Physics General Subjects Thread

TMA1 wrote:Strange. What could account for the upwelling of metals like that? Has phenomenon been observed before?

Also kvs what do you think of the scientific communities as they stand right now? As a layman after learning about stuff like the replication crisis it is concerning at least from where I stand.

The video describes a phase separation process below ground with a subsequent differential transport of the metal to the surface while the remainder
stays behind.   You see the iron lava in a circular pattern around the center which supports this hypothesis.   It looks like there is evidence of such iron
rich deposits in other parts of the world but much older.   So this volcano is rare.

The scientific community is afflicted with the same dynamics as the rest of society.  So you have institutional group-think and elites who push an agenda.
I think it is funny how people think that bad science is a feature of the past.   If civilization survives into the coming centuries, people in the future will
look back on the current era as a link in the same chain of BS and politics-instead-of-science.  

I am not going to trot out the tired "climate science is a fraud" line.   Climate science is actually one of the more sane and anchored to reality branches.
All the lunatic alarmist crap is pushed by outsiders from politicians to woke activists.   My involvement with it is tangential.  I know what climate models
are and their limitations.  Exxon and other corporations spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to smear climate science like Big Tobacco spent vast
sums trying to smear any link between cigarettes and poor health.  You even had clowns who worked for tobacco moving into the same racket against
climate science.  

Any political use of climate science is not the fault of climate scientists.   The elites will ass rape you with the truth if it works for them.   People make
the silly mistake of thinking that the elites only use contrived lies.   The best lies are mixed with truth.  

As you may have surmised, I have a negative view of other branches of physics, specifically astrophysics and cosmology.   It really is corrupt and this
is related to the fact that it is very hard to pin down with observations (unlike climate science which is based on laboratory tested physics).   They
tell you that they are observing black holes like the ones in the broken math of GR, but there is no way that they can make such assertions.   The
term broken math is not hyperbole.  It really is this bad.   We have Orwellian redefinition of "coordinate singularity" and routine use of non-diffeomorphic,
aka non-information-conserving, coordinate transforms.   What is the point of deriving solutions when you create and destroy information through
ludicrous manipulation.   But the "big names" push this shit and if you question their "wisdom" you are a crank (aka heretic).

We had the big name, big BS issue in geology before the 1960s.   Plate tectonics was considered heresy even in the 1950s.  I hate the concept of
consensus in science.   This is BS group-think, and not objectivity.   Even if most scientists support the right theory, that means nothing.  The theory
cannot depend on popular support.   It has to stand on its own and be testable and falsifiable.   Ego investment is anti-science.  You can see this
BS today in archaeology where it is simply heresy to question that there have been only 6000 years (a funny Biblical time span) of human civilization.
Egyptology is total garbage where structures are attributed to rulers based on finding some random item in their vicinity and where the alleged builders
did not have the know-how and ability to do the building.   The official Egyptian history is a paradox.   Pre-dynastic Egyptians could fashion high
precision hard stone vases (requiring lathes with hard metal cutting features) but the subsequent dynastic Egyptians who supposedly built the
pyramids could only make crude alabaster vases by hand and did not have any metals other than copper and bronze (too soft to work granite and
other hard stone).    Clearly archaeologists are not qualified to build a historical narrative since they cannot process the data due to lack of
required engineering and scientific competence. Archaeology is not a hard science but it is typical of the rot.

Breaking the current dogma can answer interesting physics questions.   Take a look at video of the Sun's surface during coronal mass ejection
events.   You see blobs of dense material hitting a surface.   If the Sun was a gas this would not be possible.    All gas will stratify under gravity
with an exponential function of radius.   This is true even if there is no condensed matter core (e.g. like the Earth with its atmosphere).  So there
would be no "surface" of the Sun and it would be like the outer layer of the atmosphere which has almost no density.  

The current astrophysics dogma will have you believe that the surface of the Sun is an optical illusion.   Really?  A hot, opaque plasma somehow
allows a line-of-sight illusion based on seeing deeper layers?   That is the only type of illusion one could contrive and obviously it's impossible on its
face.  This "illusion" magically supports surface waves (exactly like the ones you see when you throw a rock into a body of water).   This already
is retarded nonsense since there could be no coherence between a deep layer of the Sun where the ripples line up vertically and give you an
"illusion" of seeing ripples on a surface.   In a gas, such ripples are only possible at sufficient density and their wavelength will be a function of the
density.  Thus they cannot stack vertically under exponential stratification, even if you assume that there are is not circulation inside the Sun "gas ball".

