+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 21 to 24 of 24

Thread: Stephen Hawking died today (14 March 2018, UK time)

  1. Link to Post #21
    Avalon Member Kano's Avatar
    Join Date
    24th January 2011
    Denver, CO
    Thanked 2,149 times in 465 posts

    Default Re: Stephen Hawking died today (14 March 2018, UK time)

    And he died on Pi Day. Life is not without a sense of irony.

  2. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Kano For This Post:

    Cidersomerset (14th May 2018), Foxie Loxie (15th March 2018), Star Tsar (14th March 2018)

  3. Link to Post #22
    United States Avalon Member turiya's Avatar
    Join Date
    3rd February 2012
    Thanked 22,565 times in 4,817 posts

    Default Re: Stephen Hawking died today (14 March 2018, UK time)

    One thing that Stephen Hawking bio found within the OP does not include is that in his [Stephen Hawking] paper published on 22-Jan 2014 states in so many words that black holes do not exist. The following is from an article written by Paul LaViolette on January 27, 2014 - just a few days after Hawking published his paper.

    Since then, the scientific media & MSM has refrained from saying much about it.
    Hawking Finally Sees the Light:
    Says black holes do not exist

    Gravity potential field around a
    Mother star. © P. LaViolette 1995

    Paul LaViolette
    January 27, 2014
    Physicist Stephen Hawking has now reversed his stand on black holes. He gives his reasons in a paper that he posted five days ago on the physics preprint internet archive at (http://arxiv.org/abs/1401.5761). He says that according to his new analysis “There would be no event horizons and no firewalls. The absence of event horizons mean that there are no black holes – in the sense of regimes from which light can’t escape to infinity.” He says that the concept of a black hole should be “redefined as a metastable bound state of the gravitational field” which has a chaotic interior. In other words, he now envisions that a supermassive Galactic core should be a collapsed region from which energy can escape through an “apparent horizon“. An apparent horizon is described as a surface that traps light but which also varies its shape due to quantum fluctuations allowing the possibility for light to escape.

    His new stand on black holes has caused quite a media frenzy since Hawking had been an early developer and long-time supporter of black hole theory dating back as far as 40 years. Here are a few links to media stories:
    For many years I have argued against the black hole idea, which has been a very unpopular stance to take among physicists. For example, as early as 1985 when I first published subquantum kinetics in the International Journal of General Systems (Special Issue on Systems Thinking in Physics), I wrote “Black holes would not exist in a subquantum kinetics cosmology” (LaViolette, 1985, p. 342). I explain that this is because a black hole gravitational singularity is unable to form in subquantum kinetics. Furthermore even a quasi singularity that Hawking calls a “bound state of the gravitational field” would be unable to form. One reason is that the gravitational field of a subatomic particle does not rise to infinity at its center, but rounds off to a plateau at the particle center, thus preventing unrestrained gravitational collapse. This predicted particle profile is apparent in simulations performed of subquantum kinetics’ Model G and this contour for the particle’s nuclear electric field has been confirmed through particle scattering experiments. Thus as particles approach increasingly close to one another, their mutual gravitational attraction approaches zero instead of infinity.

    Another reason singularities are unable to form is because a star continuously produces enormous amounts of genic energy (spontaneously generated nascent energy) which effectively opposes any gravitational collapse even when fusion reactions have died out. Red dwarf stars (M < 0.45 Msolar) are 100% powered by genic energy; about 12% of the Sun’s radiation is of genic origin; and only a few tenths of a percent of the energy radiated by a 20 solar mass blue giant star is of genic origin. But when fusion burning subsides and a blue giant begins to gravitationally collapse, the genic energy production equations predict that genic energy sky rockets and becomes the dominant stellar energy source. The result is a very dense stellar core that I have termed a Mother star, which continually creates, radiates, and ejects both energy and matter. Smaller Mother stars are objects astronomers call neutron stars, X-ray stars, and magnetars. Mother stars that have grown far more massive over their billions of years of existence are what astronomers observe as supermassive Galactic cores. Those interested to learn more about genic energy are referred to various papers (LaViolette, 1992 and LaViolette, 2005), the following webpage on the Pioneer effect, as well as the verification of Prediction No. 3. For further discussion about the problems with the black hole idea view the following webpage: Five Reasons Why the Milky Way’s Core is Not a Black Hole. For the most thorough treatment of the nonexistence of black holes and the reality of genic energy and matter creating Mother stars, read the book Subquantum Kinetics (4th edition).

    Over the years I have continued to maintain my stand against black holes throughout the years and have bolstered this with observational evidence that counters the black hole idea. So to hear that Hawking now admits, after many decades, that black holes should not exist is music to my ears. But Hawking still has a long way to go to make the journey from the classical black hole concept to the Mother star concept of subquantum kinetics. Hawking still believes that any energy radiated from a Galactic core, which he views as a metastable bound state of the gravitational field, would come entirely from the accretion of surrounding matter. For one thing, he would have to relinquish this idea and embrace the subquantum kinetics idea of genic energy. It is this energy that supermassive Galactic cores radiate and which keeps in check their further collapse. Genic energy unabashedly violates the First Law of Thermodynamics (the law of energy conservation) as conventionally construed. Physicists who adopt the closed system positivist view that the only real existents are physically observable phenomena would find this idea intolerable. However those adopting the wider perspective that the physical universe operates as an open system and is part of a much more expansive higher dimensional environment that remains inherently unobservable to us, then the genic energy concept becomes quite acceptable. Ultimately, if physics (and society) is to progress, physics will need to move towards this latter view which not only comes closer to age old spiritual teachings but also opens up a golden age for humanity based on the commercialization of over-unity energy generation technologies and gravity defying propulsion devices; see the December 2013 news posting.

