Understanding the universe.

[petemcewan 27]

Annie  Bynnol,

 

With due respect. I can follow the explanation and the deconstruction is in plane sight. To deconstruct an equation one must do it mathematically-that's what SJ has done.

It is not up to me to establish the credentials or write a bibliography of the individuals involved in the discussion. There are enough references and links for the readers to enlighten themselves-at their leisure-as to the antecedents of the contributors.

If I  was to embark on the course of action suggested by you,well,I would be writing on here forever.So I'm not going to do what you suggest. 

 

 

[petemcewan 27]

Stifflersmum.

SJ says that Mass is an Extensive term . I don't think he mixes up the difference between Intensive and Extensive terms.

 

 

https://www.ck12.org/chemistry/extensive-and-intensive-properties/lesson/Extensive-and-Intensive-Properties-CHEM/

Edited September 20, 2019 by petemcewan

[stifflersmom 11]

20 minutes ago, petemcewan said:

Stifflersmum.

SJ says that Mass is an Extensive term . I don't think he mixes up the difference between Intensive and Extensive terms.

 

 

https://www.ck12.org/chemistry/extensive-and-intensive-properties/lesson/Extensive-and-Intensive-Properties-CHEM/

Indeed he doesn't mix them up....he says that mass squared is not extensive, ignoring the units of the constants which make that statement incorrect. 

[Obelix 11]

1 hour ago, petemcewan said:

Annie  Bynnol,

 

With due respect. I can follow the explanation and the deconstruction is in plane sight. To deconstruct an equation one must do it mathematically-that's what SJ has done.

 

He hasn't. Hes made basic errors of maths in it as I've identified, and as Stifflersmom has identified.

Charitably you would say Crothers is mistaken. I accuse him of duplicity to push his agenda.

[Annie Bynnol 613]

2 hours ago, petemcewan said:

Annie  Bynnol,

 

With due respect. I can follow the explanation and the deconstruction is in plane sight. To deconstruct an equation one must do it mathematically-that's what SJ has done.

It is not up to me to establish the credentials or write a bibliography of the individuals involved in the discussion. There are enough references and links for the readers to enlighten themselves-at their leisure-as to the antecedents of the contributors.

If I  was to embark on the course of action suggested by you,well,I would be writing on here forever.So I'm not going to do what you suggest. 

 

 

Just once will do.

You claim that he is a "...real astrophysicist ." Please justify this claim. 

 

How many times has his work appeared in peer reviewed journals?

What current and historical  associations does he have with research institutions which exist to do research and publish their findings?

What modern qualifications and experience does he have?

 

You know that the references you provide are not to other real astrophysicists.

[petemcewan 27]

Annie Bynnol

 

Again with respect. You want me to write the credentials of  SJC-et al , that's absurd .

"Real astrophysicist " . You better put  that to SJC . The references are provided by  SJC. Put your question directly to him.

I'm sure he well oblige you with a reply .

I put the content of the email sent to me as  points for discussion on the Forum. It is not up to me to justify every dot and comma  of the propositions presented. Your questions are rhetorical -you can easily find the answers to them for yourself.

Edited September 20, 2019 by petemcewan

[SJCrothers 10]

13 hours ago, stifflersmom said:

Indeed he doesn't mix them up....he says that mass squared is not extensive, ignoring the units of the constants which make that statement incorrect. 

“Temperature is always intensive, - is it? according to the 0th and 2nd 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.” Obelix

 

Yes, temperature is always intensive. To argue otherwise is a violation of the 0^th and 2^nd laws of thermodynamics. Hawking's gravestone equation for temperature equates temperature, which is intensive, to a combination of terms that is not intensive, so it is not physics; it's nonsense. 

 

“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?” Obelix

 

Yes, it must. If it is not thermodynamically balanced it is certainly wrong.

 

“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.” stifflersmom

 

Show all readers where I said that constants don't have any units. I didn't. Your argument is a straw-man. I clearly stated that universal constants have no thermodynamic character and pure numbers have no thermodynamic character. Only thermodynamic properties have thermodynamic character. Since you think otherwise, tell all readers what the thermodynamic character of Planck's constant and the gravitational constant are, and provide your proofs thereof.

 

“Indeed he doesn't mix them up....he says that mass squared is not extensive, ignoring the units of the constants which make that statement incorrect.” stifflersmom

 

Yes, I did indeed say that mass squared is not extensive; because mass squared is not extensive. But mass is extensive. In thermodynamics extensive properties are homogeneous functions of degree 1. Mass is a homogeneous function of degree 1, so it is extensive. But mass squared is not a homogeneous function of degree 1, so mass squared is not extensive. Consequently the Bekenstein-Hawking black hole entropy equation is nonsense because it violates the laws of thermodynamics by equating entropy, which is extensive, to a combination of terms that is not extensive.

 

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

 

[SJCrothers 10]

19 hours ago, Obelix said:

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.

The ideal gas equation is in fact thermodynamically balanced. Temperature therein is intensive. Provide your analysis of the ideal gas equation for all readers here to see. Is temperature not intensive in the ideal gas equation? If not why not? 

 

Temperature is always intensive. Hawking's gravestone equation equates temperature, which is intensive, to a combination of terms that is not intensive, so it is invalid, a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.  When invoking thermodynamics for their 'black holes', Hawking and the astronomers and cosmologists are not at liberty to alter the laws of thermodynamics as they please.  Hawking violated the laws of thermodynamics because he did not understand the laws of thermodynamics.  