You also see distinct Rayleigh-Benard convection cells on the Sun's surface.   There is no way such cells could be coherent over a deep layer.   Their
physics dictates that their horizontal scale is roughly the same as their depth.   So any line-of-sight through a deep layer of the Sun would be overlapping
multiple layers of such convection cells.   But that is nonsensical as well, since the convection would organize into much larger structures instead of
being layered in small cells.  On Earth you see Rayleigh-Benard cells in the boundary layer adjacent to the surface (about 1-3 km thick).   You also see
such cells in your frying pan or pot when you have relatively shallow of water or oil being heated from below.  But as everyone knows from their cooking,
the circulation in a pot of soup (thick layer of liquid) is not organized into small cells.   Thus, there is an actual surface of the Sun and it supports
Rayleigh-Benard convection cells.   This should tell us something about the actual density profile: it would make sense for there to be a transition
layer where the metallic hydrogen condensate transitions into a gas.   This layer will be like a thin layer of fluid in pan heated from below.  

The cherry on top of this astrophysics turd cake is: why would you see the same optical illusion regardless of the angle of observation?  One can
suppose that looking down along a radial line at the Sun will give an apparent surface, but this cannot be true if one looks tangentially at
the Sun.   The Sun cannot have a uniform disk appearance, it should have a decrease of light emission intensity away from the center.   There should be
almost no emission at the "edge".   A corollary is that coronal flares should not be happening at the edge of a disk (such as you see during a full
Lunar eclipse) but somewhere closer to the center.   You would see flare filaments not emerge from a distinct surface but from a low emission zone
since they would have more intense emissions.

The official narrative is cringe nonsense.  There is a lot of chutzpah monkeys in science feeding you their shit.

Indeed from what u see climate science is complex and yeah there seems to be some malicious elements with agendas. What disturbs me most are these NGOs and think tanks that, imo, seem to be using climate change as one of a few convenient means of pushing austerity measures for the western world. Highly manipulative if my cynical assumptions and others on this are right.

It is the usual use of "moral authority" for ass rape. In the name of saving the planet you will be made to eat bugs and live in a hive.
You will own nothing and be happy. Meanwhile the elites will fly around in jets to various junkets producing thousands of time more CO2
than you ever will.

NATzO uses "moral authority" to engage in regime change and wars enabling separatists (e.g. Kosovo) and then shrieks with the same
"moral authority" that Russia is violating Ukraine's precious territorial integrity.

Just like my dear Kanadian leader was not qualified and legally justified to force a vax on me, none of these clowns, whoring for the
elites, have any real authority moral or legal to use climate change to make me into chattel.

I don't watch this YouTuber much because his smugness is annoying.   Anyway, we see the failure of thought in astrophysics in this video.   Lots of claims about
being able to determine distances and times simply based on the magic of the red-shift.

1) There is an assumption that red-shift is only due to expansion of the space-time.

2) There is an assumption that time-flow is constant from the Big Bang to now and this includes no variation of the speed of light.

3) There is an assumption (more like lack of awareness) that light is not affected by gravitational wells.   Somehow when you measure light coming out of a galactic well,
there is zero spectral impact.   This is not even true based on GR.   Light is red-shifted when leaving a massive body and blue-shifted when falling approaching it.   The
event horizon of a black hole is an infinite blue/red-shift surface.

The z=14 galaxy which is supposedly from a time 300 million years after the Big Bang requires us to believe that it managed to form in less than 300 million years.   This
includes stellar formation and dynamic organization.   This may seem unclear, but it is nonsense.   You need very long times for the primordial Big Bang gas to collapse into
heterogeneous clumps with enough mass to form stars.    Considering that the initial distribution is nearly isotropic and thus diffuse, this must take billions of years of
gravity-organized flow.    

