It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Mathematician Claims Black Holes Don't Add Up!

page: 1
43
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 02:37 AM
link   
Well, it seems there was an interesting recent article on an alternative science web site regarding black holes:

(Bringing the Black Hole Fallacy Into Focus)
www.thunderbolts.info...

It was more-or-less a rehash of several prior articles:

(Black Holes, Unicorns and All That Stuff...)
www.thunderbolts.info...

&

(Big Bang Busted! -- The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics)
www.thunderbolts.info...

I thought it was still a bit overly technical for the average Joe or Josephine...

So, I summarized it here:

(Mathematician Claims Black Holes Are the Result of Bad Math!)
digg.com...
www.nowpublic.com...

The long and short of it is this:

Black holes are fictional entities! The equation Ric = Rij = 0 describes a spacetime with NO MATTER IN IT! We HAVE matter in our spacetime... Ergo, there's a problem in "black hole" theoretical physics / mathematics...

Likewise, the so-called "Schwarzchild radius" is not a physical "radius" of a sphere in 3D space or 4D spacetime. It's a "radius of curvature," or a measure of how curved a surface is! So, the notion that it's the so-called radius to a 3D event horizon is inaccurate.

Those are the basic devastating arguments, but he makes others and claims to have rigorously mathematically proven that black holes are absurd. He also references various papers from the original scientists / mathematicians who wrote papers on the topic. He claims that Schwarzchild, Droste and Brillouin all got it "right" in showing that NO BLACK HOLE was possible, whereas Hilbert was not rigorous and corrupted Droste's work, thus more-or-less "inventing" the black hole, where none ACTUALLY exists.

I personally don't understand the maths involved, but Crothers appears to, and says black holes are bunkum, mathematically speaking. I suggest this is one for the math and physics heavyweights to wrestle with!

I'll weigh out on the issue there and let conversation go where it must. Mathematically / physically speaking...

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin




posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 03:19 AM
link   
I notice that the website you link to is a refuge for electric-universe enthusiasts. As far as I know, 'electric universe' or 'plasma universe' models do not constitute a complete physical theory that explains essential facts about the universe or makes testable predictions. Correct me if I'm wrong.

It's true that all the most advanced physical theories current in the science community are also incomplete and many, such as string theory, don't seem to be falsifiable, but for all that they are a good deal more coherent and consistent than electric-universe models, which seem to demand the unification of fundamental forces without showing how this unification could take place in such a way as to accord with what we know about the universe.

Additionally, the author of one of the articles you link to, Stephen Crothers, appears to be a scientific outcast with a supermassive chip on his shoulder who refuses to accept that his ideas are wrong even after other qualified scientists have looked at his work and told him so.

Finally, what about the evidence for black holes from cosmology? Gravitational lensing? Gamma-ray bursts? Signs of supermassive black holes at the centres of galaxies, including our own? All misinterpretations of plasma phenomena?



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
I notice that the website you link to is a refuge for electric-universe enthusiasts. As far as I know, 'electric universe' or 'plasma universe' models do not constitute a complete physical theory that explains essential facts about the universe or makes testable predictions. Correct me if I'm wrong.


It does, in fact make predictions, several of which appear to be confirmed. But that is neither here not there and not germane to the discussion of black holes, as expounded upon by Crothers, so I won't jump the rails into a discussion of EU stuff. He's just a guest contributor there.


Additionally, the author of one of the articles you link to, Stephen Crothers, appears to be a scientific outcast with a supermassive chip on his shoulder who refuses to accept that his ideas are wrong even after other qualified scientists have looked at his work and told him so.


Thus far I've only seen out-of-hand dismissals by people who have made their careers of of study of "black holes," etc. However, I have not seen specific refutations of the technical points Crothers raises. To wit, according to Crothers, neither has he... Which is kind of the point.

He says there's a lot of hand-waving dismissal, but nobody has actually taken the time to assess the technical merits of the arguments nor revisit the original Schwarzchild / Droste / Brillouin papers wherein black holes were shown to be false (which he claims were rigorous) or the Hilbert paper(s) (which he claims were not rigorous).