[SJCrothers 10]

11 hours ago, Annie Bynnol said:

Just once will do.

You claim that he is a "...real astrophysicist ." Please justify this claim. 

 

How many times has his work appeared in peer reviewed journals?

What current and historical  associations does he have with research institutions which exist to do research and publish their findings?

What modern qualifications and experience does he have?

 

You know that the references you provide are not to other real astrophysicists.

The Herouni Antenna - The Death of the Big Bang!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lKQMEYYLw

 

Herouni's telescope, Big Bang Theory, and Ian Gillan's only question,

https://www.mediamax.am/en/news/special-report/33818/

 

The Life and Work of Professor Paris Herouni: A Documentary,

https://photos.app.goo.gl/fVCCCf3HCSijVeoE7

 

P. Herouni, Measured Parameters of Large Antenna of ROT-54/2.6 Tell about Absence of Big Bang Journal of Astrophysics: Reports. — National Academy of Sciences of Armenia 2007, v. 107, no. 1. 73-78. http://rnas.asj-oa.am/2542/1/73.pdf

 

P. Herouni, About Self Noises of Radio-Optical Telescope ROT-54/2.6 Antenna. Journal of Applied Electromagnetism. Athens. 1999, v. 2, No. 1, 51-57.

http://jae.ece.ntua.gr/archive/1999/vol2no2_June1999.zip

 

[Annie Bynnol 613]

3 hours ago, SJCrothers said:

The Herouni Antenna....

 

....P. Herouni, About Self Noises of Radio-Optical Telescope ROT-54/2.6 Antenna. Journal of Applied Electromagnetism. Athens. 1999, v. 2, No. 1, 51-57.

 

This "list" refers to one man who sadly died over 10 years ago.

The Soviet era Radio-Optical Telescope operated  between 1986 and 1990 can still be seen and the measurements cited were mostly made in 1988 before abandonment.

They did not observe the CMB and he concluded that " So there is only one explanation, that Relict radiation is absent in Universe, and it is that there never was any Big Bang  in Universe."

 

The work was not peer reviewed at the time and cannot now be verified. 

 

Again sadly, some people have used this as evidence of of their being no Big Bang.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Obelix 11]

9 hours ago, SJCrothers said:

The ideal gas equation is in fact thermodynamically balanced. Temperature therein is intensive. Provide your analysis of the ideal gas equation for all readers here to see. Is temperature not intensive in the ideal gas equation? If not why not? 

 

Temperature is always intensive. Hawking's gravestone equation equates temperature, which is intensive, to a combination of terms that is not intensive, so it is invalid, a violation of the laws of thermodynamics.  When invoking thermodynamics for their 'black holes', Hawking and the astronomers and cosmologists are not at liberty to alter the laws of thermodynamics as they please.  Hawking violated the laws of thermodynamics because he did not understand the laws of thermodynamics.  

Er no - thats not the way it works. You need to expound your proof. The onus is on you to prove your point.

 

You seem very reluctant to provide proof and get very defensive when asked for it. Why is that?

 

You state that an equation hase to be balanced right and it's against the laws of thermodynamics.

 

Prove it please.

9 hours ago, SJCrothers said:

The Herouni Antenna - The Death of the Big Bang!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p8lKQMEYYLw

 

Herouni's telescope, Big Bang Theory, and Ian Gillan's only question,

https://www.mediamax.am/en/news/special-report/33818/

 

The Life and Work of Professor Paris Herouni: A Documentary,

https://photos.app.goo.gl/fVCCCf3HCSijVeoE7

 

P. Herouni, Measured Parameters of Large Antenna of ROT-54/2.6 Tell about Absence of Big Bang Journal of Astrophysics: Reports. — National Academy of Sciences of Armenia 2007, v. 107, no. 1. 73-78. http://rnas.asj-oa.am/2542/1/73.pdf

 

P. Herouni, About Self Noises of Radio-Optical Telescope ROT-54/2.6 Antenna. Journal of Applied Electromagnetism. Athens. 1999, v. 2, No. 1, 51-57.

http://jae.ece.ntua.gr/archive/1999/vol2no2_June1999.zip

 

I've observed the microwave background myself. It's easily doable on simple kit that any radio amateur is capable of putting together.  Herouni, and yourself are quite simply wrong.

[SJCrothers 10]

21 hours ago, Obelix said:

Er no - thats not the way it works. You need to expound your proof. The onus is on you to prove your point.

 

You seem very reluctant to provide proof and get very defensive when asked for it. Why is that?

 

You state that an equation hase to be balanced right and it's against the laws of thermodynamics.

 

Prove it please.

I've observed the microwave background myself. It's easily doable on simple kit that any radio amateur is capable of putting together.  Herouni, and yourself are quite simply wrong.

No, I don't need to prove anything.  The laws of thermodynamics speak for themselves - they are not my laws.  It's quite obvious that you don't understand even the basics of physical science or mathematics, and least of all thermodynamics.  Hawking's gravestone equation is bunkum, for the reasons I have already given. There is no recovery from this monumental embarrassment writ large in stone in Westminster Abbey.  

 

You haven't observed the CMB because it does not exist.  Professor Herouni's radio telescope is the most sensitive radio telescope ever built, with a self-noise of 2.6 K.  Professor Herouni's measurement is direct and definitive.  And if detection of the alleged CMB is so simple, as you allege, one can but wonder why NASA had to send up the  WMAP and COBE satellites, and the ESA it's Planck satellite. You could have saved them billions of dollars with your amateur radio kit.