[Craig W. Thomson]

Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL

I ask you again to please refrain from the insults.

Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.

You really don't want to go there.

I asked you to leave me along several months ago at another site. You relentlessly follow me around spouting nonsense science, all the while telling me I don't know what I am talking about. You're the one who wants to go there. I'm just following your lead. If you don't want to interact with me, I suggest you engage someone else in a conversation and quit your whining.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Yes agyejy, counting thank yous is another subject isn't it?

Still nothing to say about science? That's why you only have six. See, when you run your mouth without saying anything, your number of posts goes up, but your number of thank yous stays the same. Would you like me to write you an equation to demonstrate this relationship?

[agyejy]

I asked you to leave me along several months ago at another site. You relentlessly follow me around spouting nonsense science, all the while telling me I don't know what I am talking about. You're the one who wants to go there. I'm just following your lead. If you don't want to interact with me, I suggest you engage someone else in a conversation and quit your whining.

I have every right to point out when someone says something that is factually incorrect. Doing so is not an insult. You do not have the right to insult me. Correction of factual errors and observations of your demonstrated level of comprehension based on those factual errors are not in anyway an insult. Your continued disparagement of me is beginning to seem rather immature. Also, we drifted far afield of the topic and I suggest we both make an effort to return to it.

[jeffreyH]

Yes agyejy, counting thank yous is another subject isn't it?

Still nothing to say about science? That's why you only have six. See, when you run your mouth without saying anything, your number of posts goes up, but your number of thank yous stays the same. Would you like me to write you an equation to demonstrate this relationship?

Yes equations over abrasions any day.

[Ethos_]

I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.

I've had the opportunity to watch a couple of Susskind's videos myself and I rather like his logic regarding black holes. Whereas the former viewpoint regarding the loss of information held by Hawking and Susskind's position that all information is stored at the event horizon I find very appealing myself. Even so, I still have some reservations because theory says that as a black hole grows larger, it's entropy decreases as it's mass increases. When considering Black Hole thermodynamics, how do we reconcile these two opposing positions? The increase of information will also increase the degree of entropy.

[agyejy]

I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.

I've had the opportunity to watch a couple of Susskind's videos myself and I rather like his logic regarding black holes. Whereas the former viewpoint regarding the loss of information held by Hawking and Susskind's position that all information is stored at the event horizon I find very appealing myself. Even so, I still have some reservations because theory says that as a black hole grows larger, it's entropy decreases as it's mass increases. When considering Black Hole thermodynamics, how do we reconcile these two opposing positions? The increase of information will also increase the degree of entropy.

In the information theories that I am aware of the entropy of information is actually opposite in sign to the standard entropy of disorder. So a growing black hole is expected to decrease its disorder entropy as the information it stores increases.

[Ethos_]

I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.

I've had the opportunity to watch a couple of Susskind's videos myself and I rather like his logic regarding black holes. Whereas the former viewpoint regarding the loss of information held by Hawking and Susskind's position that all information is stored at the event horizon I find very appealing myself. Even so, I still have some reservations because theory says that as a black hole grows larger, it's entropy decreases as it's mass increases. When considering Black Hole thermodynamics, how do we reconcile these two opposing positions? The increase of information will also increase the degree of entropy.

In the information theories that I am aware of the entropy of information is actually opposite in sign to the standard entropy of disorder. So a growing black hole is expected to decrease its disorder entropy as the information it stores increases.

Interesting, do you know the explanation for this assigned negative entropy? I always thought that any added information to a closed system increased it's entropy. If you have a link to this information, I would gladly check it out. Thanks......

[agyejy]

Interesting, do you know the explanation for this assigned negative entropy? I always thought that any added information to a closed system increased it's entropy. If you have a link to this information, I would gladly check it out. Thanks......

I should be more clear I apologize. Both thermodynamic entropy and information entropy are positive quantities. In general encoding a message into a sub-system requires you change something (flipping a bit on a hard drive for example). The overall entropy of the sub-system remains positive but in general is lower after you've written the information to it than it was at thermal equilibrium. This is ok because it took energy to change the sub-system and encode the information (flipping the bit) and this energy will also cause a corresponding greater increase in entropy somewhere else such that total entropy in the universe increases. So if you just encoded information onto a black hole you'd expect an entropy decrease of the black hole. However, that is not actually what is happening when a black hole grows. When a black hole grows it is more akin to increasing the size of your sub-system rather than simply encoding more information on to what was already there. Thus it is not surprising that the entropy would increase with size.

I just double checked the equations for black hole entropy and confirmed they are directly proportional to surface area. Which means the entropy of a black hole actually increases as it grows. I'm not sure where you got the impression that the entropy of a black hole decreases as it grows. Do you have a link to something that says this?

I apologize for vague incorrectness of my earlier post.

[guest39538]

Ok, now we are on subject,



Firstly let us consider the only real evidence of a black hole.   The observation of  ''dust'' circulating a ''black hole''  in a ''disk'' formation.


My first thought would be why doe's the dust have to be circulating anything, why could the circulation not be a product of the dusts own polarities?


If we imagine a ''ball'' of positive energy, this ball will always want to expand by it's own repulsive forces, a bit like a balloon expanding leaving a negative  ''void'' in the middle, the skin of the balloon representing the dust.


Now if we was to rotate this ball, because of the extremely low density, the y-axis contracts totally to expand the x-axis forming a disk.


Added - imagine a football, and we kick the football so hard and fast with some spin on the ball , while in travel spinning, it turns into a disk, now imagine we kick several more footballs into space and they all do  the same thing, now imagine these football disks, bounce of each other before they even touch unless the football disk is not equal  because then they join.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[Craig W. Thomson]

I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.

I've had the opportunity to watch a couple of Susskind's videos myself and I rather like his logic regarding black holes. Whereas the former viewpoint regarding the loss of information held by Hawking and Susskind's position that all information is stored at the event horizon I find very appealing myself. Even so, I still have some reservations because theory says that as a black hole grows larger, it's entropy decreases as it's mass increases. When considering Black Hole thermodynamics, how do we reconcile these two opposing positions? The increase of information will also increase the degree of entropy.

I have an hypothesis about that. I am of the opinion that black holes do not conserve entropy. I think they recycle the universe. Entropy is when things go from an ordered state to a disordered state. In my mind, what happens in a black hole is basically the reverse of entropy, the opposite of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. All the mass and energy that goes into a black hole merges into a sort of plasma, the same sort of plasma the Universe condensed out of after the Big Bang. I think that, like a supernova, a black hole has some sort of limit beyond which it cannot take in any more mass or energy without triggering some sort of "explosive" event. Black holes don't evaporate very fast, so given enough time, lots of black holes in an aging universe could merge. In short, once enough mergers have happened for a black hole to reach one universe in mass, it blows its top in a Big Bang, leading to a new round of nucleosynthesis.

In my mind, this hypothesis neatly resolves the conflict of why entropy supposedly cannot be reversed, and explains the apparently finite "starting point" of the universe and time as merely the beginning of a cycle.

[Craig W. Thomson]

I actually did some quick calculations showing that electron-electron scattering in a metal is negligible and that electrons in metals scatter off things like impurities and phonons much much more often.

Yeah, sure you did.

I disagree with your statement about entropy in black holes increasing as they grow larger. Gas in a bottle is "order." Open the lid and let it out, that's disorder. Black holes put the gas back in the bottle. There's nothing more ordered than a bunch of mass and energy that's been merged into a simple plasma soup at a point particle location.

[jeffreyH]

An object that is swallowed by a black hole decreases the entropy of the universe since the event horizon is impenetrable from the inside. However, the increase in entropy of the black hole itself more than makes up for the loss. So in general the entropy of the universe increases. The surface area of the event horizon is proportional to the entropy of the black hole as determined by Jacob Beckenstein. This then led on to the development of the holographic principle.

[Craig W. Thomson]

An object that is swallowed by a black hole decreases the entropy of the universe since the event horizon is impenetrable from the inside. However, the increase in entropy of the black hole itself more than makes up for the loss. So in general the entropy of the universe increases. The surface area of the event horizon is proportional to the entropy of the black hole as determined by Jacob Beckenstein. This then led on to the development of the holographic principle.

That's nice, but Beckenstein has never actually observed the inside of a black hole to confirm this. I still say, there's nothing more ordered than a bunch of mass and energy that has been confined to a point particle location and turned into a simple plasma soup. Gas in a bottle is order. An open bottle with the gas spilling out to fill a room is disorder. Black holes are bottles. The Big Bang is what happens when the bottle gets too full. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is the reverse of what happens in a black hole.

By the way, the most obvious contradiction that leads me to have faith in what I just said is the apparent "finite" nature of the universe. It's a contradiction that entropy is only one way. It's a contradiction that the universe had a "starting point." Mass and energy don't just appear out of nowhere. The object that became the Big Bang had an origin. The universe didn't just spontaneously appear 13.7 billion years ago. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Entropy seems to imply the ultimate fate of our universe is heat death and dissipation. How can that be? Time started at the Big Bang, ends with heat death? The universe came from nothing, ends as nothing, it is a blip in nothingness, surrounded at both ends by no time? That's a contradiction plain and simple. My "black holes recycle entropy and the universe" hypothesis makes more sense than that, by a huge factor. In this case, I am far more tempted to believe my own logic than Beckenstein's math.

[agyejy]

I actually did some quick calculations showing that electron-electron scattering in a metal is negligible and that electrons in metals scatter off things like impurities and phonons much much more often.

Yeah, sure you did.

I did and anyone who has read and understood the thread knows that. Are you having trouble understanding what you read?

I disagree with your statement about entropy in black holes increasing as they grow larger. Gas in a bottle is "order." Open the lid and let it out, that's disorder. Black holes put the gas back in the bottle. There's nothing more ordered than a bunch of mass and energy that's been merged into a simple plasma soup at a point particle location.

Then you disagree with Hawking, Susskind, and basically everyone else working on black holes.

That's nice, but Beckenstein has never actually observed the inside of a black hole to confirm this. I still say, there's nothing more ordered than a bunch of mass and energy that has been confined to a point particle location and turned into a simple plasma soup. Gas in a bottle is order. An open bottle with the gas spilling out to fill a room is disorder. Black holes are bottles. The Big Bang is what happens when the bottle gets too full. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is the reverse of what happens in a black hole.

This is nothing but a misunderstanding of entropy. If the gas in the bottle was allowed to expand in a reversible isothermal process to fill the entire room the entropy of the system would remain unchanged. However, if you just allow the gas to freely expand into the room the entropy of the system increases. For gases the change in entropy when going from one state to another state is always dictated by the process used to go from the initial to final state. Therefore it is in general not possible to make statements about the relative entropies of two states of a gas without knowing how those states came about.

By the way, the most obvious contradiction that leads me to have faith in what I just said is the apparent "finite" nature of the universe. It's a contradiction that entropy is only one way. It's a contradiction that the universe had a "starting point." Mass and energy don't just appear out of nowhere. The object that became the Big Bang had an origin. The universe didn't just spontaneously appear 13.7 billion years ago. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Entropy seems to imply the ultimate fate of our universe is heat death and dissipation. How can that be? Time started at the Big Bang, ends with heat death? The universe came from nothing, ends as nothing, it is a blip in nothingness, surrounded at both ends by no time? That's a contradiction plain and simple. My "black holes recycle entropy and the universe" hypothesis makes more sense than that, by a huge factor. In this case, I am far more tempted to believe my own logic than Beckenstein's math.

You are misusing the word contradiction again. You are also confusing your flawed classical intuition for logic (everyone's classical intuition is flawed). Scientists have known for quite awhile that the fact that an idea "makes sense" in their heads is absolutely meaningless without well defined predictions and experimental verifications. These are things Beckenstein, Hawking, Susskind, etc have and until you have the same your ideas cannot supercede theirs.

[Ethos_]

I just double checked the equations for black hole entropy and confirmed they are directly proportional to surface area. Which means the entropy of a black hole actually increases as it grows. I'm not sure where you got the impression that the entropy of a black hole decreases as it grows. Do you have a link to something that says this?

