[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math


View post   

File: 298 KB, 1000x727, Fact Hamster.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11822746 No.11822746 [Reply] [Original]

Hello dear anons, I'm Fact Hamster! I'm here to bring you FACTS!

Here's some Facts for (You) today! Totally free facts! Amazing right?

Okay, here we GOOOO!

> R E A D Y . . .
> S T A R T ! ! ! !

All alleged Black Hole models pertain to a universe that's spatially infinite, is eternal, contains only one mass, is not expanding, and is asymptotically flat or asymptotically not flat.

But the alleged Big Bang cosmology pertains to a universe that's spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two different cases), is of finite age, contains radiation and many masses including multiple black holes (some of which are supposedly primordial), is expanding, and is not asymptotically anything.

Thus black holes and the big bang contradict one another - they're mutually exclusive. This is undeniable and clear as day. It's surprisingly easy to prove that neither General Relativity nor Newton's theory predict black holes to exist.

Despite numerous claims for black holes in their millions, none has ever been discovered. It's also not difficult to prove General Relativity violates the usual conservation of energy and momentum. There are fundamental contradictions contained in black hole theory, big bang cosmology, as well as in General Relativity. Numerical methods are therefore meaningless.

Oh and for those who'd like to use the defense that in an expanding universe energy isn't conserved and thus the "energy conservation law" is false and therefore all criticism of Einstein's field equations are incorrect, friendly reminder to you that Einstein required his field equations to satisfy the usual conservation of energy and momentum.

To do so he introduced his pseudotensor which has been demonstrated to be entirely meaningless – see: https://z.zz.ht/98S5i.pdf and related: https://z.zz.ht/ZMeXe.pdf

Big Bang theory is based upon Einstein’s field equations. Since the field equations violate the usual conservation laws, the theory of a big bang is fundamentally flawed.

>> No.11822748
File: 1.41 MB, 872x10000, 1575527382679.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
11822748

>>11822746

> F A C T S . . .
> C O N T I N U E D ! ! !

Therefore, invoking a Big Bang to attempt to circumvent the violation of the usual conservation laws is a circular argument and therefore completely invalid.

Furthermore, Einstein's field equations are nonlinear and so the principle of Superposition doesn't hold in General Relativity. But it does hold in Newton's theory.

Thus if X and Y are two different solutions to Einstein's field equations, then the linear combination of aX + bY, where a and b are scalars, isn't a solution. Physically this means that one can't simply pile up masses and radiation in any given spacetime to obtain multiple masses and radiation. Additionally, there are no solutions to Einstein's field equations for two or more masses and there is no existence theorem by which it can even be asserted that the field equations contain latent solutions for two or more masses. Thus it's not possible to insert a black hole universe into a big bang universe or into another black hole universe, or to insert a big bang universe into a black hole universe or another big bang universe.

Nevertheless, Einstein's followers routinely and incorrectly claim the existence of multiple black holes from objects such as stars by means of irresistible gravitational collapse.

Now read pic related if you want to understand all of this in depth.

>> No.11823122

>>11822746
>Thus black holes and the big bang contradict one another - they're mutually exclusive.
Yeah that sounds about par for the course for judische physik.

>> No.11823125

>>11822746
Thanks fact hamster!

>> No.11823130

why are high schoolers posting here

>> No.11823139

>>11823130
Why is pop-sci allowed to live?

>> No.11823146

>>11822746
But aren't astronomers observing something is trapping light?