It's one thing to steadfastly believe in black holes and eschew outside opinion that they are false. It's another to technically analyze the arguments and either uphold or refute them.

Can you please point me to specific mathematically rigorous refutations? Would be interesting to see.

Thanks,
~Michael Gmirkin



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

what about the evidence for black holes from cosmology? Gravitational lensing? Gamma-ray bursts? Signs of supermassive black holes at the centres of galaxies, including our own? All misinterpretations of plasma phenomena?


Frankly, gravitational lensing has been done to death. There seems to be no consistency in the things astronomers claim to be due to "lensing" and many "lensing" claims seem to be at odds with what one would expect of a gravitational lens. IE, from my limited understanding, a gravitational lens should distort a background object into a ring around the foreground object, more-or-less. In several cases, though, they claim that multiple distinct objects are "lensed" into multiple discrete images, rather than a single smeared out ring / image.

It's clear that GRBs exist. Their genesis, however, is not.

What specific "evidence" are you referring to re: black holes? Astronomers insistence that anything / everything energetic is a black hole, while simultaneously ignoring all evidence for currents in space (by definition, the magnetic fields seen threading space are de facto evidence of flowing currents!)?

Misinterpretations of plasma phenomena? Quite possibly. You might poke around the recent holoscience.com news releases, as Thornhill has offered perspectives on galaxies, galaxy cores, gravitation (mechanism, not just post facto description of its effect).

Thornhill offers an alternative to black holes in the form of high density plasmoids (which can and do produce axial particle beams like those seen expelled by so-called "black holes;" whereas the heretofore "eaters of all" should gobble everything up from all directions like a cosmic drain and give nothing back, at least in the original formulations of the "black hole" concept).

Another unrelated alternative is the MECO (Magnetospheric Eternally Collapsing Object; if I recall the acronym correctly)... There are probably others.

But anyway, I digress. Discussion plasma cosmology / electric universe stuff should really be reserved for a different section of the board (I'm pretty sure it's already being discussed elsewhere).

Regards,
~Michael



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:27 AM
link   
Blackholes "burn up" in our atmosphere.

We have nothing to worry about.



posted on Sep, 8 2008 @ 11:49 AM
link   
I LIKE scientific mavericks

What that term really means is the alleged maverick has refused to toe whatever line is currently considered 'career enhancing'. The maverick has 'dared' to state that the Emperor Wears No Clothes.


Velikovsky was described as a maverick ...during his lifetime. These days of course, his theories are being plagiarised by all the ambitious hopefuls.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 04:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6
I LIKE scientific mavericks

What that term really means is the alleged maverick has refused to toe whatever line is currently considered 'career enhancing'. The maverick has 'dared' to state that the Emperor Wears No Clothes.


Velikovsky was described as a maverick ...during his lifetime. These days of course, his theories are being plagiarised by all the ambitious hopefuls.



Velikovsky was also wrong on all points.

EDIT: Many of his points were unfairly dismissed without enough (or, quite likely, any!) study by the scientific community, which was a disservice to the man. However, later evidence decidedly proved him wrong. Just because you're laughed at or persecuted doesn't mean you're right.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by mdiinican]



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 06:40 AM
link   
reply to post by mgmirkin
 


Can you please point me to specific mathematically rigorous refutations? Would be interesting to see.

And just how many reputable scientists, do you think, are going to waste their time refuting the writings of a man who couldn't even get himself a Ph.D?

Come, Mr. Gmirkin: let us be realistic. Anyone who does science knows that you need to have a doctorate before you're even allowed to play. Getting one isn't really that hard. If your big idea is so controversial that nobody in the field will take it seriously, then simply choose some reliable mainstream subject, pick a corner of it that you can live with, work on it, write up your new but deeply unsurprising conclusions and voila!, there's your Ph.D. Meanwhile, you keep working on your big idea in your spare time. When you're ready and have a solid body of published work in other subjects to back you up, you hit the orthodoxy with your new heresy and listen with satisfaction to their howls of pain and rage.

