Thermodynamics Suggests Creation

[Justatruthseeker]

You are justifying Einstein’s work based on the calculations from a paper written about 20 years earlier using a coordinate system that has nothing in common with the system used by Einstein.
This makes as much sense as describing a procedure to change a tyre by referring to a process on how to bake a potato.
It simply confirms you are out of your depth and your understanding of the supplied links is zero.

LOL, that's about the most inane thing I have ever heard.
It was the Schwarzschild solution which solved Einsteins equations and now your complaining because he solved them..... The same year as E published his papers....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild

"He provided the first exact solution to the Einstein field equations of general relativity, for the limited case of a single spherical non-rotating mass, which he accomplished in 1915, the same year that Einstein first introduced general relativity."

Who you trying to fool with your rhetoric, yourself????

Notice how they erroneously state limited case of a single. There exists no solution for two or more comparable masses, nor even a theorum....

In equation (7) of that paper Schwarzschild uses the general isotropic transformation of the format
rⁿₙ → rⁿ - 2m for the case n=3 which is not the same as Einstein’s isotropic transformation
r → r(1+m/2r)².
To put it in a language which you can understand you are not comparing apples with apples by trying to concatenate both papers.

Says the man that thinks the solution is not a solution...

Your response is a clear indication you do not possess the intellectual capacity for comprehending Crothers’ paper (which is considerably easier to fathom than the Einstein and Schwarzschild papers) let alone the flaws in it despite my attempts in trying to make it as simple as possible for you.
As I have stated Hilbert’s version of the Schwarzschild metric with its “singularities” does work in the solar system as it explains the perihelion advance in Mercury’s orbit.

Your ad-hominem response is a clear indication you are in the "bubble"

"When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own."


When you think you can carry on an intelligent conversation without ad-hominem remarks, which I find doubtful, let me know and we will continue....

And since you don't even understand Schwarzschild found an exact solution the same year as Einstein published, I am not too hopefull on the latter either.....

 

[Justatruthseeker]

A Hubble volume is the volume of the observable universe (roughly 10^31 cubic light years). 'Hubble volume' is commonly used to refer to volumes of this size beyond the observable universe.

So are we gonna change it to Webb volumes when the James Webb telescope comes online and our observable universe becomes even larger?????

What volumes of that size beyond the observable universe?

The spectrum of young stars is not uniformly blue-shifted, but peaks at the blue end. The absorption spectrum provides confirming evidence (i.e.low metal content).

You avoided the question. Being we see red cars and not the spectrum of the original light source, what makes you think that peak in the blue is from the original star, and not the clouds of hydrogen and other gasses it must pass through on its way to us? It's more likely you are measuring nothing but the low metal content of a molecular cloud through which the light passed over those claimed vast distances.

No; they don't claim it's not recessional velocity. Recessional velocity is the rate at which the distance of some object increases relative to us, whatever the cause, and the associated redshift is a Doppler effect.

I already explained this.

No you didn't already explain this, since recessional velocity has nothing to do with space expansion and redshift.....

No, the velocity component is not the cause of the redshift. That's what you fail to understand. It is a direct cause of space "stretching" the lightwaves, which has nothing to do with the Doppler effect of waves in a medium......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Expansion_of_space

"There is a distinction between a redshift in cosmological context as compared to that witnessed when nearby objects exhibit a local Doppler-effect redshift. Rather than cosmological redshifts being a consequence of the relative velocities that are subject to the laws of special relativity (and thus subject to the rule that no two locally separated objects can have relative velocities with respect to each other faster than the speed of light), the photons instead increase in wavelength and redshift because of a global feature of the spacetime metric through which they are traveling."

Their redshift under modern quackery, has nothing to do with their recessional velocity. And why under quackery?

"Due to the expansion increasing as distances increase, the distance between two remote galaxies can increase at more than 3×108 m/s, but this does not imply that the galaxies move faster than the speed of light at their present location (which is forbidden by Lorentz covariance)."

So once z values became to high as technology increased, instead of letting redshift be falsified, they changed it to magical bending, accelerating, nothing......

But again, Hubble's law demands that redshift be directly correlated to recessional velocity, not caused by the magic expansion of space. So since it is not recessional velocity causing redshift, but magical expansion of space, Hubble's Law can not be used to correlate distance.....

Redshift is caused by light interacting with plasma in space... Which increases in density with distance, and hence redshift increases with distance, unrelated to any peculiar velocities the objects may have themselves..... There is no magical expanding nothing.....

http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/hubble/

 

[sjastro]

Not entirely sure what my intellectual level qualifies me for.

