AIGO and related organisations.

16. Relativistic Cosmology Revisited. This paper extends my arguments contained in paper (6) above, and puts the last nails in the coffin of the Big Bang phantasmagoria. The only cosmological solutions permitted by General Relativity are spatially infinite for all values of time. This paper is published in Progress in Physics.

17. Anomalous Spacetimes.
This short and simple paper deals concisely with the invalid assumptions made by the relativists in their claims for derivation of black holes from General Relativity. The invalidity of the standard assumptions renders the black hole concept completely spurious.

18. Gravitation On a Spherically Symmetric Metric Manifold.
The unpublished paper "Anamolous Spacetimes" is incorporated into this paper as an example of the fundamental geometrical features of a spherically symmetric metric manifold. Spherically symmetry on a metric manifold is first explained, and then applied to the case of the so-called "Schwarzschild solution", clearly demonstrating thereby that black holes (and also big bangs) are inconsistent with elementary differential geometry and are therefore nonsense. This paper is published in Progress in Physics.

19. On Certain Conceptual Anomalies in Einstein's Theory of Relativity
This paper shows that Rμν = 0 violates Einstein's Principle of Equivalence, and is therefore invalid. This invalidates the black hole from a different perspective, since the black hole is allegedly derived from a solution for Rμν = 0. It also shows that point-masses are inconsistent with the Theory of Relativity and elaborates on the nature and importance of Gaussian curvature for spherically symmetric Type I Einstein spaces. The consequences of the invalidity of Rμν = 0 for conservation and localisation of energy are also discussed. Einstein's conceptions of the conservation of gravitational energy and the localisation of energy for the gravitational field are erroneous. This paper will be published in Volume 1, 2008, of Progress in Physics, and is currently available online at the Journal's website. However, this paper was modified for publication at the request of the Editorial Board because the original contained a few comments about certain proponents of the Standard Model which we considered a bit too revealing. The original form of the paper (my preferred form) can be read here and also here. This paper is not liked by the Standard Model relativists. Go here for an example of their response.

The E-Print version of the hard-copy journal Progress in Physics can be perused online here. All papers published by this journal can be downloaded free of charge.

A formal protest submitted to Government concerning funding of the misguided Australian International Gravitational Observatory is here.

My own experiences in academia for challenging "conventional wisdom" can be perused here. I was expelled from PhD candidature by the University of New South Wales.

Stephen J. Crothers.
I'm happy to call it whatever you want to call it - both Schwarzschild and Hilbert are long since dead
that sounds like a "Bridgemanism" ... you are happy to call it a fraud?
What I can vouch for is the correctness of the "Schwarzschild" solution, because I've done the math more than once myself, starting from Einstein's equations.
but Swharzchild did not produce the version you use ...... based on the information given
In it he claims that the "Schwarzschild" solution is not in fact a correct solution of Einstein's equations, and that consequently black holes aren't a prediction of general relativity. Please correct me if that's an unfair paraphrase.
thats correct .... so wouldnt you then want to familiarise your self with the history? ..... as for the actual equational error you cited , thats well beyond my abillity to understand, but hopefully one of the sharper knives around here can translate for us

cheers :)

User avatar
Jarvamundo
Posts: 612
Joined: Fri Feb 05, 2010 5:26 pm
Location: Australia

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by Jarvamundo » Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:25 pm

Aristarchus wrote:Everything.
:lol: :lol: :lol:

Stick around man... i like your style
Last edited by Jarvamundo on Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
davesmith_au
Site Admin
Posts: 840
Joined: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:29 pm
Location: Adelaide, the great land of Oz
Contact:

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by davesmith_au » Sun Nov 21, 2010 5:32 pm

Physicist wrote:
Ah yes, when all else fails, belittle the 'non-believer'.
Note that I'm not dismissing him on the basis of any belief system - I'm dismissing him on the basis of the fact that I've read his paper. And it didn't make sense.
You attempted to belittle him, that was not simply a dismissal. And that it did not "make sense" (to you) may be a reflection of the training you have received.
Physicist wrote:
We cannot say a whole lot about the properties of something which only exists as a quaint theory except to say that the theory suggests "x". As we have never actually found or observed a black hole, and by definition we cannot observe them, we are left to discuss only a theory. That black holes have been given almost a life of their own is a sad indictment of the state of astrophysics and cosmology today. That the well-trained think that they are well-educated is a sad indictment of our education systems.
Dave - I think you have to do better than these little attacks on astrophysics and cosmology and education. If black holes don't exist, then our understanding of general relativity can't be correct, and to give Mr Crothers his due that's essentially what he's trying to demonstrate.
I made no attacks. My comment was an observation which taken in context relates specifically to those who assert that black holes are beyond any reasonable doubt a reality, usually because they are not 'allowed' to think anything else.

Cheers, Dave.
"Those who fail to think outside the square will always be confined within it" - Dave Smith 2007
Please visit PlasmaResources
Please visit Thunderblogs
Please visit ColumbiaDisaster

User avatar
GaryN
Posts: 2668
Joined: Tue Apr 01, 2008 8:18 pm
Location: Sooke, BC, Canada

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by GaryN » Sun Nov 21, 2010 6:11 pm

Kurt Gödel proved that those who cannot see the entire universe might assume what they saw were universal laws; when instead these would really be nothing but subset rules, that applied only to their subset realm. Have we made this mistake? Are our NATURAL LAWS merely subset gauge rules, similar to those subset gauge rules used in quantum mechanics?
Einstein:
"I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept, i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics."
Daniel P. Fitzpatrick Jr. looks to me to be on the right track, along with Dr Milo Wolff.

Phase Coherence is the reason for the binding attractive force in ALL the 4 fundamental forces.

http://www.amperefitz.com/phase.coherence.htm
In order to change an existing paradigm you do not struggle to try and change the problematic model. You create a new model and make the old one obsolete. -Buckminster Fuller

Physicist
Guest

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by Physicist » Sun Nov 21, 2010 7:21 pm

Wow, so many things to respond to! I'll be back next weekend

8-)

Harry Costas
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 12:36 am

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by Harry Costas » Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:23 am

G'day

The classical definition of a Black Hole with a singularity in reality cannot exist. Once matter enters such a hole nothing can escape.

The maths behind it allows for properties of ultra dense nuclear matter found in the cores of star bodies greater than 3 or 4 solar masses that create killing vector fields to slow and prevent the escape of EMR. But the dipolar properties of dense nuclear matter allows for the ejection of matter allowing a cyclic event that explains an infinite universe.

Harry Costas
Posts: 241
Joined: Sat May 10, 2008 12:36 am

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by Harry Costas » Mon Nov 22, 2010 3:22 am

G'day

I came across this link:

http://arxiv.org/abs/1011.2172
p-wave Holographic Superconductors and five-dimensional gauged Supergravity

Authors: Francesco Aprile, Diego Rodriguez-Gomez, Jorge G. Russo
(Submitted on 9 Nov 2010 (v1), last revised 17 Nov 2010 (this version, v2))

Abstract: We explore five-dimensional ${\cal N}=4$ $SU(2)\times U(1)$ and ${\cal N}=8$ SO(6) gauged supergravities as frameworks for condensed matter applications. These theories contain charged (dilatonic) black holes and 2-forms which have non-trivial quantum numbers with respect to U(1) subgroups of SO(6). A question of interest is whether they also contain black holes with two-form hair with the required asymptotic to give rise to holographic superconductivity. We first consider the ${\cal N}=4$ case, which contains a complex two-form potential $A_{\mu\nu}$ which has U(1) charge $\pm 1$. We find that a slight generalization, where the two-form potential has an arbitrary charge $q$, leads to a five-dimensional model that exhibits second-order superconducting transitions of p-wave type where the role of order parameter is played by $A_{\mu\nu}$, provided $q \gtrsim 5.6$. We identify the operator that condenses in the dual CFT, which is closely related to ${\cal N}=4$ Super Yang-Mills theory with chemical potentials. Similar phase transitions between R-charged black holes and black holes with 2-form hair are found in a generalized version of the ${\cal N}=8$ gauged supergravity Lagrangian where the two-forms have charge $q\gtrsim 1.8$.

mharratsc
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by mharratsc » Mon Nov 22, 2010 8:25 am

Fiction. My motto is "Show me in the lab."

If you can't, don't even bother me with it. I will continue studying the EU/PC cosmology as the most verifiable theory to date for cosmology, thnx.
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

Nereid
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by Nereid » Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:18 pm

mharratsc wrote:Fiction. My motto is "Show me in the lab."

If you can't, don't even bother me with it. I will continue studying the EU/PC cosmology as the most verifiable theory to date for cosmology, thnx.
Just a quick question: what do you understand causes the two, often very strong, emission lines at ~500.7 and ~495.9 nm seen in so many astronomical objects (especially in planetary nebulae, but also in many galaxies)?

In astronomy sources they are called [OIII] lines, and were originally thought to be from a previously unidentified (i.e. new) element, a bit over a century ago (when spectroscopy was first applied to astronomical objects other than the Sun and Moon). Per your motto, since no one has ever seen these in the lab, they cannot be 'forbidden' (that's a technical term) electronic transitions in doubly ionised oxygen ...

mharratsc
Posts: 1405
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2009 7:37 am

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by mharratsc » Mon Nov 22, 2010 1:46 pm

Wow, where did that come from? o.O

Spectroscopy and highly ionized elements can be studied in a lab, ma'am.