Many if not most leading scientists with unconventional ideas have followed that path. It's what you have to do to stay in the academy. Others, a minority to be sure, have retired from academic life and worked quietly on their own until they had a body of work rigorous and substantial enough to get their ideas taken seriously.

Mr. Crothers appears to be temperamentally unfit to do either. Essentially he is a man whose Ph.D. thesis was rejected and who has responded to this not uncommon occurrence by railing against what looks to me like every real scientist he's ever met. Notice he doesn't have a good word for even one of his might-have-been-colleagues.

I am not competent to parse his mathematics, but I'm an expert at plain English; Mr. Crothers is nothing but a thwarted brat.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 07:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
I notice that the website you link to is a refuge for electric-universe enthusiasts. As far as I know, 'electric universe' or 'plasma universe' models do not constitute a complete physical theory that explains essential facts about the universe or makes testable predictions. Correct me if I'm wrong.


Plasma cosmology is based on observation and provable plasma physics, as opposed to the current paradigm that relies on invisible intangible forces such as dark matter, dark energy, strange matter, impossible black holes, impossible neutron stars.. in fact standard cosmology is a plethora of untestable theories that are impossible falsify.
Yep your wrong BTW


Can we lay off the ad hominem attacks Asty? It's obvious few are capable of understanding the math and it's obvious Crothers is an intelligent man. Yet your attacking him based on what? his use of language? or is it because he disagrees with the consensus? How about you attack his argument instead, that I imagine would be much more difficult.



posted on Sep, 9 2008 @ 10:18 AM
link   
Originally posted by Astyanax


Come, Mr. Gmirkin: let us be realistic. Anyone who does science knows that you need to have a doctorate before you're even allowed to play.


This is a good example of precisely how the game is played- no Ph.D, we don't have to answer you. What a convenient way of avoiding dealing with truth!

Also, consider this- just because one wears the term "doctor" does not automatically confer right thinking. After all, the doctorate is awarded by other doctorates, who got theirs from other doctorates, etc.,...who all just happen to agree with each other! Remember, it was not too long ago that medical doctors believed that you could cure a person by draining their blood!!

science42



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:22 AM
link   
reply to post by squiz
 


Plasma cosmology is based on observation and provable plasma physics.

And does plasma cosmology furnish a comprehensive world-picture in the same way as general relativity does, or Newtonian mechanics did? In other words, is it consistent both within itself and in its predictions about the real world?

And can it fill in the blanks where general relativity and extrapolations of it fall short? Can it, for example, explain why the fundamental constants have the value they do? Can it provide us with a good model of quantum gravity?

Don't just tell me; show me, please.


Can we lay off the ad hominem attacks Asty? It's obvious few are capable of understanding the math and it's obvious Crothers is an intelligent man. Yet your attacking him based on what? his use of language? or is it because he disagrees with the consensus? How about you attack his argument instead, that I imagine would be much more difficult.

How good is your mathematics, squiz? Are you capable of following Crothers's maths? I have already admitted that I cannot. But what I am an expert in is human nature; I have made a good living out of this expertise. The basis of my attack on Crothers are the facts about him on the page I linked to earlier and what he quite clearly reveals about his personality from his writing on that page.

I have no investment, emotional or material, in general relativity and the Standard Model. I am not a physicist, merely a former student of the subject who remains an enthusiast. However, my outlook is indeed heavily invested in the scientific method and the scientific worldview. Someone like Crothers is not a scientist. That isn't because he lacks a Ph.D; it is because he is clearly incapable of admitting the possibility that he might be wrong. Not only is this childish, it is a disqualification from doing science.

And - to save you the trouble of reading me the conspiracy buff's standard lecture on the obscurantism of the scientific establishment - let me at once admit that there are scientific orthodoxies in every subject and these can sometimes be very powerful, to the detriment of science. Still, that does not mean that every maverick is right.

As you perhaps already know, controversy is an integral element of how science is done. This is especially true in theoretical physics; theoretical physicists' work involves a lot of arguing among themselves, some of it quite heated. The people at the cutting edge rarely agree with one another.

In addition to finding plenty of scope for controversy withing the academy, theoretical physicists have a hell of a lot of work to do. None of them is going to waste time debunking, or even paying attention to, the claims of one who cannot keep his temper and his opinions to himself long enough to earn himself a doctorate. Such people and their work are not even worth discussing. And indeed, I propose to discuss Mr. Crothers no further.

[edit on 10-9-2008 by Astyanax]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
And can it fill in the blanks where general relativity and extrapolations of it fall short? Can it, for example, explain why the fundamental constants have the value they do? Can it provide us with a good model of quantum gravity?
Don't just tell me; show me, please.


No one is claiming it's a unified theory Asty, as far as my understanding of it goes, plasma cosmology only attempts to explain the observations and makes no claims to unlocking the secrets of the universe, it has no explanation for the beginnings of the universe and to my knowledge makes no attempt to explain it, it's all about what we can see and to a certain extent what is testable.
But yes to me, it does form a complete world view much clearer than that of general relativity, however this is my personally formed opinion. The universe is 99.999% plasma and fractal in design.
Einsteins theory is a theory of gravity it does not include electrified plasma, In Einsteins universe space was a complete vacuum and the milky way was the extent of the universe, how can that make for a complete picture? The result of a Einsteinium universe are the inventions of mythical forces to make the field equations add up. Hence dark matter, more than just a little fudge factor but a whopping 96%. Come on! anyone can see there's a problem here, and still we search for dark matter, could it be that maybe just maybe the equations are wrong?
Interesting that you mention Newtonian physics as you know it's accurate to a point but is not the whole truth, a good example of how a theory can appear to be correct. The same is true with relativity there are other explanations that fit into the Einsteinium frame work.
What appeals to me about Plasma Cosmology it only attempts to explain what is observable and true. There are no invented forces or reinventing of physics to force observations to fit a theory.

You seem to think it's some sort of pseudo science, it's far from it, it's an extension of plasma physics. The big bang theory on the other hand fits all the prerequisites for pseudo science and IMO is the limit of credulity, in other words if you can believe that you can believe anything.

Plasma Cosmology and EU have made dozens of successful predictions, This is proof that it's valid. I'm not sure the current paradigm can make the same claim.



my outlook is indeed heavily invested in the scientific method and the scientific worldview. Someone like Crothers is not a scientist. That isn't because he lacks a Ph.D; it is because he is clearly incapable of admitting the possibility that he might be wrong. Not only is this childish, it is a disqualification from doing science.


Ha, now that is funny, scientific method? one of the key ideas in the scientific method is falsification and something I whole heartily agree with. Take for example the redshift argument one of the three pillars of the big bang this has been falsified dozens of times and yet the scientific community still drudges on in ignorance. There are also many valid alternatives for the CMB and the abundance of light elements. (correctly predicted by PC).
As for Crothers not being able to admit he is wrong, well that may be true I don't know the man myself so I couldn't say. The irony here is that the entire scientific field of astronomy has difficulty in admitting it's wrong, and many will not take a stand for fear of losing tenure or standing amongst peers.
This is not the case in all sciences, It's only cosmology I think that suffers from this ingrained dogma, It's more like religion in many ways.


And - to save you the trouble of reading me the conspiracy buff's standard lecture on the obscurantism of the scientific establishment - let me at once admit that there are scientific orthodoxies in every subject and these can sometimes be very powerful, to the detriment of science. Still, that does not mean that every maverick is right.


Obscurantism of the scientific establishment does not need a conspiratorial angle, although admittedly I wonder sometimes. All it takes is human nature, as an expert in human nature
I would have thought this may have already occurred to you.
cosmologystatement.org...


