I'm I a proponent of EU , sure . But knocking Steven is not seen by me as knocking EU , or Cosmic Plasma theory of the Universe . Understood !!! His presentation of his thinking has never envolved EU or CP , at all . At this point I don't , have a critique on Hooft's critique of Steven's point . At some point I might . That's why I put this thread into the mathematic's topic in the first place . Steven is about the logic of black-hole , concept and GR . And his video's are full of mathematics of both . Do you know the mathematics he is referring to towards Hooft's thinking ?
Infinite energy ? How does wave packets ( what are they? ) have infinite extension in space and time . And then implies , infinite energy What does Hooft mean here . Why is the energy , infinite ?
Mathematical not physical . It does not disprove L's claim . L's claim is that , your argument is mathematical not physical . L's argument stands .
You confuse what 't Hooft wrote in your quote - 'L' IGNORED the wave packets (solutions) - which are inherently bounded in all 3 spatial dimensions hence bounded in total energy. Again - 'L' concentrated on plane wave solutions. You even quoted exactly 't Hooft's very reason why that is invalid in context: "..These have infinite extension in space and time and represent infinite energy." Is that part hard to understand? Look I have limited time and patience with this and sorry but your continued further postings are missing the real issues. Time for a break.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well thanks for kitting up in the Chernobyl suit and going in there, to save the rest of us doing it. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
You did very well and I expect you will get a big thank you from River that you took so much of your time to help him. I certainly thank you as I found Hooft's writing very interesting both on the subject and upon his experience and dealing with folk. Alex
Science isn't yet certain how these plasma jets form, since we cannot see the inner workings of a black hole ad of yet. However: https://www.seeker.com/space/astrop...hoot-out-from-black-holes-is-becoming-clearer Your claim that they cannot produce jets from two directions is flawed, on the basis that it requires one to assume that it can only pull objects from one direction. It would seem reasonable to me that the jets coming out perpendicular to the accretion disk makes sense - areas of the highest concentration of matter being funneled in towards the singularity itself. Simply because science doesn't have all the answers does not mean you can ignore it entirely...
I watched the first few minutes of the video. I like how Crothers takes the time to tell you irrelevant details about the tensors \(R_{\mu \nu}\) and \(T_{\mu \nu}\) (like the components are called "contravariant" or "covariant" depending on if the indices are raised or lowered) but omits more relevant information, particularly that these tensors are position and time dependent. In general relativity, \(R_{\mu \nu}\) and \(T_{\mu \nu}\) can and usually do have different values at different places and/or different times. In particular, it is possible for \(R_{\mu \nu}\) to be zero in one place (e.g. in a region of empty space) and to be nonzero somewhere else (e.g. in the interior of a planet or star). This is no more of a contradiction than the fact that the temperature in Miami can be (and usually is) different from the temperature in Longyearbyen. The \(R_{\mu \nu} = 0\) thing seems to be a reference to the fact that the Schwarzschild metric is a so-called "vacuum solution" to the Einstein field equation. The Schwarzschild metric describes only the simplest possible situation involving a black hole, where you have an eternal black hole with a gravitational singularity at the coordinate origin \(r = 0\) in an otherwise empty and unchanging universe. It's a solution with \(R_{\mu \nu} = 0\) everywhere except at \(r = 0\), where everything becomes undefined. The Schwarzschild metric also happens to describe the gravitational field outside a spherically symmetric mass, i.e., if you have something like a spherically symmetric planet in space then the gravitational field is described by the Schwarzschild metric in the vacuum outside the planet (where \(T_{\mu \nu} = 0\) and \(R_{\mu \nu} = 0\)) and is described by something else, different from the Schwarzschild metric, in the interior of the planet.
Here's the thing with the black-hole theory of galactic jets ; Really Kitt ? So why does , not all plasma , fall in a BH and some been funneled out ? Complications implied are enormous . Depends what " science " you refer to . Cosmic Plasma and Electric Universe science have no problem understanding galactic jets and why .
Schwarzschild never suggested black-holes from his theory in the first place . It was Hilbert who took Schwarzschild equations and distorted these equations to come up with the black-hole concept . Steven explains this . Had you watched the video through you would have known this .
I've seen the Schwarzschild metric for myself. It is a spacetime metric with \(R_{\mu \nu} = 0\) (thus a vacuum solution to the Einstein field equation) everywhere except at the gravitational singularity and I've seen for myself that mathematically it describes a black hole. That is what matters as far as the theory and science is concerned. If you want to hold your own informed opinion on what the "Schwarzschild equations" describe then it should be based on those actual equations. Otherwise all you're doing is repeating second-hand accounts by Schwarzschild or Hilbert or Crothers or whatever other person you felt like believing. I saw Crothers misrepresent general relativity and resort to appeal to ridicule within the first few minutes of the video I saw. In particular he failed to mention that the Ricci and stress-energy tensors are explicitly position- and time-dependent quantities in general relativity and can very well be zero in one place and nonzero in another place. Whether he did it knowingly or out of ignorance, that was a lie by omission. Had you learned general relativity before forming beliefs about it, or at least bothered to corroborate what Crothers said, you would have known that.
That's a misconception. Einstein didn't realise that's one of the things his general theory did predict. How else did Schwarzschild derive his metric? Another thing Einstein didn't realise is his theory predicted the universe is not static, it must be either expanding or contracting, and guess what?