But my education level is certainly insufficient for the discussion you guys are having.

Using the Einstein and Schwarzschild papers as a reference it requires a knowledge of tensor calculus generally acquired at honours level in Applied Mathematics (based on my own education many years ago) to understand.
The lower the intellectual level the more superficial the papers are treated as the resident "I know better than anyone else" is displaying in spades.

 

[sjastro]

LOL, that's about the most inane thing I have ever heard.
It was the Schwarzschild solution which solved Einsteins equations and now your complaining because he solved them..... The same year as E published his papers....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Schwarzschild

"He provided the first exact solution to the Einstein field equations of general relativity, for the limited case of a single spherical non-rotating mass, which he accomplished in 1915, the same year that Einstein first introduced general relativity."

Who you trying to fool with your rhetoric, yourself????

Notice how they erroneously state limited case of a single. There exists no solution for two or more comparable masses, nor even a theorum....




Says the man that thinks the solution is not a solution...

So now your post has degenerated into outright lying with this pathetic attempt in feigning comprehension on a subject matter that you have no knowledge or understanding of.
I can call your bluff by asking you to show how the mathematics in both papers lead to their conclusions but we both know that would be a total waste of time……..

Your ad-hominem response is a clear indication you are in the "bubble"

"When people have actual reasons for disagreeing with you, they offer those reasons without hesitation. Strangers on social media will cheerfully check your facts, your logic, and your assumptions. But when you start seeing ad hominem attacks that offer no reasons at all, that might be a sign that people in the mass hysteria bubble don’t understand what is wrong with your point of view except that it sounds more sensible than their own."

I did check your facts, your logic and your assumptions………and came to the conclusion you are not exactly the sharpest tool in the shed.
I’ll take it a step further; it is outright stupidity to engage in an argument where you have no knowledge of the subject matter.
It was never my intention to even engage in a discussion with you as my first post was directly towards another member who has shown a genuine interest in the subject.
You decided to butt in with your brand of nonsense resulting in the consequences.

When you think you can carry on an intelligent conversation without ad-hominem remarks, which I find doubtful, let me know and we will continue....

And since you don't even understand Schwarzschild found an exact solution the same year as Einstein published, I am not too hopefull on the latter either.....

You don’t need me for you to explain how all the problems in astrophysics and cosmology are solved if mainstream scientists considered plasma.
Why don’t you enlighten us for example by showing how the rotation curve problem of galaxies is solved by the use of plasma physics.

This would be Nobel Prize winning material.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So are we gonna change it to Webb volumes when the James Webb telescope comes online and our observable universe becomes even larger?????

No. Neither the James Webb telescope or any conceivable telescope will change the size of the observable universe - in this context defined as a spherical region surrounding an observer beyond which objects recede from that observer at a rate greater than the speed of light.

What volumes of that size beyond the observable universe?

What do you mean? I've explained the idea of the cosmological multiverse.

You avoided the question. Being we see red cars and not the spectrum of the original light source, what makes you think that peak in the blue is from the original star, and not the clouds of hydrogen and other gasses it must pass through on its way to us? It's more likely you are measuring nothing but the low metal content of a molecular cloud through which the light passed over those claimed vast distances.

You'll have to ask the astronomers & cosmologists who specialise in that kind of thing - or DYOR.

No you didn't already explain this, since recessional velocity has nothing to do with space expansion and redshift.....

Well yes, I did, and yes it does.

No, the velocity component is not the cause of the redshift. That's what you fail to understand. It is a direct cause of space "stretching" the lightwaves, which has nothing to do with the Doppler effect of waves in a medium......

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshift#Expansion_of_space

Yes, I stand corrected - it's true that the expansion of space is the reason for the red-shift; it's generally called a Doppler effect in respect of Hubble's Law which was derived this way (and it's experimentally indistinguishable from Doppler red-shift as the difference doesn't become significant until the recession velocity approaches c).

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Using the Einstein and Schwarzschild papers as a reference it requires a knowledge of tensor calculus generally acquired at honours level in Applied Mathematics (based on my own education many years ago) to understand.
The lower the intellectual level the more superficial the papers are treated as the resident "I know better than anyone else" is displaying in spades.

And yet all the experts agree that Schwarzschild gave an exact solution, which you claim he didn't. So I'll accept their testimony over yours any day .......

 

[Justatruthseeker]

No. Neither the James Webb telescope or any conceivable telescope will change the size of the observable universe - in this context defined as a spherical region surrounding an observer beyond which objects recede from that observer at a rate greater than the speed of light.

I sure wish I could be standing next to you when further galaxies are found, beyond Hubbles ability to gather enough light...... Your expression would be enlightening.... Just as 24" telescopes "see" further than 4" telescopes....

What do you mean? I've explained the idea of the cosmological multiverse.

Agreed, you have conjectured incredibly about things that can never be observed.....

You'll have to ask the astronomers & cosmologists who specialise in that kind of thing - or DYOR.

I have, and that's why I know that the light I see from a red car, contains none of the original lights spectrum.....

Yes, I stand corrected - it's true that the expansion of space is the reason for the red-shift; it's generally called a Doppler effect in respect of Hubble's Law which was derived this way (and it's experimentally indistinguishable from Doppler red-shift as the difference doesn't become significant until the recession velocity approaches c).

But that's just it, the velocity does approach c and beyond.... Which means it can't be a Doppler shift, because that is forbidden. But since it is not recessional velocity but magic expansion which stretches light, then the Doppler interpretation can not be used, because it is not a Doppler effect.

And there is none, zilch, zero experimental evidence that any magic expansion is occurring or that it can stretch light, or that it is correlated to the affects of a Doppler shift.

They simply stuck in math that gave approximately the same answer, without any correspondence principle that the math is correct or that expansion happens.

it is not experimentally indistinguishable. There is not a single experiment that confirms space expansion. Only recessional velocity which we know it is not. So once again, Hubble's law can not be used to calculate distances...... Space supposedly only expands way out that-a-way.

As one approaches the speed of c, does the distance between objects increase or decrease or remain the same?

 

[sjastro]

And yet all the experts agree that Schwarzschild gave an exact solution, which you claim he didn't. So I'll accept their testimony over yours any day .......

Congratulations.
Your response does a far better job in conveying why the subject matter is beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension than I can put into words.
The issue has never been about the Schwarzschild metric being an exact solution, all coordinate versions are exact solutions.
The issue is how the solutions are physically interpreted which formed the basis of my post to FB which you butted into.
Your level of comprehension is reduced to the simplistic idea that black holes do not exist because Einstein said so.
Yet the experts are overwhelmingly in favour of their existence plus the evidence to support it.
Hopefully later on the year the icing will be put on the cake when the first images of a black holes's event horizon are released.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Congratulations.
Your response does a far better job in conveying why the subject matter is beyond your intellectual capacity for comprehension than I can put into words.
The issue has never been about the Schwarzschild metric being an exact solution, all coordinate versions are exact solutions.
The issue is how the solutions are physically interpreted which formed the basis of my post to FB which you butted into.
Your level of comprehension is reduced to the simplistic idea that black holes do not exist because Einstein said so.
Yet the experts are overwhelmingly in favour of their existence plus the evidence to support it.
Hopefully later on the year the icing will be put on the cake when the first images of a black holes's event horizon are released.

No the experts are not overwhelmingly in favor of their existence.

That will be pure fakery if it is.

because we know that near the event horizon time dilation occurs, so that it takes an infinite amount of time for any information to reach any sufficient distance from the event horizon....

"To a distant observer, clocks near a black hole appear to tick more slowly than those further away from the black hole.[68] Due to this effect, known as gravitational time dilation, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite time to reach it..[69]

Therefore any light passing the edge of the event horizon, but not caught in it, would take an infinite amount of time to leave the vicinity.

So we can be sure these images will not be of an actual event horizon, no matter that fakers might portray them as such in order to support their deluded imaginations.....

 

[sjastro]

No the experts are not overwhelmingly in favor of their existence.

That will be pure fakery if it is.

because we know that near the event horizon time dilation occurs, so that it takes an infinite amount of time for any information to reach any sufficient distance from the event horizon....

"To a distant observer, clocks near a black hole appear to tick more slowly than those further away from the black hole.[68] Due to this effect, known as gravitational time dilation, an object falling into a black hole appears to slow as it approaches the event horizon, taking an infinite time to reach it..[69]

Therefore any light passing the edge of the event horizon, but not caught in it, would take an infinite amount of time to leave the vicinity.

So we can be sure these images will not be of an actual event horizon, no matter that fakers might portray them as such in order to support their deluded imaginations.....

Oh please stop embarrassing yourself.
The event horizon will be observed as a silhouette against photons emitted from the accretion disk that are nowhere near the event horizon.
To then go on and use black hole arguments when you don't even believe in their existence because Einstein said so is ridiculously contradictory.
Then there is the summary dismissal of the evidence even before it has come in.