"Five-dimensional gauged Supergravity"... not so much. ;)
Mike H.

"I have no fear to shout out my ignorance and let the Wise correct me, for every instance of such narrows the gulf between them and me." -- Michael A. Harrington

Nereid
Posts: 744
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:21 am

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by Nereid » Tue Nov 23, 2010 9:51 am

mharratsc wrote:Wow, where did that come from? o.O

Spectroscopy and highly ionized elements can be studied in a lab, ma'am.

"Five-dimensional gauged Supergravity"... not so much. ;)
Gravity can be studied in the lab too, and the results of all lab experiments, to date, are consistent with a theory of gravity (General Relativity, GR for short). However, the expected deflection of light by a mass of a few thousand kg cannot be observed in any lab experiment (to take one example), at least using current capabilities, because it is too small.

The behaviour of atoms and ions can be studied in the lab, and results the results of all lab experiments, to date, are consistent with a theory of electromagnetism (Quantum Electrodynamics, QED for short). However, the expected 500.7 nm electronic transition of doubly ionised oxygen cannot be observed in any lab experiment (to take one example), at least using current capabilities, because it is too rare.

The behaviour of neutrons and nuclei can be studied in the lab, and results the results of all lab experiments, to date, are consistent with a theory of the behaviour of particles (the Standard Model, SM for short). However, neutron degeneracy cannot be observed in any lab experiment (to take one example), at least using current capabilities, because it is too extreme.

And so on.

Now, as I understand what you have written, you reject the first, accept the second, and reject the third (is that correct?); if so, why?

User avatar
Aristarchus
Posts: 332
Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2010 8:05 am

Re: classical physics vs relativity: parallel electron beams

Unread post by Aristarchus » Tue Nov 23, 2010 11:16 am

In regard to testing the results of gravity as it relates to Einstein's General Theory of Relativity, Stanford is conducting the Gravity Probe B experiments, and some of its findings articulate the problems of resolving these questions on a cosmological scale:
More troublingly, in recent decades it has become impossible to match the predictions of big-bang cosmology with observation unless the thin density of matter observed in the universe (i.e. that which can be seen by emission or absorption of light, or inferred from consistency with light-element synthesis) is supplemented by much larger amounts of unseen dark matter and dark energy that cannot consist of anything in the standard model of particle physics. The observations are quite clear: the required exotic dark matter has a density some five times that of standard-model matter, and the required dark energy has an energy density some three times greater still. To date, there is no direct experimental evidence for the existence of either component, and there are strong theoretical reasons (the "cosmological constant problem") to be suspicious of dark energy in particular. There is also no convincing explanation of why two new and as-yet unobserved forms of matter-energy should be so closely matched in energy density (the "coincidence problem"). While the majority of cosmologists seem prepared to accept both dark matter and dark energy as necessary, if inelegant facts of life, others are beginning to interpret them as possible evidence of a breakdown of general relativity at large distances and/or small accelerations.

Thirdly, existing tests of general relativity have been restricted to weak gravitational fields (or moderate ones in the case of the binary pulsar). Major surprises in this regime would have been surprising, since Einstein's theory goes over to Newton's in the weak-field limit, and we know that Newtonian gravity works reasonably well. But surprises are quite possible, and even likely, in the strong-field regime. The reason why is closely related to the fourth motivation for continuing to test Einstein's theory: general relativity as it stands is incompatible with the rest of physics (i.e. the "standard model" based on quantum field theory). The problem stems from the fact that the gravitational field carries energy and thus "attracts itself" (by contrast the electromagnetic field, for example, carries no charge). In field-theory language, quantization of gravity requires an infinite number of renormalization parameters. It is widely believed that our present theories of gravity and/or the other interactions are only approximate "effective field theories" that will eventually be seen as limiting cases of a unified theory in which all four forces become comparable in strength at very high energies. But there is no consensus as to whether it is general relativity or particle physics—or both—that must be modified, let alone how. Experimental input may be our only guide to unification, the last great remaining problem in theoretical physics.
I provide this link not as a justification, but only to demonstrate the the establishment science does see and foresee problems of the accepted models.

Gravity Probe B

Evidently, the mainstream consensus science felt obligated to resort to tests outside the lab.
An object is cut off from its name, habits, associations. Detached, it becomes only the thing, in and of itself. When this disintegration into pure existence is at last achieved, the object is free to become endlessly anything. ~ Jim Morrison

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest