PSI Blog 20170404 Black Holes
Disappear into Nothing?
From George Coyne:
Glenn:
As you know orthodox physicists claim
this happens to a star in black holes: “According to General Relativity, it
collapses all the way down to nothing. Not just "very small", but
smaller and smaller until it's exactly zero in size. Density becomes infinite.”
http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/2240/what-is-a-singularity-what-is-at-the-center-of-a-black-hole-specifically-regar
That is absurd and preposterous. How can supporters of GRT believe this nonsense? Why do they not understand that just as you cannot go from nothing to something, it is impossible for something to become nothing?
[GB: George:
Congratulations on turning up another
of the wild contradictions in cosmogony. The primary deficiency of the
cosmogonists and regressive physicists is that they do not have sufficient
principles. In progressive physics we adhere to the Fifth Assumption of
Science, conservation (Matter and the motion of matter can be neither
created nor destroyed). The whole of the Big Bang Theory, like most religions, is
a violation of conservation. The opposite, indeterministic
assumption, is creation, the proposition that something
could be created out of nothing. If you can believe that, then it is entirely
logical to believe that something could disappear into nothing. I am not sure
and I am not really interested in how all this stems from GRT. Einstein’s idea
that the universe is 4-dimensional is without merit, like the rest of
relativity (except for the E=mc2
equation, which was used by Einstein, but not discovered by him).
As we explained in our UCT book,[1]
the misnamed “Black Holes” are simply the super dense nuclei of rotating or
formerly rotating galaxies. Vortices like these accrete matter as they rotate
and excrete matter when they stop rotating. In other words, galactic nuclei are
where stars go to die (via a little gravitational push). When the rotation of a
galactic nucleus slows, it can excrete matter that eventually forms new stars
per your second heads up:
The second link falsifies the first
link. The regressive idea that a black hole could become infinitely dense assumes
that the rotation necessary for the densification of the
nucleus of a vortex could continue forever. This is not the case, because, like
all microcosms, black holes have a macrocosm. Resistance provided by the
macrocosm eventually slows vortex rotation. This principle is outlined in the Sixth
Assumption of Science, complementarity (All things are
subject to divergence and convergence from other things). In other words,
microcosms in the Infinite Universe form via convergence and eventually
dissipate via divergence. Cosmogonists would do well to get a set of
fundamental assumptions so they could avoid such wild calculations that only
get published because they support the current paradigm.]
[1]
Puetz, Stephen J., and
Borchardt, Glenn, 2011, Universal cycle theory: Neomechanics of the hierarchically
infinite universe: Denver, CO, Outskirts Press, 626 p.
[http://www.scientificphilosophy.com/].
Posts
4 comments:
GC and GB seem both to be ignoring the
"infinity" included in the subject material. Infinitely small, or infinitesmal, means matter is also at that condition or state. Yes, at some point that is hidden from us, but the very definition of infinite. So to link infinity to "nothing" is beneath whoever did that. And, I am surprised GB did not correct this. Isn't infinity one of the 10 Assumptions of science?
Bligh, yes indeed, the Eighth Assumption of Science is infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions). As you imply, all portions of the universe are infinitely divisible. That includes what we normally think of as “matter” and what we normally think of as “space.”
Reading the linked articles, I had a similar reaction to what Bligh is talking about. Being a big fan of the infinity concept from way back, I immediately bristled when the author equated "infinite smallness" as "zero volume". Sorry, that's a misunderstanding of what the word "infinity" means. Infinity refers to "no stopping" when describing movement, or "no end" when describing matter. No wonder the physicists "dislike singularities" in their formulas. They must feel obliged to say that (even though we know how much they dearly love to talk about singularities on TV shows and in popular articles). They must sense a tingle of unease because their assumptions are bumping up against each other and conflicting. "Infinity" cannot apply to a measurement getting smaller and smaller. Well, I guess they can write that out on the chalkboard, but they'll end up dividing by zero, which sends a signal to their brain that something is wrong with their formulas. Instead of adjusting their assumptions, they claim that there is a "hole" in reality, not just in their reasoning.
Excellent comment!
In a way, this discussion touches on what it means to “falsify” (the fancy word for “disprove”) an idea or theory. Fundamental assumptions such as the Eighth Assumption of Science, infinity (The universe is infinite, both in the microcosmic and macrocosmic directions) cannot be falsified. They can only be assumed or not. Measurements will be of no use. This bedevils regressive physicists who typically use the opposing, erroneous assumption: finity.
Post a Comment