News:

Actually sport it is a narrative

Main Menu

Nova! -the end of black hole/singularity fantasy:

Started by Rift Zone, March 19, 2018, 06:49:36 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Rift Zone

Quote from: jumbojak on March 20, 2018, 03:53:37 AM

Yeah, gimme a rundown on plasma physics?
Oh fuck...  I don't know if I can do that man...   I mean, I think in 4d, with some whoop ass physics simulation capacity.  I can see how mathematical structures evolve.  And search and rescue was called out on me once, when I was 5, for studying physics from mother nature directly.   Then i got kicked out of second grade for studying spectroscopy...  been paying attention to mother nature for a long while...  I know how she moves too.   But that shit is not translatable into English.  It's scarcely characterizable in mathematics. 

You know anything about the maxwell equations?   The ones establishing light?   A couple of those equations are all about magnetic field: shit gets swirly, electric field: shit gets swirly...   well, plasma is both, they play off another.    You know, that's one thing that pisses me off about modern science: reducing everything to gravitation strips most of the universe's intrinsic beauty from it.   modern theory basically has dots that come and go.   that's pathetic.   na, particles dance on their own accord, and they get down together!  this everything in this universe is dancing together.   I mean check out Hannes Alfven!!!   <--he will be known as the most significant physicist of the late 20th century when BBT falls (sorry hawking).   There's the pinch effect within plasma physics, Birkeland Currents...  Wow man, I don't even know where to start.   Anthony Peratt's work too!    Just stay the hell away from the "Tunderbolts Project", "Electric Universe" people.    I've already put my claws into the mythologist founder Talbot....  Cant wait to get them into his little physicist lap dog Thornhill. 
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

hermes2015

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 03:45:49 AM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 03:32:30 AM
I would like you to submit an executive summary, no longer than the second paragraph of your post. That would not just be kind to your audience, but is standard practice when presenting any hypothesis.
We've barely said a word about plasma physics.   Do you know why physicists don't fuck with that shit?   -because most of them don't have the capacity for it.   This universe is not as simple as tensor mathematics.   But I tell you what you get BBT, QM, and Relativity into a paragraph, and even with it being simpler than reality, I'll match it with Nova.


The universe has always been, will always be, and it runs on plasma physics.   any questions?

Unfortunately, if you want to be taken seriously, you will have to follow the standard rules of scientific discourse. No respectable physics journal will publish an article by you without a summary. These are the journals people like Steven Weinberg and Sean Carroll read to see what's new in physics. Again, unfortunately for you, they are the ones who will judge your hypotheses.

Anyway, it is possible to explain what QM is all about in a few simple words a 10 year old of average intelligence can understand (one example: https://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html).
"Eventually everything connects - people, ideas, objects. The quality of the connections is the key to quality per se."
― Charles Eames

Rift Zone

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 04:21:06 AM
Unfortunately, if you want to be taken seriously, you will have to follow the standard rules of scientific discourse. No respectable physics journal will publish an article by you without a summary. These are the journals people like Steven Weinberg and Sean Carroll read to see what's new in physics. Again, unfortunately for you, they are the ones who will judge your hypotheses.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 03:40:06 AM
...since I'm not showing you my homework just yet, scientific rigor essentially renders this as speculation.   So don't worry about it.    You got some speculation from some jerk on the internet...
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 04:21:06 AM
Anyway, it is possible to explain what QM is all about in a few simple words a 10 year old of average intelligence can understand (one example: https://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html).
particles are fundamental.  Quarks are not fundamental, they are structure.   The structure has three oriented axis.   With 2 oriented axis, it permits only one unique form, rotationally symmetric.   But matter has 3 oriented axis, which produces 2 unique forms: the right hand rule, and the left hand rule; that difference is what distinguishes matter from anti matter.   what else do you want to know?
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

hermes2015

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 04:31:48 AM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 04:21:06 AM
Unfortunately, if you want to be taken seriously, you will have to follow the standard rules of scientific discourse. No respectable physics journal will publish an article by you without a summary. These are the journals people like Steven Weinberg and Sean Carroll read to see what's new in physics. Again, unfortunately for you, they are the ones who will judge your hypotheses.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 03:40:06 AM
...since I'm not showing you my homework just yet, scientific rigor essentially renders this as speculation.   So don't worry about it.    You got some speculation from some jerk on the internet...
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 04:21:06 AM
Anyway, it is possible to explain what QM is all about in a few simple words a 10 year old of average intelligence can understand (one example: https://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html).
particles are fundamental.  Quarks are not fundamental, they are structure.   The structure has three oriented axis.   With 2 oriented axis, it permits only one unique form, rotationally symmetric.   But matter has 3 oriented axis, which produces 2 unique forms: the right hand rule, and the left hand rule; that difference is what distinguishes matter from anti matter.   what else do you want to know?

I am waiting for your executive summary, as you would have to supply when you submit your paper to the Journal of Physics. That is not what you have written, and will certainly not be accepted for publication. I am just trying to help you focus your mind and explain your hypothesis in clearer terms. At the moment your screed comes across as pseudo science, but that is not my problem.

When do you intend to submit your work to a scientific journal? Please send us references to the journal articles when they are published; at that time I will communicate my comments to you. Until then, I wish you luck.
"Eventually everything connects - people, ideas, objects. The quality of the connections is the key to quality per se."
― Charles Eames

Rift Zone

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 05:28:09 AM
I am waiting for your executive summary, as you would have to supply when you submit your paper to the Journal of Physics. That is not what you have written, and will certainly not be accepted for publication. I am just trying to help you focus your mind and explain your hypothesis in clearer terms. At the moment your screed comes across as pseudo science, but that is not my problem.

When do you intend to submit your work to a scientific journal? Please send us references to the journal articles when they are published; at that time I will communicate my comments to you. Until then, I wish you luck.
I will share what I please when I please.   If you're not pleased with your glimpse into 21st century physics you are welcome to have admin throw it in the pseudo-science pile at any time.   

I'll publish this after I'm done saving the world.   I'll keep you posted on developments. 
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

Tank

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 06:49:36 PM
Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,
I invite you to join me on a stroll through the properties of the universe. Along the way we shall pay close attention what Mother Nature is telling us. We shall consider what modern theories tell us. We shall also look for discrepancies and try to better interpret mother nature's behavior if we find any. I suspect we will find discrepancies, but I digress, I'm getting a bit ahead of myself here. Please accompany me on a journey along the frontiers of science.

Almost a hundred years ago, the Chandra Satellite's namesake, Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar was working out the effects of extreme pressures on subatomic particles in context of supermassive stars and supernovae. There's now a "Limit" named after him that's directly related to how much pressure it takes to crush electrons into protons, thus creating neutrons. Any star that surpasses that limit will crush protons and electrons together turning the object into a neutron star. More intriguing is what happens when we add even more pressure. A neutron star is made of the densest material possible. It cannot be crushed any further without something very remarkable happening. When Chandrasekhar tried to work out the math on crushing that system further the result was infinities. More precisely, he tried to work out what happens at neutron degeneracy pressures and infinity was the result. That still happens today. Every time we ask the mathematics of prevailing theory what happens at that threshold we get the same answer: infinities. "Infinity" is a nonsensical result. "Infinity" is no result at all. It's the mathematical equivalent of crashing and burning. "Infinity" is the math saying, "I don't know what you're talking about". This is an important point because anywhere we go from here is completely arbitrary. There is no scientific/mathematic precedence to direct us to a next step. We are completely blind here.

Prevailing theory tells us the result of "crushing" neutrons is singularity/black hole. Again, this a completely arbitrary assumption in the mathematics of particles. (Other mathematical structures do lend themselves to the notion of singularity, but the scope of those models is not sufficient to dictate anything about this situation.) Once armed with this assumption theorists can build independent mathematics that describe the properties of this singularity/black hole, and then use some duct tape and glue to bind the independent theories together. It should be noted that this type of speculation is superb science!!!  We need to generate new ideas and then we need to see how said ideas align with what the universe is telling us. So now that we have this new idea, let's see how it aligns with observation... On the surface, singularity is a very reasonable solution to the question of neutron degeneracy, but if we dig deeper we may find that solution isn't telling us the same story the universe tells us.

One issue we find involves quasars/active galactic nuclei. [This one is more mathematically intensive than the other points and I want to keep this essay accessible to all, so please comment if you would like further elaboration on this point, or any point.] Modern theory relies on the angular momentum of accretion disks to generate the cosmic jets that exist at the axis of rotation. The problem is there is far more energy within the jets than the accretion disk can account for.   Clearly, we need to take a honest and in-depth look at the mechanisms within prevailing theory to find out what's going on there. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals there are no mechanisms to be found at all. An honest assessment of prevailing theory reveals the substance of the theory is essentially this: the supermassive object in the center simply must be a black hole, so it's a black hole; and the jets can't be coming from a black hole, so it simply must the angular momentum from the accretion disk powering them...   ...And that's it!  That is the full extent of modern "scientific" description involving quasars/active galactic nuclei/galactic jets.  The truth is prevailing theory doesn't understand what's going on there...  At best, using accretion disks to power the jets is a hypothesis.   It is, in fact, a poor hypothesis.   There is no trait within any area of physics that could even potentially explain how to focus the energy of accretion discs into a perpendicular jet.  Not to mention the fact the total energy contained within accretion discs is regularly dwarfed by the energy emanating out of the jets.   Ultimately, if we were really honest about the situation, we would have to acknowledge there is NO process within that approach that can account for the energy being released in cosmic jets, at all. -if you do the math, constrained by the physics of prevailing theory, cosmic jets don't add up, no matter what. Now that is interesting... Perhaps we can make some sense of it... I'm certain we are going to find out....

Another issue with black hole/singularity theory involves what happens during a supernova explosion. Stars that are massive enough will crush neutrons when they run out of nuclear fuel. They will collapse under their own weight and matter in the core will achieve Schwarzchild Radius. [To achieve Schwarzchild radius you need to exceed neutron degeneracy pressures. When you have squeezed a fixed amount of neutrons together so tightly they cannot be squeezed into a smaller space without destroying them, smaller yet is Schwarzchild Radius.]  According to modern theory, Schwarzchild Radius is the threshold that creates a black hole.   Schwarzschild radius IS the event horizon of a black hole. By unconventional yet mathematical definition, event horizon and Schwarzchild radius are same; for any given mass, the event horizon of a black hole is located at Schwarzschild radius.   Mass that gets trapped within Schwarzchild radius is doomed; that much is certain. Is that mass doomed to singularity as prevailing theory describes? If singularity were the case it would set very specific parameters on the behavior of supernovae. The mathematics/physics of the system would demand the system evolve in certain ways. The physics of prevailing theory dictates this: the core will collapse into singularity thus forming a black hole.   ...and that's about all the math says.   Prevailing theory does however, seemingly arbitrarily, add in a shockwave that creates a "nova", though it's not really clear where that shockwave comes from. You see, the initial collapse would press the core into Schwarzchild Radius.  Nothing escapes Schwarzchild radius/the event horizon; we are talking about the inside of a black hole: nothing gets out!    Thus, this potential shockwave didn't originate within the core, it could not have gone though the core, nor could it be associated with bouncing something off of the event horizon. So, the shockwave remains a mystery, but I'm willing, for the sake of argument, to give it the benefit of the doubt and allow this phantasmic shockwave to power the nova anyway. Thus prevailing theory says the when a supermassive star collapses the core turns into a black hole, and there's some shady shockwave which creates a nova.   Please note: the physics of prevailing theory demands that whole process takes less time than it took you to read that last sentence. Huston, we have a problem: there are discrepancies between that story and what observation tells us.

First of all, supernovae are known to outshine their own galaxy.   We graciously allowed the shockwave, but who said anything about it having enough energy to enable one star to outshine its entire galaxy? ONE star!!! -outshine hundreds of billions of stars?!? That's asking a whole lot. It's asking too much -there is no process in the physics of prevailing theory that can explain how this could be.  According to the physics of prevailing theory, one star should not be able to outshine its galaxy; it's not permitted!!!   There's no room for it in the physical system the math represents.   We witness observations that are quite literally against the laws of physics as we know them.  Even worse is we have observed varying periods of maximum intensity. Varying periods of maximum intensity is a problem because there is no mechanism within prevailing theory to support anything of the sort. That proposed shockwave is going to come and go in an instant. The physics of prevailing theory demands the process happens very quickly. The math says we should not be observing supernovae that have extended periods of maximum intensity, at all. They should only last for mere seconds, but that's not what we observe: some last for weeks. This is inexplicable within prevailing theory. I think we're have to face the possibility prevailing theory is not telling the same story the universe is telling us.

There seems to be a trend within the above examples. In both cases we find observations prevailing theory cannot explain. Also in both cases, the intensity of the objects is one of the most pertinent and troublesome issues. We are talking about the most vivid objects in the universe! We have a lot of energy to account for! And thinking in terms of black hole/singularity doesn't seem to be accounting for what we observe. I think we should try to throw some other ideas out there to see if there's another concept that fits observation better. Einstein, where are you now? We could use your help here. "E=mc^2", you say? Yea, I know, Einstein; you rock. Wait a second, that could be it!!!  ...So we're back at square one, looking at Chandrasekhar's work, also wondering what happens when we crush neutrons beyond their breaking point. We explored singularity; it was less than completely convincing. Let's explore the reverse. What if E=mc^2 was the answer to what happens when matter achieves neutron degeneracy/Schwarzchild radius? Let's explore the properties of that story and see how it relates to observation.

What if E=mc^2 is the answer to what happens when we achieve neutron degeneracy/Schwartzchild radius? I suppose we should start by clarifying what we mean by that. In contrast to the singularity notion that sequesters the mass, we are now going to experiment with releasing the mass. We are going to hypothesize when neutrons get crushed beyond their breaking point their energy gets released from particle state and is freed to roam as radiative energy. How much energy is released is simple: all of it! -as per E=mc^2. We are essentially experimenting with a new definition of "nova". The idea we are toying with says nova is the energy released by neutrons that get crushed beyond their breaking point. Nova isn't related to shockwave, it's a change in the state of matter/energy. It's exactly what we should expect from mixing matter and antimatter: complete conversion of mass into radiative energy. If we break a neutron, it literally becomes a nova; that outburst of energy is nova.

Okay, we have a different definition of "nova" to test out; one where we think neutron degeneracy means the mass of the particle gets released as radiative energy. What is a supernova then? Say we have a supermassive star that's collapsing. We know it's going to achieve Schwarzchild radius in the core. Within our current thought experiment, that means all the mass in the core will be converted into radiative energy, as per E=mc^2. That is a huge amount of radiative energy. Stars shine thanks to nucleosynthesis, or fusion, by turning lighter elements into heavier elements. They manage to scrape off a minute portion of the mass in the process and use that energy to shine. But in our supernova here, it is utilizing all of the mass of those particles. That is seriously a huge amount of energy. Complete conversion of mass into energy within Schwarzchild Radius would produce enough energy for one star to outshine an entire galaxy.  Hmm, perhaps that's how supernova can be so intense: they got a better energy source.   It seems as though our new concept is doing okay so far. It just neatly explained something that couldn't be explained previously!

Observation tells us supernovae have greatly varying periods of maximum intensity. Some are very short lived, some last for weeks. This cannot be explained within prevailing theory. Our current notion of nova, on the other hand, has an elegant solution for this one too: it's a matter of how massive the star is. Say we had a supermassive star that was just barely massive enough to crush a few neutrons. It would not have very far to go before it reached equilibrium. Subsequently, it would reach equilibrium rather quickly and the period of maximum intensity would be very short. Thus is the nature of our short-lived supernova. There are also supermassive stars that bring the term "supermassive" to new heights. With this much larger variety, there is much more mass to burn off before equilibrium can be reached. Those stars will subsequently have much longer periods of maximum intensity. [Incidentally, Gamma Ray Bursts are the signature of "nova". Maximum intensity in visible wavelengths is not as directly related to the collapse as the GRBs are.]

Our thought experiment is enjoying some successes! As we've seen above, it can account for the intensity of supernovae. And now we see it can account for their varying periods of maximum intensity as well. If we scrutinized all the other properties observed within supernova in relation to this approach, we would find the same thing: our new story better matches the story observation is telling us. The singularity story isn't standing to observation as well. While inspiring, we scientists at heart must press on. It seems quasars, active galactic nuclei, and cosmic jets were a part of this discussion too. We must find out what they have to say about our concept.

Quasars/active galactic nuclei are the most energetic objects in the universe. Prevailing theory cannot explain this intensity but our new found definition of nova can. Gravitational acceleration of accretion disks is a wholly insufficient explanation of the origin of cosmic jets, it fails by magnitudes; if cosmic jets were an ocean, accretion disks could barely power a puddle. Conversion of mass into pure energy as per E=mc^2 can explain their intensity, however. If we dug deep enough we would find that's the only way it can be explained. No other mechanism known to science could produce the amount of energy we observe emanating from those structures.

The cores of quasars ["active" galaxies, like our own] are insanely massive, far bigger than any star we've discussed above. And because of that, they have a much more stable structure. A supernova is a firecracker by comparison. These celestial bodies largely maintain their structure while burning incredible amounts of neutrons in the core. These things don't thrive on nucleosynthesis like most stars do, these guys are powered by nova; they maintain Schwarzchild radius!   Supernovae only get to experience that highly energetic state for a brief period of time, quasars live there. Quasars are able to maintain their jets because they are continuously being fed by the rest of their Galaxy. If we give it some thought, we might see the core of a quasar is bound to be the craziest place in the universe. It is somewhat like a laser in there, only made of the most unusual medium you can imagine: pure energy! In its simplest terms, a laser is a mirrored box that you pump some energy into until whatever is trapped inside resonates. Lasers can be made of various different states of matter, including pure energy. Everything caught within Schwarzchild radius is pure energy, and being stuck in the center of a quasar means that energy's chances of escape are severely compromised. We have a case of full-spectrum resonance occurring in a medium of pure energy. That is, without a doubt, some craziness! Most of the energy that does manages to escape does so at the weakest points in the system, along the magnetic poles, contributing to the cosmic jets.

That treatment of quasars was excessively short and sweet, and probably needs to be elaborated on, but it made a significant achievement! It could be purely circumstantial, but our thought experiment just wrote out the most clear, concise, and comprehensive description of quasars known to humanity. And while brief, the story it tells matches the story observation tells us better than any other theory. Actually, that's the only viable model of quasars humanity has EVER produced; before this, humanity didn't have a plausible explanation.  I'm beginning to suspect our thought experiment is turning up something valid. Wait a second, we have a new observation coming in!!! That will certainly help us sort out what's going on here.

"Just about a year ago, astronomers from Ohio State University using an optical telescope in Hawaii discovered a star that was being pulled from its normal path and heading for a supermassive black hole. Because of that exciting find, scientists have now for the first time witnessed a black hole swallow a star and then, well, belch! When a black hole burps, it quickly ejects a flare of stellar debris moving at nearly light speed, a very rare and dazzling event.
Astrophysicists tracked the star—about the size of our sun—as it shifted from its customary path, slipped into the gravitational pull of a supermassive black hole, and was sucked in, says Sjoert van Velzen, a Hubble fellow at Johns Hopkins University.
"These events are extremely rare," says van Velzen, lead author of the study published in the journal Science. "It's the first time we see everything from the stellar destruction followed by the launch of a conical outflow, also called a jet, and we watched it unfold over several months."
-Courtesy of: http://www.sciencerocksmyworld.com/astronomers-see-star-pulled-into-black-hole-and-what-happened-next-amazed-them/

What is Mother Nature telling us here? Is that observation consistent with black hole theory? Um no, it isn't. The event horizon is not a structure, there is nothing to hit there. And it's a one way street once you're inside. The notion that hitting a black hole with something would result in significant signal is ridiculous. What we're left with is a star passing through a thin and diffuse plasma structure in orbit. That would not produce a cosmic jet. That would be more like trying to submerge a piece of ice in a warm stream. Sure, the plasma in orbit would mess with the star a bit, but a galactic jet is magnitudes more energetic than anything could ever expect from that type of interaction.

This observation provides further support to the validity of the notions within our thought experiment. A massive neutron star on the verge of neutron degeneracy pressures that gets another star dumped on top of it will behave exactly as we see here. The added mass will force particles into Schwarzchild radius, convert those particles into pure radiative energy, create plasma jets, and blow chunks of star at relativistic speeds into the cosmos.

Personally, I trust the universe more than I trust the opinion of humans. Modern theory is telling me one thing, but I can see the universe trying to tell me something else. I'm going to go with the universe on this one. The E=mc^2 approach to redefining nova elegantly explains all known properties of the discussed structures. Not only does the singularity approach fail to provide a clear and concise description of the physics it champions, that approach also undermines the tools needed to explain the physics behind the most energetic objects in the universe. The only physics known to humanity that can explain the intensity of these objects is E=mc^2, nothing else comes close. The only model of the universe that takes that approach is the Nova model. That is to say the Nova Model is the only model known to humanity that will survive achieving Schwarzchild radius in the lab. Every other model of the universe seems to think the sample will go singularity. We know the sample will go nova. Well, I, at least, know the sample will go nova. I, therefore, know with confidence: black holes don't exist! -Mother Nature told me so.
If religions were TV channels atheism is turning the TV off.
"Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt." ― Richard P. Feynman
'It is said that your life flashes before your eyes just before you die. That is true, it's called Life.' - Terry Pratchett
Remember, your inability to grasp science is not a valid argument against it.

xSilverPhinx

Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 05:28:09 AM
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 04:31:48 AM
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 04:21:06 AM
Unfortunately, if you want to be taken seriously, you will have to follow the standard rules of scientific discourse. No respectable physics journal will publish an article by you without a summary. These are the journals people like Steven Weinberg and Sean Carroll read to see what's new in physics. Again, unfortunately for you, they are the ones who will judge your hypotheses.
Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 03:40:06 AM
...since I'm not showing you my homework just yet, scientific rigor essentially renders this as speculation.   So don't worry about it.    You got some speculation from some jerk on the internet...
Quote from: hermes2015 on March 20, 2018, 04:21:06 AM
Anyway, it is possible to explain what QM is all about in a few simple words a 10 year old of average intelligence can understand (one example: https://www.livescience.com/33816-quantum-mechanics-explanation.html).
particles are fundamental.  Quarks are not fundamental, they are structure.   The structure has three oriented axis.   With 2 oriented axis, it permits only one unique form, rotationally symmetric.   But matter has 3 oriented axis, which produces 2 unique forms: the right hand rule, and the left hand rule; that difference is what distinguishes matter from anti matter.   what else do you want to know?

I am waiting for your executive summary, as you would have to supply when you submit your paper to the Journal of Physics. That is not what you have written, and will certainly not be accepted for publication. I am just trying to help you focus your mind and explain your hypothesis in clearer terms. At the moment your screed comes across as pseudo science, but that is not my problem.

When do you intend to submit your work to a scientific journal? Please send us references to the journal articles when they are published; at that time I will communicate my comments to you. Until then, I wish you luck.

And please, not one of those predatory journals prowling the academic savannah. Those will take just about anything...
I am what survives if it's slain - Zack Hemsey


jumbojak

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 04:15:08 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on March 20, 2018, 03:53:37 AM

Yeah, gimme a rundown on plasma physics?
Oh fuck...  I don't know if I can do that man...   I mean, I think in 4d, with some whoop ass physics simulation capacity.  I can see how mathematical structures evolve.  And search and rescue was called out on me once, when I was 5, for studying physics from mother nature directly.   Then i got kicked out of second grade for studying spectroscopy...  been paying attention to mother nature for a long while...  I know how she moves too.   But that shit is not translatable into English.  It's scarcely characterizable in mathematics. 

You know anything about the maxwell equations?   The ones establishing light?   A couple of those equations are all about magnetic field: shit gets swirly, electric field: shit gets swirly...   well, plasma is both, they play off another.    You know, that's one thing that pisses me off about modern science: reducing everything to gravitation strips most of the universe's intrinsic beauty from it.   modern theory basically has dots that come and go.   that's pathetic.   na, particles dance on their own accord, and they get down together!  this everything in this universe is dancing together.   I mean check out Hannes Alfven!!!   <--he will be known as the most significant physicist of the late 20th century when BBT falls (sorry hawking).   There's the pinch effect within plasma physics, Birkeland Currents...  Wow man, I don't even know where to start.   Anthony Peratt's work too!    Just stay the hell away from the "Tunderbolts Project", "Electric Universe" people.    I've already put my claws into the mythologist founder Talbot....  Cant wait to get them into his little physicist lap dog Thornhill.

Indeed I do know something about Maxwell's equations. At least I did years ago when I studied physics.

