Understanding the universe.

[Cyclone 10]

11 hours ago, crookesjoe said:

Every generation believes they are at the cutting edge of science, it's such an ignorant mindset.

 

Case in point, the US patent office nearly closed down in 1899 as they thought there was nothing left to invent.

They ARE the cutting edge, that's what it means.  It doesn't mean that they're the pinnacle though, obviously.

[melthebell 863]

Flat earthers spend $20.000 and prove the earth isnt flat...oops

https://www.sciencepagenews.com/2019/09/16/flat-earthers-20000-attempt-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat-accidentally-proves-its-a-globe/

[Robin-H 11]

20 minutes ago, melthebell said:

Flat earthers spend $20.000 and prove the earth isnt flat...oops

https://www.sciencepagenews.com/2019/09/16/flat-earthers-20000-attempt-to-prove-the-earth-is-flat-accidentally-proves-its-a-globe/

Yes that was one my favourite parts from the documentary - hilarious! That and the experiment they did at the end, tho I can't find a clip of that unfortunately. 

[melthebell 863]

3 minutes ago, Robin-H said:

Yes that was one my favourite parts from the documentary - hilarious! That and the experiment they did at the end, tho I can't find a clip of that unfortunately. 

not actually watched the doc as i dont have netflix 

[Waldo 96]

Why is the video above assuming there was a 'before' the big bang?

 

Cause and effect, and time; are all properties of our particular universe.

 

Why do people assume these are also universal properties (that would persist outside the context of our particular universe). Sure, it's how our brains make sense of things (time, cause and effect), but perhaps that's because we are a product of our univese. I see no reason why there should be a 'before' the big bang, or that cause and effect would even apply. I'd think that's something that's more specific to the laws of physics within our universe.

 

Anyhow, just a thought.

Edited September 17, 2019 by Waldo

[petemcewan 27]

Trying to add to the high standards of The Forum.

SJ appears to have done a good job on deconstructing the Equation.

After all, maths are maths. 

[altus 540]

3 hours ago, petemcewan said:

Trying to add to the high standards of The Forum.

By posting people's email addresses to the site without their knowledge or consent.

[mort 10]

Posts removed.

 

We will not tolerate people posting the email addresses of third parties. 

 

 

[petemcewan 27]

 

My profound apologies. I completely overlooked that .

Hope it now does not breach any of the Forum Rules.

 

 

Gentlemen,

In his email (see below) I note that Mr. Catt has mentioned my name in relation to the invalidity of the equation inscribed on the gravestone of Stephen Hawking. I have included people at Westminster Abbey and the Stephen Hawking Foundation, also Martin Rees, and Mike Cruise (the President of the Royal Astronomical Society) to this email because this violation of the laws of physics must not be permitted to continue to be conveniently ignored by anybody. The truth must be told and acknowledged, even if the scientists themselves will not do so.

Inscribed on Hawking's gravestone is his black hole temperature equation associated with his alleged Hawking Radiation. You can see the equation here:

[1] https://www.westminster-abbey.org/abbey-commemorations/commemorations/stephen-hawking

[2] https://stephenhawkingfoundation.org

[3] https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/stephen-hawking-equation-gravestone-westminster-14788881

The same equation is inscribed on a medallion, which you can see here:

[4] https://stephenhawkingfoundation.org/medallion/

Here is Hawking's gravestone equation:

T = ħc³/8πGMk

T is temperature, ħ the reduced Planck's constant, G the constant of gravitation, M the black hole mass, and k is Boltzmann's constant. Now ħ, G and k are universal constants so they have no thermodynamic character. The numbers 8 and π are pure numbers so they too have no thermodynamic character. Temperature T and mass M have thermodynamic character. Temperature is always intensive, according to the 0^th and 2^nd laws of thermodynamics. Mass is not intensive, mass is extensive. In any thermodynamic equation the units must be the same on both sides (dimensional analysis) and the thermodynamic character must also balance. Hawking's equation equates temperature, which is always intensive, to a combination of terms which is not intensive. His equation is therefore in violation of the laws of thermodynamics. It is therefore invalid. Hawking radiation does not exist.

Jacob Bekenstein and Stephen Hawking advanced an equation for black hole entropy. Here is their equation:

S = πAkc³/2hG

S is entropy, A is the area of the alleged black hole event horizon, c is the speed of light in vacuum, h is Planck's constant, and G the constant of gravitation. To clarify this equation, the area A = 4πR² where R is the so-called Schwarzschild radius: R = 2GM/c². So the area of the black hole event horizon is

A = 16πG²M²/c⁴.