I apologize for vague incorrectness of my earlier post.

I think Jeff just gave the correct description in post #191. It appears I was mistaken.

[jeffreyH]

Here is a problem. Take the function f(x) = x sin 1/x and find the limit as x approaches zero. Then consider how to trace the function through the origin.

EDIT: What can this demonstrate to us that may shed light on the problems associated with black holes?

[guest39538]

Here is a problem. Take the function f(x) = x sin 1/x and find the limit as x approaches zero. Then consider how to trace the function through the origin.

EDIT: What can this demonstrate to us that may shed light on the problems associated with black holes?

That black holes neither emit light or absorb light because they are a relativistic  box singularity sin=0 and coss=n?


I used your maths to make this for the box singularity of light propagating through space.


f(x)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n)

f(y)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n)

f(z)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n)

f(t)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n)

The problem you have is that space-time is really my singularity , and t=c    , you have not accounted for the constant behind the space time that is an invariant, real space-time.


Light propagating through space is the singularity woven fabric, light is a polymorphism multidimensional  singularity that when it ''hits'' something it creates a tangent at the tips of contact, light can contract or stretch , but the space-time behind the light is constant. Length contraction, time-dilation is all light related and has nothing to do with real time which is the synchronisation of observation of 0.

 

[jeffreyH]

If you had researched the equation instead of guessing you would have found that when plotted the function describes a sine wave that changes in magnitude with distance and that it is impossible to trace the function to the origin at 0,0. This is because as the function decreases in magnitude the wavelength shortens in an infinite sequence of steps. This can appear to mimic the time dilation around a black hole. The surprising thing is that as the wave is blue-shifted and the energy increases time slows down. Which when you consider it properly makes sense as things that are vibrating VERY fast will have less chance of interacting on shorter timescales. Therefore time dilation. The fact that gravity blue-shifts waves is then the ultimate reason for time dilation. The most important factor is then not the geometry of space-time but how the stresses affect wavelength.

[guest39538]

If you had researched the equation instead of guessing you would have found that when plotted the function describes a sine wave that changes in magnitude with distance and that it is impossible to trace the function to the origin at 0,0. This is because as the function decreases in magnitude the wavelength shortens in an infinite sequence of steps. This can appear to mimic the time dilation around a black hole. The surprising thing is that as the wave is blue-shifted and the energy increases time slows down. Which when you consider it properly makes sense as things that are vibrating VERY fast will have less chance of interacting on shorter timescales. Therefore time dilation. The fact that gravity blue-shifts waves is then the ultimate reason for time dilation. The most important factor is then not the geometry of space-time but how the stresses affect wavelength.

I did not guess you read it correctly to the meaning I wanted and looked up, cos, sin and tan  explaining a singularity extending away from all observers in the light or dark to an unbounded ''point''

Length is a bounded quality.

Light changes when it makes contact with an obstruction and becomes 3 dimensional.




1,0,0,1


d=f(x)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n) delta (cos=x),(sin=y),(tan=z) = L

d=f(y)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n) delta (cos=x),(sin=y),(tan=z) = L

d=f(z)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n) delta (cos=x),(sin=y),(tan=z) = L

d=f(t)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n) delta (cos=x),(sin=y),(tan=z) = L


''The most important factor is then not the geometry of space-time but how the stresses affect wavelength.''


Yes the stresses affect wavelength not ''time''.

[Craig W. Thomson]

I actually did some quick calculations showing that electron-electron scattering in a metal is negligible and that electrons in metals scatter off things like impurities and phonons much much more often.

Yeah, sure you did.

Then you disagree with Hawking, Susskind, and basically everyone else working on black holes.

Hawking disagrees with Hawking specifically on this topic, you fool:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-admits-the-biggest-blunder-of-his-scientific-career-early-belief-that-everything-8568418.html

I still don't believe you about the "quick calculations." Care to show your work?? I say you're full of crap. I'm no Calculus expert, but I know enough about it to know those calculations aren't quick, and they aren't something you could just pull out a pocket calculator like you were balancing a checkbook. Those equations are complex and comprised largely of Greek symbols and such, single characters in the equation represent another whole equation, etc.