Summations Only

Or if you just listen

We discuss theories here. What we debate is usually misunderstanding of theories.

Yes, what you posted was gibberish. I'll point to some of the more obvious "non science" in your post. Einstein's equations are a set of inter-related differential equations that are extremely difficult to solve. Any who has taken a course in differential equations, which I suspect is a grouping that excludes you, can appreciate that it is quite unsurprising that there are exact solutions to the equations for only a small set of circumstances. The absence of solutions for many circumstances is of no particular import. Let's also note that there is no general solution to the n body problem, for n > 3, and yet we can still predict the motion of planets in the solar system with great accuracy using Newtonian mechanics.There is no reason to believe that a space with more than one black hole in it violates general relativity, and there is evidence of multiple black holes in the universe. Your attempt at a point making a point here is gibberish. Whatever theory the above quote is supposed to describe, it is not the Big Bang theory of reality, which does not involve a zero volume singularity. And what the heck is a "zero-point volume mass" anyway? Just more gibberish.Free gibberish debunk. An electron has no size. An electron and a proton at the same point in space does not form a singularity. So what would such a combination be? The same as it was initially in what way? In quantity perhaps if we insist on the conservation of energy under all circumstance. But not necessarily in the same form of course.But that's not the gibberish I mean to point out. A balanced amount of charge exists in a battery, yet there is chemical energy stored therein. Further, the question raised in the original discussion is whether the current situation, with charges and masses distributed as they are might total zero energy. You aren't even answering the right question. Because electrical/magnetic forces are not the only ones in existence? Because even with charges in balanced an arrangement of particles can have large amounts of kinetic energy, and various types of stored energy, some positive and some negative? That's right. Balanced necessarily means zero energy is still more gibberish.Your attempts to describe convention science are like nails screeching across a black board. You simply don't know enough real physics for anyone to value your personal impressions of whether electric cosmology is a better fit than general relativity and we have plenty of evidence for the latter. My personal impression is that there must be a better description of this stuff elsewhere. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : correction to n-body problem

quote:

---

So cosmologists know better than to blindly apply the laws of general relativity all the way back to T=0. They understand that there wasn't really any singularity. A number of theories have been proposed to explain what really happens, but none has yet garnered enough evidence to win out over the others.

---

You don't really believe that do you? What does it matter what theory of Black Holes we think correct if none of them are real to begin with? Cosmologist almost weekly mention the physical Black Hole in the center's of galaxies they have no explanation for to explain the vast plasma jets ejecting from their centers, yet scoff at the idea that quasar's might be ejected from galactic cores. After all, almost every single ones lies within a 20 degree plane of an active galaxies axis, the others at the ends of spiral arms, the plasma connection quite obvious.Just Google "black hole" and come back at tell me they talk about them as if they are not real. Got to NASA's web page and look it up. They use the impossible to explain what has been demonstrated over and over in the laboratory for over 100 years, plasma. And you want me to trust those telling me all about Black Holes?? They are the ones I am to believe, the ones that tell you 99% of the universe is plasma, then ignore it in every theory they have? Those experts? Shall we see what Stephen Hawkings thinks about the reality of Black Holes?Are you mad????Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Einstein's equations are a set of inter-related differential equations that are extremely difficult to solve.

---

Einstein field equations - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The Einstein field equations (EFE) or Einstein's equations are a set of 10 equations in Albert Einstein's general theory of relativity which describe the fundamental interaction of gravitation as a result of spacetime being curved by matter and energy. First published by Einstein in 1915 as a tensor equation, the EFE equate local spacetime curvature (expressed by the Einstein tensor) with the local energy and momentum within that spacetime (expressed by the stress—energy tensor).

​

Similar to the way that electromagnetic fields are determined using charges and currents via Maxwell's equations,....Maxwell's equations are partial differential equations that relate the electric and magnetic fields to each other and to the electric charges and currents. Often, the charges and currents are themselves dependent on the electric and magnetic fields via the Lorentz force equation and the constitutive relations. These all form a set of coupled partial differential equations, which are often very difficult to solve. In fact, the solutions of these equations encompass all the diverse phenomena in the entire field of classical electromagnetism. A thorough discussion is far beyond the scope of the article, but some general notes follow.

---

Which equations he derived from the work of Ampere, Weber and Gauss. Weber already had a relativistic formula for the working of the atom before the electron, proton or neutron had ever been discovered. Which Maxwell "simplified" with partial differential equations, and Einstein tried to put back into the non-linear form.
Einstein field equations - Wikipedia

quote:

---

The nonlinearity of the EFE distinguishes general relativity from many other fundamental physical theories. For example, Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are linear in the electric and magnetic fields, and charge and current distributions (i.e. the sum of two solutions is also a solution); another example is Schrdinger's equation of quantum mechanics which is linear in the wavefunction.

---

So Maxwell messed Weber's theory up which he had almost completed before he died, and Einstein tried to get right back there, but had to use Maxwell's equations because they were "Standard" theory then.

quote:

---

Whatever theory the above quote is supposed to describe, it is not the Big Bang theory of reality, which does not involve a zero volume singularity. And what the heck is a "zero-point volume mass" anyway? Just more gibberish.

​

Free gibberish debunk. An electron has no size. An electron and a proton at the same point in space does not form a singularity. So what would such a combination be?

---

Big Bang Theory Astronomypick one, lets seeThe Suppressed Electrodynamics Of Ampère-Gauss-WeberEdited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.Edited by justatruthseeker, : added linkEdited by Admin, : Fix link.

Your reading comprehension is sub-normal.

