Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
The Laws of Thermodynamics are very specific, and say exactly what kinds of processes can and cannot occur in closed and Open systems!
Since the Big Bang automatically makes the universe a closed system (space and time were spawned here, so it made everything that exists in our universe), you MUST adhere to those rules, and you have.
Here is a paper that ‘tries’ very hard to do that!
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...age=node5.html
When you have to work THIS HARD to try and show something to be true, this should be a huge clue that something is wrong! |
This seems a very strange argument from you. First, it doesn't seem to me that the paper is making a great effort. Rather, it gives some pretty good arguments in a very short space that support the generalized second law. Are you seriously suggesting that you can refute this by ignoring all of the points they make and instead just say that since they had to work at it, it must be wrong? By that argument, all of modern physics is wrong, and we should go back to Aristotle!
No, if you want to show that there's a problem with that paper, you'd actually have to show what the problem is.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
So, here is why Roger Penrose, Stephen Hawking, John Preskill, Kip Thorne and all the others who have tried, have not been able to find Naked Singularities. They tried to find them in a Big Bang Universe, a closed system!
When a massive enough star ends its life in a Type II supernova, it creates a black hole, and GR has been used to model this event with a very high level of confidence, however in a Big Bang (BB) closed universe, the Laws of Black Hole Dynamics, expressly forbids the time reversal of this event, so currently, GR cannot even ‘see’ the progenitor (star), even though we know what it is. This is VERY strange!
|
No, we've discussed this before, and it's not actually strange at all. Can you give me a detailed description of the mass distribution of what eventually became the Earth, before its formation? No, of course not. In the case of a black hole, the event horizon makes things a bit trickier, but the general principle is the same. You cannot necessarily take the current state of an object and figure out what the previous state must have been.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
On the other hand, if you consider this, according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an OPEN system, then there is no Law of Black Hole Dynamics that forbids this, and it is perfectly legal to do a time reversal, and bring the singularity up out of the black hole, past its event horizon, and very easily and naturally ‘see’ its progenitor, the star. It is also important to mention here, that the progenitor material is spewed out (planetary nebula), while the black hole is separate, and defined by its event horizon, which begins accreting matter later.
So, what does this mean? If the universe is operating under the Laws Of Thermodynamics of an OPEN system, then the Second Law of Black Hole Dynamics does not apply, and when considering the creation of a SMBH, a Cosmic Black Hole, it is perfectly legal to do the time reversal I have shown to find the progenitor…the Naked Singularity (it’s not starting the universe) that makes a SMBH and ultimately its galaxy!
|
You know, I'm not certain that you really understand the whole open/closed universe thing. Even if the universe is "open" thermodynamically (meaning that it can exchange energy with some other place), that does not mean that all the laws of thermodynamics are suddenly off. You'd still be able to apply them, taking into account the energy source or sink. If you want to show that you can analyze a black hole under such circumstances, assuming an energy influx, you'd actually have to show that you can do it, not just claim that you can do it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
Which means that this is also showing, that according to the Laws of Thermodynamics of an OPEN system, that Baryonic Matter can be/and is being created when the Naked Singularity is making the SMBH, it is spewing the Gamma Radiation, that once cooled enough, will become the Hydrogen and Helium. Trying to show this correlation (Naked Singularity>Gamma Radiation>Hydrogen/Helium) has been part of the life work of four of our most renowned Astronomers, all listed above!
|
This sounds as though you're claiming that the four astronomers you list above were working on something like your model, but not succeeding. I'm pretty confident that's not the case; can you provide a citation to show otherwise?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RussT
And now for our Epiphany! Lest you doubt any of the above!
How do you find a Naked Singularity? Just like the concept of shrinking the universe to a point to find the Friedmann Naked Singularity, you shrink the Matter that comes from the Naked Singularity down to a point; so just do the ONE thing that no one has ever thought of…shrink a GALAXY (the Baryonic Matter, the stars and stuff) down to a point, at the core, and tell us what you find!!!
|
You find an excess of angular momentum. Note that this problem is a tricky one. In particular, you can postulate that there's some sort of energy source at the core that violates conservation of energy for a few moments, providing the matter that eventually makes up the galaxy. We break a conservation law at a single point in extreme conditions. Well, maybe. But then we break another conservation law over a period of time, spread throughout the forming galaxy.
I've got to go, but I'll try to respond to some of the rest of this later.