swansont

Since you’re apparently unable to read what I wrote, there’s entropy and why you think radiation pressure is a significant contributor to BH formation.

Moderator NoteThis is not an acceptable tactic. Things for discussion need to be posted here, Not links, not uploads, and not “go Google this”

Which mode requires power input, while the other creates it? Analogies are limited because they fail to account for all details, and this analogy doesn’t account for the critical concept that makes white holes impossible Are you going to address the issues I raised, or does this get closed?

I think it depends on whether it’s good-faith debate, and what the goal is. With creationists it’s generally not good faith, and if someone’s trying to convert the other I have no interest, but I think it’s ok if it’s a matter of an honest misunderstanding being cleared up, whether it’s how science works or what the religious beliefs actually are.

Yes, as I said, the missile comes in, changes direction toward the UAP, and then returns to original course. The UAP is moving down and to the left, but after the missile passes by and pieces come off, they’re all moving almost straight down.

No, I read it. They did not say they wished to debate the beliefs (with or without scare quotes). They did say they had debated “religionists” (somewhere else, obviously) but did not say it was on any kind of science forum. They also said they disagreed with “the supernatural stuff” but not that they wanted to debate it. What they asked to discuss was pretty clearly spelled out in the post and thread title. The introduction, which gave the backdrop for the question, was presumably there for context. I wonder how much disagreement online is from failure of reading comprehension and how much is from deliberate misinterpretation used to try and justify indignation. (one way to tell the difference is when it’s pointed out that the scenario that was objected to is a straw man, are they relieved or do they just get more indignant)

Doesn’t look like that to me. The hellfire does, after turning in to the apparent strike, but the target doesn’t. It’s hard to say with a featureless background, but it looks like it’s traveling at ~225 degrees before, and closer to 270 deg after. It’s strange that the immediate deflection is at about 150 degrees, or toward the hellfire. The video embedded in Rep Burlison’s post in this article let me manually run it forward and back by manipulating the progress bar (at the 0:20 mark) https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/articles/ufo-hearing-know-video-seemingly-174100555.html

We have rules about what we expect from speculations, and it requires some amount of rigor. Our position reflects the idea that someone who lacks knowledge should be asking questions, rather than proposing answers.

The title of that is “Emergence of opposing arrows of time in open quantum systems” (again, you sin by omission) GR is not a quantum theory, and the systems under discussion are subject to non-quantum processes.

I see no mention of lying; the mention was one of accuracy. One can post inaccurate information without lying, in fact, we tend to assume that it’s a misconception/mistaken understanding, and not a bad faith attempt at deceit. One would then conclude that Mars has a bigger EMF than Earth. But Mars lacks a magnetic field and is colder, on average, than Earth.

The upshot of the above is that while the individual particle interactions (the “physical phenomena”) are reversible, the collective behavior is not. This should really be no surprise, since we have plenty of experience with everyday phenomena that are not.

Selective editing isn’t a good-faith technique* “The CPT theorem says that CPT symmetry holds for all physical phenomena, or more precisely, that any Lorentz invariant local quantum field theory with a HermitianHamiltonian must have CPT symmetry.” So tell me, is GR an example of a local quantum field theory, much less one with a Hermitian Hamiltonian? *from rule 2.12 Example of tactics that are not in good faith include misrepresentation, arguments based on distraction, attempts to omit or ignore information, advancing an ideology or agenda at the expense of the science being discussed, general appeals to science being flawed or dogmatic, conspiracies, and trolling.

You were asked to cite some of the research you’ve done which is a perfectly reasonable request The conclusions should not be personal/subjective if based on objective facts .

Something that’s a solution if you only consider GR, but not when you include thermodynamics

The science forums? Which ones? I’m guessing it’s not this one; if it is I’d like some links. I’m a lot less interested in what happens somewhere else. Take it up with their management, not us, because this tactic hints at being a straw man.

Repeating this doesn’t make it true. The universe isn’t governed solely by GR. You can’t wish away the second law of thermodynamics There is no such thing. There is radiation pressure. Perhaps you can explain why you think radiation pressure is a significant contributor to BH formation.

That doesn’t depict stimulated emission. As far as WHs existing, you run into thermodynamics issues regarding entropy. If it were viewed as a thermodynamic process, it would not be reversible.

We’re not going to discuss anything generated by an AI. What you have here is a description of an hypothesis. You don’t have the math, and without that you can’t make specific predictions or make comparisons with experiment. Those are required.

You offered this in the context of time-reversal symmetry, and that’s incorrect. Yes, stimulated emission gives a photon, but photons would’ve been emitted anyway, unless there’s some nonradiative channel for de-excitation, and the atom needs to be excited in the first place, which removed a photon (unless the excitation was via some other process) I have to think there are better ways of observing black hole signatures. Hot gas being captured is probably fully ionized anyway, so this absorption and emission would be moot. I’d look for X-rays from the accelerated charges That seems like a stretch. Regardless, the article doesn’t provide details of the physics. Your time might be better spent understanding why stimulated emission is not time-reversed absorption. Basing any proposal on a flawed premise tends not to bear any fruit.

No, not by itself. Material for discussion must be posted here, not via a link. I think you overestimate the desire of anyone to slog through a wall o’ text to try and see what an AI got right or wrong. We are much more likely to be interested in answering questions you have about science.

Moderator NoteNone of that is relevant to the discussion, and there’s no actual science discussed here.

Your images aren’t loading for me but N2 could refer to the number of atoms in the excited state in a two-state system, where N1 would be the number in the ground state. Infalling radiation would also cause excitation of atoms. As I had previously explained, the time reversal analog would be emission from simple de-excitation. Time reversal would change the direction of the radiation. Push or pull is semantics; the force is from the photon momentum, so it depends on the direction of travel.

Why would photons hitting atoms cause different behavior depending on the source? An atom must already be in an excited state in order to experience stimulated emission. It’s not the opposite of absorption. (I vaguely recall having this discussion before) Why do you think there are N2 atoms outside a black or white hole? As far as radiation pressure, sure. There would be radiation pressure on a BH from the radiation incident on it. If for some reason it wasn’t isotropic the BH would experience a force.

Moderator NoteWe’re not physicians and we don’t do diagnoses, mental or physical. It’s potentially dangerous to speculate on such things. The only advice to give is to consult a professional

Yes. Luckily Poland chose not to escalate, and only shot down the drones. Putin was likely testing the response.