"Amazing what chimney sweeping can teach us, no? Keep your fire hot and
your flue clean."  - Ecurb Noselrub

"I'd be incensed by your impudence were I not so impressed by your memory." - Siz

Davin

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 19, 2018, 09:49:56 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 19, 2018, 09:41:52 PMThat is not the only justification, and even if it were, that would mean that it's not arbitrary.
I'm afraid you lost me.   Say the steps you've taken lead to your math producing infinities.   Precisely how do you take a non-arbitrary next step beyond that?
You can't both say that a concept is arbitrary and that it fits with other concepts. That you got lost in that simple bit of logic isn't a great sign.

If you read the theories and hypothesis' that you are attacking, then you would already know why they present the concepts and what those concepts are meant to answer. That you don't know of which you are criticizing, means that there is no reason to take your criticism seriously.

Quote from: Rift Zone
Quote from: Davin on March 19, 2018, 09:41:52 PMThen I await your post that makes sense.
I'll probably continue to disappoint you.  You might consider running along, satisfied your understanding of physical reality will stand for all time.
Or... I just stick around and point out the errors in your reasoning.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Rift Zone

Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 20, 2018, 11:26:23 AM

And please, not one of those predatory journals prowling the academic savannah. Those will take just about anything...
Oh hell no!   
This universe is 99.999+% plasma, the primary state of matter.   We, and our largely liquid, gaseous, and solid states realm, are an anomaly in the universe.   So naturally, there are countless phenomenon in the cosmos that are related to plasma and plasma physics.   But you know what?   You can't publish celestially applicable plasma physics works in astronomical, astrophysical, or cosmological journals.   With rare exception, you cant even say "plasma" in them; the closest any dare tread is "filament" -which is a decidedly plasma phenomenon.   Um, say what?  -you shady little bastards!   So I've decided I'm gonna submit it to the plasma journals.   It will be known in plasma circles first.   Of course the buzz is certain to hit BBT theorists before too long.   ...and they will have to pick up something that lives and breathes plasma physics to know what the universe is really all about.   And in that way I will have my revenge on the shady elements of modern science. 
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

Davin

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 04:15:08 AM
Quote from: jumbojak on March 20, 2018, 03:53:37 AM

Yeah, gimme a rundown on plasma physics?
Oh fuck...  I don't know if I can do that man...   I mean, I think in 4d, with some whoop ass physics simulation capacity.  I can see how mathematical structures evolve.  And search and rescue was called out on me once, when I was 5, for studying physics from mother nature directly.   Then i got kicked out of second grade for studying spectroscopy...  been paying attention to mother nature for a long while...  I know how she moves too.   But that shit is not translatable into English.  It's scarcely characterizable in mathematics. 

You know anything about the maxwell equations?   The ones establishing light?   A couple of those equations are all about magnetic field: shit gets swirly, electric field: shit gets swirly...   well, plasma is both, they play off another.    You know, that's one thing that pisses me off about modern science: reducing everything to gravitation strips most of the universe's intrinsic beauty from it.   modern theory basically has dots that come and go.   that's pathetic.   na, particles dance on their own accord, and they get down together!  this everything in this universe is dancing together.   I mean check out Hannes Alfven!!!   <--he will be known as the most significant physicist of the late 20th century when BBT falls (sorry hawking).   There's the pinch effect within plasma physics, Birkeland Currents...  Wow man, I don't even know where to start.   Anthony Peratt's work too!    Just stay the hell away from the "Tunderbolts Project", "Electric Universe" people.    I've already put my claws into the mythologist founder Talbot....  Cant wait to get them into his little physicist lap dog Thornhill.
You're not the first, self described genius that thinks they are the only ones who can see how the world truly is and that everyone else has is wrong, to come through here. None of them had been able to refrain from trying to bolster themselves in attempts to bolster their arguments. Which doesn't make much sense because that only creates fallacious support (which is no support at all really), instead of just supporting their own claims.

Maybe you will be different and this flurry of shameless self promotion was a fluke. I doubt it though.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Davin

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 01:59:57 PM
Quote from: xSilverPhinx on March 20, 2018, 11:26:23 AM

And please, not one of those predatory journals prowling the academic savannah. Those will take just about anything...
Oh hell no!   
This universe is 99.999+% plasma, the primary state of matter.
Are you sure about that? Plasma would fall into the 4% of things that astronomers can see. The other 96% is stuff we cannot see. So why don't you go ahead and support that claim that 99.999+% of the universe is plasma. Provide some astronomical observations of various techniques, some papers, or anything other than bare assertions.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.