As you perhaps already know, controversy is an integral element of how science is done. This is especially true in theoretical physics; theoretical physicists' work involves a lot of arguing among themselves, some of it quite heated. The people at the cutting edge rarely agree with one another.


Well we agree on this point, isn't this what Crothers is doing? I still have seen no scientific response to his claims. Oh that's right he's too childish to be taken seriously, Oh he might be a maths wiz (no I cannot understand it either) but unless he's a good boy no rebuttal for him.


The thing is he's not the only one, there are many and his behavior is beyond the point I think, actually I find it refreshing. What about what he is saying? Your comments seem to me like an attempt to bypass the heart of the argument and have nothing to do with the content of his argument. A cheap tactic politicians and the media use all the time. I'm sorry but like you I'm also into psychology and can easily recognize these tactics.
Just do a search for black holes don't exist and you'll find many others with varying theories.
Here's one theory I like, and it's from a mainstream source!

space.newscientist.com...

My apologies Michael I understand the reasons for not delving too much into Plasma Cosmology, as it leads to this sort of thing. Fun though.
I'll stick to the black hole argument from now on.






[edit on 10-9-2008 by squiz]



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 01:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dock6
I LIKE scientific mavericks

What that term really means is the alleged maverick has refused to toe whatever line is currently considered 'career enhancing'.


One might simply say that they have rejected 'groupthink' in favor of thinking 'original thoughts.'

But that's neither here nor there. Anyway, as I said, if anyone has links to specific technical refutations of Crothers' work, I'd be interested to see them and pass them along to others who might be interested in Crothers' work and whether or not it's valid. Likewise, I seem to recall he'd asked for certain proofs from mathematicians / physicists (such as the claim that Newtonian superposition works in an Einsteinian spacetime, etc. Despite the fact they're considerably different theories, mathematically.).

Cheers,
~Michael



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Velikovsky was also wrong on all points.

EDIT: Many of his points were unfairly dismissed without enough (or, quite likely, any!) study by the scientific community, which was a disservice to the man. However, later evidence decidedly proved him wrong. Just because you're laughed at or persecuted doesn't mean you're right.

[edit on 9-9-2008 by mdiinican]


Meh, he got a few things right though everyone likes to demonize him and throw the babies out with the bath water... Big picture was wrong, as may have been various proposed alternative timelines, etc., etc. But some of the physical stuff he's said has been backed up to small extent. Seems like these days, people are stealing plays from Velikovsky's playbook though... Even if they're not aware of it, they're saying many of the same things. Can't find specific references at the moment, but if I run across 'em then I'll post 'em.



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:04 PM
link   
Steve Crothers DID get his PHD and it currently lecturing in Russia and Europe according to his father.
I grew up with Steve.

Dont write him off as a wack job.
He is far from that IMO.
Cheers
Mungo



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by mgmirkin
I'll weigh out on the issue there and let conversation go where it must. Mathematically / physically speaking...

Regards,
~Michael Gmirkin


The truth is even those that claim they understand the standard model well do not have the answers when it comes to black holes.

There is only conjecture and non direct observations.

I personally advocate quantum gravity as the foundation of a unified theory of everything.

In the standard model black holes are caused by a mass crammed into a sufficiently small area... the circumference of this area is called the Schwarzschild radius.

The smaller the mass the smaller the Schwarzschild radius has to be before it can form a black hole.

Simply put gravitation is caused by the warping of space-time by mass. The deeper the gravity well the more mass there is present.

I think the standard model is incorrect.

I think that matter is not separate from space-time... I believe matter is made up of twisted loops of space-time.

If you like all matter including yourselves are simply complex twists in space-time.

So armed with this believe (backed up with some pretty strong maths too) It is quite easy to extrapolate what black holes actually are.

Black holes in Loop Quantum Gravity are exceptionally densely twisted areas of space-time. An area of space where the total surface area of space-time is so great that it creates an unbalance to all space time surrounding it and that it comes into contact with.

So visualised directly, black holes are very fuzzy balls of thickly twisted space time... There is no singularity.