Another fine example of the intellectual level you operate at.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Oh please stop embarrassing yourself.
The event horizon will be observed as a silhouette against photons emitted from the accretion disk that are nowhere near the event horizon.
To then go on and use black hole arguments when you don't even believe in their existence because Einstein said so is ridiculously contradictory.
Then there is the summary dismissal of the evidence even before it has come in.

Another fine example of the intellectual level you operate at.

You need to stop embarrassing yourself instead.

One must use fantasy arguments when discussing fantasy...... If we started discussing reality we wouldn't be discussing black holes, but electromagnetic effects in plasma..... You know, actual laboratory experiments with what makes up 99.9% of the universe, something astronomers and cosmologists aren't that familiar with....

Under fantasy theories (read Fairie Dust) the accretion disk is the point next to the horizon where matter either falls into the black hole or radiates outwards. Due to the tremendous gravitational influence it speeds up the disc to tremendous velocities. So don't even try that bogus claim of it is nowhere near the event horizon..... It is well within the strong gravitational influence and time dilation effects or the gravity would not be causing it to rotate at such tremendous speeds under fantasy theory (read Fairie Dust)......

You can't even keep your story logically straight......

“We have to learn again that science without contact with experiments is an enterprise which is likely to go completely astray into imaginary conjecture.”
— Hannes Alfvén

 

[RealityCheck01]

Yes there is. The Cosmos.
"By Law" it is the result of a some initial cause
...

Very wrong, SkyWriting.
"By Law" we have no idea what happened at t = 0 because the current laws of physics break down there! Inflation means that we should never know what happened there. There are speculative theories and what I have seen is no beginning and no cause for the universe.

Strictly speaking, matter (atoms, protons, etc..) did not exist in the very early universe.
Timeline of the formation of the Universe. Volume occupying "substances" did not appear until the hadron epoch at t ~ 10-6 seconds. The matter era started at t ~ 10 seconds. Atoms appeared at t ~ 3 minutes.

 

[SkyWriting]

Very wrong, SkyWriting.
"By Law" we have no idea what happened at t = 0 because the current laws of physics break down there! Inflation means that we should never know what happened there. There are speculative theories and what I have seen is no beginning and no cause for the universe.

Strictly speaking, matter (atoms, protons, etc..) did not exist in the very early universe.
Timeline of the formation of the Universe. Volume occupying "substances" did not appear until the hadron epoch at t ~ 10-6 seconds. The matter era started at t ~ 10 seconds. Atoms appeared at t ~ 3 minutes.

I appreciate your appreciation of your religion and your faith.
All past events are faith.
Certainly your dream about time zero is faith.
Unless you have an experiment I can support your faith with?
Or do I just bow to your lectures on the beginning? Na.
But thank you for your interest in my knowledge base.
I appreciate your desire to fix my particular views.

Under current reality, everything has a cause.
When that changes for me...listen for three knocks late, late at night.

 

[RealityCheck01]

..
"What the theoreticians routinely fail to state clearly is that the black hole comes from a solution to Einstein’s field equations when....

You need to learn what a credible source is, Justatruthseeker.
This is Stephen J. Crothers

Stephen J. Crothers (born 1957) is a handyman/gardener and part-time amateur scientist who claims that black holes do not exist, and are neither predicted by nor compatible with General Relativity.[2] His body of work consists primarily of articles that he posts at either viXra or his own personal website,[3][4] thus steering clear of the peer review process. He has also been a frequent guest speaker at the annual EU conferences held by the Electric Universe crowd.[5][6][7]

Crothers is currently listed as a staff member at the Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies;[8] a minuscule (in size and influence) group of misfits and malcontents headed by "free energy" crank Myron W. Evans.[9]

Crothers and Evans co-authored the book Criticisms of the Einstein Field Equation,[10] which advocates replacing General Relativity with the widely-discredited Einstein-Cartan-Evans (ECE) theory; a pseudoscience theory invented by Myron Evans, and used as justification for perpetual motion machines and various free energy scams.[11][12][13]

In 2005, Crothers was expelled from the University of New South Wales; all the sordid details of the incident are chronicled at his website, which he falsely attributes to "suppression of science".[14] Undeterred by his forced dismissal from academics, Crothers would soon go on to receive an honorary doctorate degree from the Maxwell Einstein University;[15][16] a fake, make-believe school created by his colleague and partner in crime, Myron Evans, for the sole purpose of doling out phony diplomas to his cohorts and cronies.

That paper is one of his rants about the historical background of black holes. The first lie is that anyone says that the Newtonian dark star is an actual black hole as in General Relativity. They are an analogy for black holes.