GR is not the final word on gravity.  It is not a field theory and merely attributes gravitational action as a space-time curvature without even describing how matter-energy
imposes this curvature.   Specifying a metric equation does not explain how this curvature arises.    Curving the time "coordinate" is absurd by itself since there is no time
dimension.   The change in time-flow at different radii from a massive object is due to changes in the process evolution (for example slowing down of photons) and not because
some dimension is being curved.   Escaping this vapid framework, one can ask if photon interaction with gravitons (which do not exist in GR) leaves photons unchanged.
A more plausible theory is that photons slow down in gravitational wells (hence the slowing of clocks).   This would be consistent with a loss of energy.   Note that in GR
there is only a slow-down of clocks as one approaches a massive object and there is no "rebound" zone where the clocks speed up.   So photons going through gravitational
wells experience a net loss of energy.    They do not behave like massive objects.

Real scientists have expressed serious questions about such observations before.   We simply do not understand what we are seeing.   Anyone pushing exact dates and distances
is engaged in spreading of BS.   Theory comes after observations and not before.   But you see clowns using BS theories to "explain" observations.

The z=14 galaxy which is supposedly from a time 300 million years after the Big Bang requires us to believe that it managed to form in less than 300 million years. This
includes stellar formation and dynamic organization. This may seem unclear, but it is nonsense. You need very long times for the primordial Big Bang gas to collapse into
heterogeneous clumps with enough mass to form stars. Considering that the initial distribution is nearly isotropic and thus diffuse, this must take billions of years of
gravity-organized flow.

My understanding is that galaxies and stars can't form until the hydrogen gas clouds they are formed from become super cold to allow they to get close enough to create enough gravity to create the runaway gravity effect that forms bodies like stars and planets.

If you knew what you were doing it wouldn't take long, but as it is hit and miss random luck stuff it is going to take a very long time.

The thing with science is that observations are used to reject theories and try to formulate newer theories that better describe what is observed. First of all these observations need to be repeatable and not just a result of a bad set of data or unfortunate time or view or simply not just erroneous data.

Personally my problem with the whole big bang thing is that if everything was compressed to the size of an electron and then the entire universe bursts forth... shouldn't that have instantly resulted in an enormous black hole forming with all that mass located in such a small place... yet we are told with the big bang theory it expanded at an eye watering rate... like faster than the speed of light would travel...

We consider spacetime to be a fabric and assume a black hole is a hole or tear in that fabric, but what if it cannot be torn or ripped... what if in the centre of a black hole is all the material that has ever entered the black hole... a neutron star, we think has all the empty space removed between atoms and atomic particles to the point where electrons and protons are crushed together to form Neutrons... but in a black hole in the singularity we don't know if gravity can reach infinity... whether that is even possible or not... we have decided that absolute zero is a thing and that it cannot get any colder than absolute zero in this universe, but is there an upper temperature limit? It seems there must be because the very idea that temperature could keep getting hotter and hotter would suggest that most materials would turn to plasma but as it gets hotter still will those sub atomic particles break down into what they are made from?

Is the centre of a black hole a point of infinite gravity that crushes things out of this universe, or is it a point of very high gravity and very high temperature and reverts matter into energy... there is no real way of checking of course because it all happens safely hidden from this universe by the event horizon.

This would have implications on the end of the universe because if the fabric of space time cannot be ripped... only stretched... will it get to a point where it rebounds back and collapses.

Of course the entire mass of the universe just after the big bang is about as much energy and mass as you are going to get... because although energy is conserved mass can be consumed to create energy but energy generally does not create more matter as far as I am away... fusion and fission reactions consume matter to create enormous amounts of energy but huge amounts of energy does not create matter AFAIK.

Maybe the Big Bang was the energy from all the black holes that were created from another universe... or even this one... when time ends the energy from all the cores of the black holes is transmitted to the start of spacetime to create a new big bang and start everything all over again... sort of like a massive slinky going down stairs... when it reaches the bottom gravity is reversed and it is at the top again to start all over.

Yes, observations are supposed to test theories and help us develop better ones.   However, in astrophysics there is a lot of circular reasoning.   Observations are
not simple tests that stand on their own.   Theory is used to interpret them.   This is not a pedantic complaint, this is a show stopper since the theory supposedly
being tested is providing the observations.   Thus it is not a real test and nothing but a circle-jerk.