Rift Zone

Quote from: jumbojak on March 20, 2018, 12:16:42 PM
Indeed I do know something about Maxwell's equations. At least I did years ago when I studied physics.
I'll see what I can do about collecting some good info for you to check out!

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 01:59:00 PM
[You can't both say that a concept is arbitrary and that it fits with other concepts. That you got lost in that simple bit of logic isn't a great sign.

If you read the theories and hypothesis' that you are attacking, then you would already know why they present the concepts and what those concepts are meant to answer. That you don't know of which you are criticizing, means that there is no reason to take your criticism seriously.
Oh, actually read the theories?   I suppose should have thought of that.   I've just been conducting seances and having the originators of the concepts teach them to me.    You can reach the live ones too!  -providing they say the magic words: "are you fucking kidding me man?"    The notions of modern science have been, it appears, successfully challenged, by a guy who didn't read the theories?   lol   cool story, bro.   

What do you want to hear?   That Relativity supports singularity?   Aye!   That's where we got the notion in the first place.   But wait, you know that whole relativity isn't talking to QM thing?   -They don't get along?   Among other things, it means Relativity breaks down when you get into the nuances of particle physics.   So as much as you may think otherwise, it's not applicable to this situation; applying Relativity to it is a violation of scientific rigor: arbitrary, no matter how you slice it.   

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 01:59:00 PMOr... I just stick around and point out the errors in your reasoning.
You do that and I'll keep pointing out some logical fallacy loving ankle-biter who is desperate to get a little piece of me because he knows damn well he can't touch my science.    I mean, I'd be delighted to have the help!   I value accuracy more than being "right".  -that approach seems to have its benefits.
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

Rift Zone

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 02:10:54 PM
You're not the first, self described genius that thinks they are the only ones who can see how the world truly is and that everyone else has is wrong, to come through here. None of them had been able to refrain from trying to bolster themselves in attempts to bolster their arguments. Which doesn't make much sense because that only creates fallacious support (which is no support at all really), instead of just supporting their own claims.

Maybe you will be different and this flurry of shameless self promotion was a fluke. I doubt it though.
Me?   Oh no, I'm fully content with the notion that I'm seriously bat-shit crazy.    I couldn't be a genius...  sure, they say crazy shit too, but they know what they're talking about.

Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 02:15:34 PM
[Are you sure about that? Plasma would fall into the 4% of things that astronomers can see. The other 96% is stuff we cannot see. So why don't you go ahead and support that claim that 99.999+% of the universe is plasma. Provide some astronomical observations of various techniques, some papers, or anything other than bare assertions.
lol   darkwhateverthefucks?   really?   We'll see about that.   
In the last few millennia we have made the most astonishing and unexpected discoveries about the Cosmos and our place within it, explorations that are exhilarating to consider. They remind us that humans have evolved to wonder, that understanding is a joy, that knowledge is prerequisite to survival.   -Carl Sagan

Davin

Quote from: Rift Zone on March 20, 2018, 02:36:51 PM
Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 02:10:54 PM
You're not the first, self described genius that thinks they are the only ones who can see how the world truly is and that everyone else has is wrong, to come through here. None of them had been able to refrain from trying to bolster themselves in attempts to bolster their arguments. Which doesn't make much sense because that only creates fallacious support (which is no support at all really), instead of just supporting their own claims.

Maybe you will be different and this flurry of shameless self promotion was a fluke. I doubt it though.
Me?   Oh no, I'm fully content with the notion that I'm seriously bat-shit crazy.    I couldn't be a genius...  sure, they say crazy shit too, but they know what they're talking about.
Then why do all the bolstering bullshit?

Quote from: Rift Zone
Quote from: Davin on March 20, 2018, 02:15:34 PM
[Are you sure about that? Plasma would fall into the 4% of things that astronomers can see. The other 96% is stuff we cannot see. So why don't you go ahead and support that claim that 99.999+% of the universe is plasma. Provide some astronomical observations of various techniques, some papers, or anything other than bare assertions.
lol   darkwhateverthefucks?   really?   We'll see about that.
Yeah, that's how it works. Instead of some one just pretending to know things and baselessly claiming things, science is way to actually see things.
Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.