The lies do not stop there. It is textbook physics confirmed by physics students every year that the Schwarzschild metric describes a black hole. A "meaningless Kruskal-Szekeres extension" lie (Kruskal–Szekeres coordinates are one of several meaningful extensions). There is good empirical evidence that black holes exist.

 

[RealityCheck01]

I appreciate your appreciation of your religion and your faith. ...

13 August 2018 SkyWriting: A "your religion and your faith" lie followed by nonsense.
I am an atheist. Sceince is not religion.

 

[RealityCheck01]

Under fantasy theories (read Fairie Dust) the accretion disk is the point next to the horizon where matter either falls into the black hole or radiates outwards. ...

13 August 2018 Justatruthseeker: "Under fantasy theories (read Fairie Dust)" gibberish and ignorance.
The accretion disk around a black hole is formed just like any accretion disk. There may be a cloud of gas surrounding a body when it forms. In falling gas either hits the central body, misses the body and slingshots away or forms an orbit around the body.

Accretion disks are hot. They emit photons outward and inward. Thus "The event horizon will be observed as a silhouette against photons emitted from the accretion disk that are nowhere near the event horizon" is a valid science. I will add is that it is photons from any background plasma, not only from the accretion disk.
Imaging black holes (1 April 2018)

The Event Horizon Telescope will combine data from a worldwide network of radio telescopes to image the shadow that a black hole casts on the surrounding plasma.

EHT Status Update, May 1 2018

EHT scientists have been using data from these calibrators to refine techniques for processing the combined data into images. Independent teams within the EHT have developed novel algorithms to convert the raw VLBI data into maps of radio emission on the sky. Using EHT data on the quasars to test these new methods, the teams are all now producing very similar images, giving us confidence that the tools developed over the past year are robust enough to be applied to Sgr A* and M 87 -- black holes large enough that we may be able to see ’silhouettes’ of their event horizons.

 

[RealityCheck01]

For others.
You may be wondering why the crank Stephen J. Crothers appearing at Electric Universe conferences is so bad?
An "Electric Universe" conference does not include working, published astronomers or cosmologists!
The Thunderbolts part of EU (the holders of the conference) is close to a cult. They are followers of Immanuel Velikovsky who thought that shared myths trumped science and then lied about the myths he used, e.g. Venus from Jupiter was a Greek myth borrowed by Romans, manna from heaven has 1 source, the Sun and Moon halting has 1 source, etc.
There are a handful of living "prophets". Talbott (a mythologist), Thornhill (has an apparently never used physics degree) and Scott (a retired electrical engineer).
There are a handful of "holy texts". Some books by Talbott, Thornhill and Scott. Some papers by Scott.
There are adherents mindlessly parroting "cult" dogma.

What makes Thunderbolts into a crank cult is the sheer idiocy of their "science". Picking a couple of the more obvious ones.

• They have solar fantasies that are ignorant about astronomy 101.
  They think that stars are externally heated via invisible electric currents (no fusion or fusion at the surface depending on the author). But stars have to be centrally heated or they collapse, e.g. the Sun into a dwarf star. We detect neutrinos with no gamma radiation and thus from fusion deep inside the Sun. Astronomy 101 than tells us that fusion happens at the core of the Sun.
• A delusion that comets are rocks blasted from rocky planets by electrical discharges between the planets as they whizz around the solar system (borrowed and extended from Velikovsky in the 1950's).
  We have 70 years of measurements that the density of comets are less than water using multiple techniques ! We have detected water and dust being ejected from a comet by an impactor. We have detected some ice on the surface of some comets. Comet jets are what we expect from sublimating ices. The Rosetta spacecraft visited Comet 67P and landed (sort of) a lander which allowed us to measure the comet mass (and so a density of 0.533 g/cc) and33porosity (~70 %).

 

[Brightmoon]

I check for color differences first.

oh cmon I’ve got a biology degree and I even know something about how metals are detected in stars which I learned in middle school in the 60s

 

[SkyWriting]

13 August 2018 SkyWriting: A "your religion and your faith" lie followed by nonsense.
I am an atheist. Sceince is not religion.

It's not a religion for me, but we all place our faith in something bigger than ourselves and trust it is true and let it guide us.

And I like the rest and do not fear my claims:

All past events are faith.
Certainly your dream about time zero is faith.
Unless you have an experiment I can support your faith with?
Or do I just bow to your lectures on the beginning? Na.
But thank you for your interest in my knowledge base.
I appreciate your desire to fix my particular views.
Under current reality, everything has a cause.

Thanks!

 

[SkyWriting]

Inflation means that we should never know what happened there.

"Inflation means" no such thing.