Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
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.
|
From the paper;
[Although the ordinary second law will fail when matter is dropped into a black hole, such a process will tend to increase the area of the black hole, so there is a possibility that the GSL will hold.]
This is one of of the main problems I see with this. They just assume the Area Increase Theorum is 'proved'. Which they do with several other factors as well (Hawking Radiation) and then they 'infer' this and that. But mostly, this (as with numerous analysis of other phenomena) is only analyizing the whole scenario from ONE viewpoint, and never even consider that the Second Laws "MIGHT" not apply to this situation!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
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.
|
[taking into account the energy source or sink]
I have described, as mcuh as I have been able to surmise, in my paper, what happens to Baryonic Matter when it enters a MBH and then why what the MBH's in the Universe level "Above Ours" is realeasing from the Einstein-Rosen Bridges, which end with the White Holes releasing into OUR VOIDS, 'space', which is the Planck Mass "Inert" Dark Matter (all of our space). And since this is actually "INERT" collisionless Planck Dark Matter, the Gravity Backgroud Field (BGF), there really is NO Energy Conservation Law being broken here, because it is NOT really energy. The BGF is all INERT, its energy is all "locked In" (which is why gravity is not a force!), but it has the tiny Planck MASS, which makes up our gravity, ALL OF IT!!! Our Universe is 100% Gravity, with the baryonic matter just 'borrowing' the planck mass DM!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
You cannot necessarily take the current state of an object and figure out what the previous state must have been.
|
You mean, like the whole universe from 10^-43 forward?
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!
Originally Posted by Grey
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?
|
[(Naked Singularity>Gamma Radiation>Hydrogen/Helium)]
Isn't this the Big Bang Scenario? Well, yes, I should have included Electrons/Protons between Radiation and Hydrogen.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
You find an excess of angular momentum. Note that this problem is a tricky one.
|
Yes, it is! So one would think that it would be very important NOT to make assumptions here. I am not even sure that energy conservation is being violated here. After all, the Nuker Team did find that the stars in the outer parts of spiral galaxies have speeds that match the Mass of their respective MBH's, when it has always been thought that should definitely NOT be the case!
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Grey
We break a conservation law at a single point in extreme conditions. Well, maybe.
|
And yes, this "MAY" wind up being the case, but the stars say different.