Putting this into the Bekenstein-Hawking entropy equation gives,

S = 8π²kGM²/hc.

Once again all the terms other than M are either universal constants or pure numbers and so have no thermodynamic character. Entropy has the thermodynamic character of being extensive. Now mass is extensive, but mass squared is not extensive. Thus, the Bekenstein-Hawking black hole entropy equation equates entropy, which is extensive, to a combination of terms that is not extensive, thereby violating the laws of thermodynamics. The Bekenstein-Hawking black hole entropy equation is therefore invalid.

You can learn about thermodynamic balance in this paper:

Pierre-Marie Robitaille and Stephen J. Crothers, Intensive and extensive properties: Thermodynamic balance, Physics Essays, Volume 32: Pages 158-163, 2019,

http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com/IE-Published.pdf

The essentials are covered in this lecture:

Robitaille, P.-M., Gravitational Thermodynamics - Is it Science?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ2F2Kw5-nQ

 

Steve Crothers

 

	Ivor Catt
:
date:	Aug 14, 2019, 6:13 PM

Watch when they turn on Hawking and tear him apart. It will be ugly. They are ruthless. Hawking and Rees went too far with multiverse. Rees spoke at the Hawking Abbey funeral service, saying he worked with Hawking. Did he? Rees told me he didn't understand cattq. http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/book4.pdf ;  http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/cattq.htm ;

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O2urJ4agYGw . Probably everyone who is anyone worked with Hawking. Will they all run for cover when he turns out to be poison ivy?

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/adult-health/multimedia/poison-ivy/sls-20076702

The Pope lamented Hawking's death.

You pay £21 now to enter Westminster Abbey to worship at the Hawking grave. Next to Newton's. Was the entry price raised after the Hawking death? Stephen says the equation on Hawking's grave is wrong.

It is possible that the reaction against Hawking will be the moment when the whole mess implodes. Will it, and should it, carry Spargo with it? Will Spargo now comment meaningfully on cattq? Where does his career take him? So far, he has only said; "I hope we will all come to agree on The Catt Question." Do the Italians agree on cattq? http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x6611.pdf . They agree you mustn't go near Catt or cattq. Spargo's in trouble because he sat through a four hour Catt lecture. Who's the poison ivy, Hawking or Catt? It's so hard for an ambitious kid to decide, unless he's good at science.

http://async.org.uk/IvorCatt-edited.html  

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsta.2018.0229  

Pepper and Spargo edited the same RoyalSoc journal.

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/x0801.pdf . "Portrait of a drivelmaster." http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm

http://www.ivorcatt.co.uk/2812.htm

Ivor

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by petemcewan

[Annie Bynnol 612]

On 19/09/2019 at 10:00, petemcewan said:

Trying to add to the high standards of The Forum.

SJ appears to have done a good job on deconstructing the Equation.

After all, maths are maths. 

How do you know that SJ Crothers has"...done a good job on deconstructing the Equation."? 

Saying something like "After all, maths are maths."  establishes a limited understanding of the interaction between mathematics and science.

 

Before continually quoting and referring to individuals who have a viewpoint, it would be a good for you to establish for the readers the credibility of these people who think they have found a flaw that would bring down the work of Maxwell, Hawking and thousands of others.

Examples could be:

Dates.

How many times has work appeared in peer reviewed journals?

Current and historical  associations.

Qualifications and experience.

 

If none of this is forthcoming I would strongly suggest that readers avail themselves with the background of those referred to.

 

 

[Obelix 11]

I see Crothers is talking crap again...

Lets look.

 

Temperature is always intensive, - is it?

 

according to the 0^th and 2^nd laws of thermodynamics. - but we are not talking about a bulk system here where the laws of statistical mechanics apply... this is blakc holes and the realms of quantum gravity.

 

In any thermodynamic equation the units must be the same on both sides (dimensional analysis) - corrct

and the thermodynamic character must also balance. - must it? really? 

 

Hawking's equation equates temperature, which is always intensive, - no it's not....not ALWAYS

to a combination of terms which is not intensive. - so...? I mean have you seen the ideal gas equation and analysed that?

 

Crothers is a crackpot. His maths is shall we charitably say rather sucky.

[stifflersmom 11]

Crothers also appears to think that the constants doesn't have any units. His maths doesn't look quite so  well argued when that is taken into account.  It looks just plain wrong. The mass elements of Planck, Gravitational and Boltzmann constants combine in the Entropy equation to leave a mass unit in the denominator. That cancels one of the mass terms in the numerator to leave it as an extensive term.