None of which has even the slightest relevance to the theory of General Relativity or to anything else I posted. In fact, nothing in your entire post is the least bit responsive or rebuts my pointing out that you are posting gibberish.Here you quote from Wikipedia:

quote:

---

The nonlinearity of the EFE distinguishes general relativity from many other fundamental physical theories. For example, Maxwell's equations of electromagnetism are linear in the electric and magnetic fields, and charge and current distributions (i.e. the sum of two solutions is also a solution); another example is Schrdinger's equation of quantum mechanics which is linear in the wavefunction.

---

And comment thusly... More gibberish. Your comment does not follow from the paragraph of stuff you quoted from Wikipedia, and does not address anything I've posted. What's wrong with you?

Pure gibberish. Einstein did nothing of the sort.

Hi JustATruthSeeker,I'm afraid you just pulled an Emily Litella. You seem to have forgotten that I was responding to your comment about the Big Bang, not black holes. In Message 364 you said: And that's what I responded to, pointing out that scientists don't really believe there was a singularity at T=0. A number of theories have been proposed to explain what really happens, but none has yet garnered enough evidence to win out over the others.I didn't say anything about black holes, but you seem to be wrong about them, too. Blindly applying the equations of general relativity does yield a singularity at the center of black holes, but scientists understand that general relativity isn't the full story at very small scales. They don't really believe there's a singularity at the center of black holes. As the Wikipedia article on black holes states: In this view of singularities they are seen as artifacts of applying only general relativity instead of general relativity and quantum theory together. Scientists don't believe singularities exist in the real universe.Can I leave the taunt out this time, or do I need to supply a taunt before you'll respond? If a taunt is required then just let me know and I'll add one. And I was wondering, if I edit in taunts to my other posts that you ignored, will you then respond to those, too?--Percy

Hi JustATruthSeeker,I agree with NoNukes that you appear to posting gibberish. Nothing you say makes any sense, it certainly doesn't appear to be anything true about the real world, nor does it appear to have anything to do with the posts you're replying to or to the websites you quote. I guess I can only echo NoNukes question: What is wrong with you?I corrected the damaged link in your post, that portion of your message now reads: The first link is a Google search for "big bang theory astronomy", and the link you posted does not appear on the first two pages of Google results. Given that your link doesn't contain the phrase "big bang", I doubt it appears on any page. Can you not get anything right?But thanks for the link to the crank on-line magazine. Here's a tip. The next time someone claims to be sharing suppressed scientific knowledge with you, they're a crank. You conspiracy suckers are all alike. Anytime someone taps you on the shoulder and whispers, "Hey, buddy, want to hear about the secret conspiracy," you guys just lap it up.Today's accepted scientific theories attained that position through painstaking study of and comparison against the real world. Proving any of them wrong will require more painstaking study of and comparison against the real world, not whatever it is you're doing.--Percy

This a little false. Firstly the magnetic field lines of black holes are distorted by the rotation of the black hole itself, so you effectively get spinning magnetic field lines. Any nearby matter (such as that in the accretion disk) attaches itself to the magnetic field lines. So you get matter spinning around the black hole.However the curvature of space causes that the magnetic field lines around the equator of the black hole to have a very high intensity, with the intensity dropping off away from the equator. So particles will move away from the equator to minimize their energy.So you have a pile of matter spinning around the hole trapped by the magnetic field lines moving up/down to the north/south pole, while at the same time spinning rapidly. Essentially at the poles the matter is then flung out into space via the centrifugal force of rotating and the curvature of space focusing it up/down.This is the Blandford—Znajek process. There are three other major ways a black hole could fling particles into space as jets, the major question would be how much do these processes contribute.So it is not the case that there is "no explanation", rather there are four and observational evidence shows at least one of them, the Blandford—Znajek process, to be at work (which is why I explained).What we don't know is if the Blandford—Znajek process provides all the energy to the jets. Are you aware that we've actually seen a black hole eat a star with direct observation:
Black Hole eats star.We've also recently seen one consume a star system, including the effects on one of the planets:
Tidal disruption of a super-Jupiter by a massive black hole

quote:

---

In this view of singularities they are seen as artifacts of applying only general relativity instead of general relativity and quantum theory together. Scientists don't believe singularities exist in the real universe.

---

Doesn't seem to be anyones interpretation but yours. Funny how that seems to be the case everytime you all say they say one thing, when everytime you look it up they say just the opposite, why do you think that is? Maybe because you don't actually know what they say, just what you want to believe they say, so you can whitewash it???
Press Release: Black Hole Caught Red-Handed in a Stellar Homicide Quite amazing that something not believed to exist can be tearing stars apart, since that is their official explanation for what is observed. get your story straight next time.Edited by justatruthseeker, : No reason given.

Soooo.....you still can't tell the difference between a black hole and a singularity.
You aren't really doing very well, are you.

quote:

---

Soooo.....you still can't tell the difference between a black hole and a singularity.
You aren't really doing very well, are you.

---

I would say you are the one that can't tell the difference, since according to your theorists, they are the exact same thing.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=55
Gravitational singularity - Wikipedia
And don't try to distract with that infintile reliance on quantum theory, it does not apply.

quote:

---

It must be stated that these come due to the breaking down of the classical theory. As yet, there is no theory of quantum gravity, but it is entirely possible that the singularities may be avoided with a theory of quantum gravity.

---

So whenever you devise a quantum gravity theory just let me know, ok?

That is because you are unable to admit that you can't tell the difference between a black hole and a singularity.
You prefer distraction to honesty.As I said, you still can't tell the difference between a black hole and a singularity.
You really aren't doing very well, are you./patEdited by Panda, : No reason given.Edited by Panda, : No reason given.