    The subquantum kinetics Mother star idea does not deny the possibility that there is a radius within which light rays approaching tangent to the surface of the Mother star would become trapped in a closed orbit. If we identify this radius with the classical concept of the Schwarzschild radius, such a light trapping horizon would likely lie in the Mother star’s interior in the case of the Milky Way’s galactic core. For example, to my best estimation, the surface of the Sgr A* Mother star would lie a radius of about 22 solar radii from its center, whereas the ungravitationally lensed Schwarzschild radius for this supermassive body would be 19 solar radii, just below the surface of the Mother star. But light rays traveling radially outward from the surface of Sgr A* or at an angle to the surface would radiate outward without a problem; although they would be gravitationally redshifted by about 45%.

    How does Hawking’s revised view relate to the upcoming G2 cloud encounter with the Galactic core that astronomers are so closely following? Well, current papers describing this encounter are based on the standard black hole theory and the assumption that the Galactic core has an event horizon through which no matter or radiation can escape. This model must be dispensed with on the basis of Hawking’s new view. According to this new view if a massive body such as a one solar mass star were to fall into the Galactic core (and there is a relatively small probability that this might happen during the G2 cloud/star encounter), all the energy released from its infall could be explosively discharged back out as a cosmic ray volley accompanied by X-ray and gamma ray radiation. If we go beyond Hawking to the subquantum kinetics view, not only would such an infall allow the release of the energy of mass infall, but it could ignite an exponential rise in the genic energy being produced by our Galactic core Mother star and this as well could be radiated outward to the rest of the Galaxy resulting in an energy output many of orders of magnitude higher than the total energy released from the infall of the star alone. In short, it could possibly ignite a Galactic core explosion of the kind seen in Seyfert galaxy nuclei. The magnitude of this energy release and the finding that cosmic rays from such an event would begin impacting Earth about the same time would come as a total surprise to current astronomers who operate on the classical black hole idea. If this scenario happens, they had best stay indoors and keep out of harms way.

    Source: Paul LaViolette @ Starburstfound.org -- (Emphasis mine.)
    Last edited by turiya; 14th March 2018 at 22:59.

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to turiya For This Post:

    Baby Steps (14th March 2018), Cidersomerset (14th May 2018), Foxie Loxie (15th March 2018), justntime2learn (15th March 2018), Star Mariner (15th March 2018), Star Tsar (14th March 2018), uzn (15th March 2018)

  5. Link to Post #23
    Avalon Member Star Tsar's Avatar
    Join Date
    10th December 2011
    Virgo Supercluster
    Thanked 25,600 times in 8,313 posts

    Default Re: Stephen Hawking died today (14 March 2018, UK time)

    Quote Posted by Kano (here)
    And he died on Pi Day. Life is not without a sense of irony.
    Much like Jim Marrs leaving on the 50th anniversary of the Apollo missions.
    I for one will join in with anyone, I don't care what color you are as long as you want to change this miserable condition that exists on this Earth - Malcolm X / Tsar Of The Star - Will YOU?

  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Star Tsar For This Post:

    Cidersomerset (14th May 2018), Foxie Loxie (15th March 2018), justntime2learn (15th March 2018)

  7. Link to Post #24
    UK Avalon Member Cidersomerset's Avatar
    Join Date
    16th May 2011
    Bridgwater somerset UK
    Thanked 78,672 times in 18,614 posts

    Default Re: Stephen Hawking died today (14 March 2018, UK time)

    Quote In 2009 Discovery Channel filmed the professor waiting for time travellers who
    never turned up to his party. After the "time traveller party", held in June 2009, Prof
    Hawking remarked that the fact that no-one turned up was "experimental evidence that
    time travel is not possible".
    No genuine time traveller is going to reveal themselves...Duh !!!

    Though Putin seems to pop up in times of need in Russia....

    Stephen Hawking service: Possibility of time travellers 'can't be excluded'

    12 May 2018

    Prof Stephen Hawking's life will be celebrated at a service in June

    Organisers of Prof Stephen Hawking's memorial service have seemingly
    left the door open for time travellers to attend.Those wishing to honour
    the theoretical physicist, who died in March aged 76, can apply via a
    public ballot.Applicants need to give their birth date - which can be any
    day up to 31 December 2038.

    Prof Hawking's foundation said the possibility of time travel had not
    been disproven and could not be excluded.It was London travel blogger
    IanVisits who noticed that those born from 2019 to 2038 were theoretically
    permitted to attend the service at Westminster Abbey.

    He said: "Professor Hawking once threw a party for time travellers, to see
    if any would turn up if he posted the invite after the party. "None did, but
    it seems perfect that the memorial website allows people born in the future
    to attend the service.

    "Look out for time travellers at the Abbey."

    In 2009 Discovery Channel filmed the professor waiting for time travellers
    who never turned up to his party.After the "time traveller party", held in June
    2009, Prof Hawking remarked that the fact that no-one turned up was
    "experimental evidence that time travel is not possible".

    read more...http://static.bbci.co.uk/frameworks/...locks-dark.png
    Last edited by Cidersomerset; 14th May 2018 at 17:46.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts