swansont

How does an atom know if the radiation pressure is positive? Let’s say you start with atoms all in the ground state (1). How will you decrease N2? It’s zero. Even if you have atoms in state 2, how will N2 decrease when you have photons hitting atoms that are in state 1, causing them to go to state 2? In the two state system Einstein describes, N2 doesn’t decrease. If it did, you’d know time was running backwards, which is not supposed to happen if you had a good symmetry. One of several things you don’t seem to get here is both equations are in play at the same time. The equations tell you what happens to N1 and N2 when you shine a flux of resonant photons on them. N1 goes down and N2 goes up until you are in steady state. (N1+N2 is constant). CPT wasn’t even proposed until decades after Einstein did this work.

Any equation can be switched by reversing time, but that doesn’t make them symmetric. N1 and N2 refer to different states, and if the system isn’t in steady-state you can discern the direction of time. But those surfaces aren’t in the equation. “The absortpion equation is consequence of positive radiation pressure of photons.” is not an accurate statement. And pressure is a scalar.

It’s a consequence of a resonant photon flux. The direction doesn’t matter, and there’s no way to calculate a pressure or force from the information. There’s no direction, so there is no “positive”

Those equations don’t tell you the strength of the radiation pressure, they tell you population change rates (dN/dt), and they are not time symmetric unless N1=N2, which is steady state. If N1>N2, you’ll see N2 increasing when time runs forward and decreasing when it runs backward. Sorry, what neutral atoms would these be? I asked about this before.

Why does this matter? i.e. how does this affect the formation of the BH? How big is this effect going to be? Stimulated emission results in a force on the atom in the opposite direction of the photon direction, so I don’t see the connection. I guess you missed where it points out that H-theorem violates T symmetry.

But you have a paper with an abstract. Are you prepared to defend his work and answer questions about it?

Termite walks into a bar, looks around and asks, “Hey, is the bartender here?”

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.