I hope this helps,

All the best,

NeoN HaZe



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
And just how many reputable scientists, do you think, are going to waste their time refuting the writings of a man who couldn't even get himself a Ph.D?


That's not a scientific answer, nor a refutation. It an ad hominem (both circumstantial and abusive) appeal to ridicule that does not address the specific technical issues Crothers has raised. It's also the inverse of an appeal to authority (essentially claiming that because he does not have a PhD he has no authority, or doesn't understand math, which is illogical nonsense).

One does not need a PhD to "understand" math, or to write a valid paper validating or invalidating other's work. A paper should not be rejected based upon the circumstances of the author. Frankly the peer review system is all screwed up with often anonymous reviewers and non-anonymous authors. It introduces too many avenues for abusing the system and too little accountability in the same system for remedying said abuses.

A PhD is a nice piece of paper to have when applying for a job, but it does not guarantee correctness, nor ward off errors. The opposite is true, as well. Lack of a PhD is no guarantee of errors, nor does it ward off perfectly legitimate points being made.

Please raise the bar on discussion slightly. Thanks!

~Michael



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

I am not competent to parse his mathematics, but I'm an expert at plain English; Mr. Crothers is nothing but a thwarted brat.


So, you have no grounds on which to evaluate his claims technically, but nonetheless assume he's incorrect and resort to name-calling? Not especially scientific...

I agree that Crothers can be a bit blunt at times. But, honestly, sometimes you have to be or you get walked on. Especially when people are being stupid and need to be body-checked.
*Kidding, mostly.*

Anyway, I tend to be of the mind that papers should be reviewed critically based on their merits in a "blind" manner. IE, a reviewer should not know who they are reviewing (only WHAT they are reviewing; the idea), but actually READ the paper in question and address any technical concerns. There's too much ego, reputation and "power" involved in today's science. It's unfortunate...

Science should be about progressing knowledge and advancing science, not about pissing contests and who can garner the most respect / power / influence / fame / whatever...

Idealism, and wholly impractical, I know. But, one can hope that someday we'll all grow up a bit.


~Michael



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Someone like Crothers is not a scientist. That isn't because he lacks a Ph.D; it is because he is clearly incapable of admitting the possibility that he might be wrong. Not only is this childish, it is a disqualification from doing science.


He believes that his maths are rigorous, and that others' are not. He has also endeavored to show that lack of mathematical rigor in others' work mathematically. He asks nothing less of others with regard to his own work.

That is a far cry from, and not the same thing as, not believing he could be wrong. The fact that he has asked for people to read and critique his papers and point out any flaws clearly demonstrates that he understands he could be wrong, if proven so rigorously.

He, however, dismisses hand-waving arguments and attacks against his character, preferring sparring be done in the arena of mathematics / science rather than in the arena of social science.

In my understanding of the issue anyway.

Regards,
~Michael



posted on Sep, 10 2008 @ 03:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax

Let me at once admit that there are scientific orthodoxies in every subject and these can sometimes be very powerful, to the detriment of science. Still, that does not mean that every maverick is right.


Heard and understood, and agreed. But it cuts both ways that not everyone that the "consensus" deems to be crackpot is incorrect simply because they have some conferred authority to "say so."

So, it seems there is a certain impasse to the argument.

How should science move forward so that everyone is given equal seat at the "scientific" table, ideas can be openly debated on their merits (as opposed to the reputations of their authors), special interests cannot dominate the discussion and science still doesn't get overrun with complete loonies?

That seems to be the issue with those "outside, looking in" (for whatever reason). If one has been "locked out" (in the cold, so to speak), how does one have one's voice heard or get let back into the conference room and the merits of their argument heard? I mean, there has to be some way about it... Debating the idea rather than the person behind the idea (hence my prior suggestion of anonymity of authors [and accountability of reviewers] while being reviewed, so there is no possibility of bias on the part of the reviewer[s]).

~Michael



new topics

top topics



 
43
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join