All of the claimed black hole observations are a demonstration of this nonsense.   There is no way to determine what these dark objects are.   Because they are
not fluxing photons like stars, does not imply that they are singularities with event horizons.   Photons require nuclear chemistry to be produced by stars.   If this
nuclear chemistry shuts down, then you do not get photons emitted.   What we are seeing can be super-dense (and rational) objects without any horizons and
point singularities.   They may be emitting dark matter particles or other particles we cannot detect but that absence of photons means nothing.    They can be
just cold dead objects that don't emit anything.   No law of physics requires them to collapse to some point.

The often cited "Einstein's greatest blunder" in his introduction of a Lambda*g term in his equations (Lambda is the cosmological constant) is no such thing.  It
is just a forcing term.   If we have an equation of the from

E(g) = T

where E are the nonlinear partial differentials specifying the Einstein tensor equation, g is the metric to be solved for and T is the stress-energy "tensor",
then T can be specified as a functional of g (g is a function of the coordinate map and a function of a function is a functional).   So we can have

T(g) = Tref - Lambda*g

and then we get

E(g) + Lambda*g = Tref.

Big whoop.

Einstein's real blunder was the specification of T itself.   It is a pseudo-tensor and not a real tensor, which is an issue already.   But the real problem is that
T is chosen in a way that guarantees singularities since we can have a feedback where stronger gravity creates more curvature, which then drives more
gravity.   A self-digging hole.   There was no empirical constraint for this choice.   None at all.   There are other choices that are perfectly consistent with
the Newtonian gravity of the weak field limit.   These other choices, such as the one derived from the Yilmaz metric of the 1950s, do not form black holes.

It is the abuse of the T "forcing" term that is the source of so much BS in astrophysics and cosmology.    The overhyped Oppenheimer an Snyder dust black
hole solution from their 1939 paper assumes that T is independent of g.   This is ad hoc and not self-evidently physical.    A sane approach requires T to be
a function of g and in a physical manner.   You can drive singularities in many dynamical systems with the specification of unphysical forcing (such as T
in this case).    T has to be a functional of g since the space-time curvature will change the distribution of the stress-energy.  The event horizon is
a real singular surface and not a "coordinate singularity" as claimed by clowns in true Orwellian fashion.   As it tries to form, the T(g) in its vicinity will act
to dampen the formation.   This is based on the use of the perfect fluid T(g):

T_ij = (rho + p/c^2) U_i U_j - p g_ij

The key is the minus sign before the second term which acts to cancel out the first term as g_ij explodes at the horizon.   This minus sign is substituted with
a plus sign in kosher GR for no particular reason.   It is there in the flat space limit:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfect_fluid

Oppenheimer and Snyder attempt to get around the complexity by positing a dust collapse where the dust is like galaxies separate by lots of empty space.
But that is a dirty trick that fails.   Even if we contrive such a scenario, there will still be radiation pressure as the galaxies are scrunched together so p =/= 0
and even if it is tiny a large enough g will still act to offset the formation of an event horizon.  

The Big Bang black hole is a paradox of the current theory.   I have seen hand waving that we do not know all the physics and we have the absurd hyperinflation
epoch that is an obvious deus ex machina introduced to resolve serious conceptual problems with the Big Bang theory.   The most popular excuse for the lack of any
black hole is that space-time itself is expanding and we do not have a mass system inside a space-time framework like in black hole formation.   This is just voodoo
designed to confuse the layman and even "experts".   The space-time (i.e. metric) is determined by the matter-energy distribution.   So a point origin for the Big
Bang would still imply a singular potential well around it.  It does not matter if the space-time is expanding, the matter-energy would be trapped at this point.  
The whole expanding space-time solution:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric

does not involve a point origin anyway.   The clowns who push this garbage just run the system in reverse and hypothesize that there was a point origin.   But that
is simply false since any solution with a point mass distribution requires specification of such a point mass.   Then, you run the system forward.   This is the same
BS as with black holes.   No black hole metric ever specifies a point mass at the origin.   It solves the T=0 equations and fits them to Newton's solution at infinite radius
from the supposed location of the mass.  

There is way too much bait and switch and con-man sleight of hand in this field for it to be considered honest.   Objectivity is not interested in people's ego driven
intellectual masturbation.   The use of the term "coordinate singularity" to fob off the event horizon tells you everything about the rotten nature of this field.   None
of the sources that use this term even point out that it is a redefinition of the mathematical term.   The coordinate map (spherical coordinates) used for the
Schwarzschild (really Hilbert) solution for the metric is manifestly non-singular around any horizon.   The singularity in the metric at the horizon comes from the
solution of Einstein's equations.   These clowns have a deep psychological problem with this surface singularity and have a rabid compulsion to pretend it is not there
and instead there is some point mass singularity only at the origin.

The point about emergence of stars and galaxies really needs to be emphasized. The Big Bang may have generated primordial "black holes" but even its true believers admit that
the mass distribution was essentially homogeneous. Stars were not baked into the cake. Supposedly the Sun took 50 million years to form. But it started from a
pre-conditioned "gas cloud" that was much more compact than any you would get right after the Big Bang, for example at 150 million years after the onset. It is not how
fast the stars could coalesce but how fast the gas clouds could form. A diffuse distribution takes a bloody long time to clump under gravity. It is the early stage that is
the longest since that is when the gravity is the weakest.

The hyperinflation epoch is what would guarantee a diffuse distribution. The mind numbing expansion of space-time would act directly to disperse it. If there was differential
expansion of space and the matter-energy then you could have clumping and the mother of all black holes. But the cosmologists/astrophysicists are the ones that are pushing
the idea of inflation that includes matter-energy.

Smell the Ptolemaic Epicycles. Theories that invoke fixes to prop them up are crap. The most rational course is to dismiss hyperinflation and to extend the age of the universe.
This kills at least two birds with one stone and even pleases Occam. No ad hoc expansion without physical explanation and plenty of time for clumping of matter-energy into
stars and galaxies. So the timelines you see claimed from 14 billion years ago are BS. What is claimed to be a one billion year window (when the Milky Way initially formed,
for example) after the Big Bang is likely to be dozens of billions of years. All the extrapolation from current conditions is nonsense and not backed up with any proof or plausible
physical reasoning. Like the standard cosmology metric which purports to support a Big Bang but which has no matter-energy distribution consistent with a Big Bang.
Boundary conditions are not optional in mathematics and physics. But "physicists" pretend that you don't need them.

Not just a diffuse cloud... but also a very cold one because we are talking about a gas cloud of basically hydrogen, so we can assume that the original makeup of the universe was subatomic particles and without fusion all the neutrons and protons and electrons could form would be hydrogen as the super heated plasma soup expanded and cooled.

Hydrogen does not collapse and form a gas cloud under gravity on earth so in the middle of empty space getting it to clump together would require temperatures very close to absolute zero where the energies of the particles is so low they can't keep apart and bouncing.

I am always suspicious of constants being added to formulas... it suggests the formula was not right in the first place.

My pet hate is Pi... the ratio of a circle and is diameter... it just sounds like you made up a formula to explain something you didn't understand and so using a constant you fixed the results it generated to match what you observed.

The problem is that often there is no way to check the observation manually so we all just assume it is right or close to right.

Einstein was playing around with different versions of his equations because he was also into cosmology. The specific value for the cosmological constant was "determined" later
to fit the Big Bang narrative. Just specifying a "damping" type forcing term of the form -Lambda*g is not precluded and depends on the physical problem being considered.
For example, in atmospheric dynamics the the zonally averaged momentum equations (that determine the meridional circulation components) can have "Rayleigh forcing" terms
on the right hand side that represent the action of dissipating Rossby and inertia-gravity waves. They have the form -r*u. These are approximations to the actual forcing
that is produced by dissipating waves but they are not wrong and not post hoc fixes. In the case of GR, the stress-energy is a forcing term and can have various characteristics.
So there is some flexibility.

But as I posted above, the form of the stress-energy pseudo-tensor has serious conceptual issues aside from any other characteristics that depend on a particular system being
considered.

http://www.efieldtheory.com/docs/manuscripts/eFTC-240501.pdf

The work of Leblanc cleans up a lot of the mess in GR. It looks like a real strong-field-limit capable theory of gravity. The original GR was only matched to Newtonian results,
which are the weak field limit.

The book keeping theory known as the Standard Model is having budget tracking problems.

Special relativity without the voodoo.