Carrock

It’s not what I require, it’s what the description of Hawking radiation requires. I get the point Bye

I supplied cosmology lectures showing multiple errors in your thinking. Of course you didn't read it.. Weird concept So, Mordred, when you 'math' yourself you provide brilliant wrong maths you've invented yourself. No wonder you're careful not to provide sources which would make it harder to maintain your fantasies. 'Mathing' you would be like stealing a child's pocket money.

In a reference frame where they have positive energy their energy can drop/rise until they're indistinguishable from the background. Unless they become a particle/antiparticle pair their existence is extremely brief. (10-34 JS?) Virtual particles are not particles as such. You seem to require a virtual particle to fall into the BH while a real particle escapes and don't worry about conservation of charge if it's e.g. an electron. Choose a suitable reference and anywhere outside a BH can have positive or negative (gravitational) energy. I really don't see the point of choosing a coordinate system with negative energy particles purely so that an asymmetry can make odd things seem possible. From a suitable reference, as I said, the particles spread out fairly symmetrically at first, with no great difference between the particles. The only reason to have all these mass photons, virtual positrons etc is to have a weird fake theory which gives the same results as Hawking etc predicted. If Hawking etc are wrong, black holes will get heavier, if they're right, ordinary particle pairs form, most end up in the black hole but a lucky few individuals escape.

Relax. No one here cares. All your cosmology eqns: (more than) three in fourteen had errors. I didn't provide maths of my own; just ordinary, correct maths. You naturally complained when I left you to fix some of your own errors. You ignored references I provided i.e. cosmology lectures and dimensional analysis. I even provided a worked dimensional analysis example in a second post. You complained I hadn't done enough to fix your equations and to this day you haven't mastered dimensional analysis (even the equation checking version), something which took me a fraction of a maths lesson when I was 14. It's very thoughtful, but you shouldn't just assume people want things. You've already given me a hundred references we'll both enjoy reading for the first time in our old age. Time to honour someone else. What are you on? An extreme case of projection. I've only sent you two references in recent years and you ignored both of them. "To put it bluntly not once have you ever provided any mathematics or reference paper showing any claim of [Mordred] being incorrect" It's rather sad but people rarely write papers claiming people with outlandish ideas are wrong. Whether it's claiming you can fly the Atlantic by flapping your arms really hard, or the earth will soon be under attack by deadly matter photons, you'll probably find some bean counter has refused to fund any research. Non sequitur You've been put to the question and given up any aspiration to be a pseudoscientist. Give it a rest. Maybe you should buy the book. It would be interesting to know what edition you used, and what went so horribly wrong.

Swansont said: Do you maintain this view, which seems contrary to my view of particles with locally positive energy? It's unnecessary, and inconsistent with my understanding of physics.

Clearly you speed read this post. You'll never let me live down admitting being wrong about pv=nRt will you? I think my claim you are incompetent at calculus is amply proved. (More than) three out of fourteen of your equations were flawed and I don't recall you spotting errors I didn't point out. I never accused you of pseudoscience when you were describing referenced textbook equations as you couldn't claim them as evidence of mass photons and antiphotons. It's moot now as you have been put to the question and renounced pseudoscience. Many of your equations don't look familiar. Which textbooks? Many of those eqns aren't in 'screen shot reference papers from some lecture' but appear to have been modified by you, introducing errors that don't look like typos. No one seems to have picked up on my belief that those cosmology lectures with more text linking more equations may be easier to learn from than a post that hasn't been been reviewed by critical students.

I tried a proper quote, and crashed the editor, luckily only losing a minute's work. May 3rd A definite lack of receipts.... Without references I find that fully as plausible as Mordred's matter photons, which I suspect is the intention. If e.g. a positron is emitted, the particle absorbed can't be (I think) a virtual electron because of violation of charge conservation and the possibility due to local anomalies that it will never be a real particle. A particle/antiparticle pair (not virtual): The absorbed particle is calculated as having negative energy by a distant observer due to its being far down the BH's gravity well and falling into the BH. The emitted particle necessarily has positive energy since it will escape the black hole. Loosely speaking Viewed from the centre of mass of the particle/antiparticle pair (over a very short distance where the gravitational tide is relatively constant) both particles will gain kinetic energy or blue shift as tidal forces pull them apart. The centre of mass is falling at high speed into the black hole and ( required by energy conservation ) the infalling particle's negative gravitational energy (wrt infinity) is greater than its mass-energy. I could be completely wrong... interesting to see where this goes.

I'll wait to respond to Mordred until editing time has passed. Mordred assumes if I don't correct an error, however trivial, it's incompetence. Should be dU=−pdV I thought Mordred would copy it from cosmology lectures page 1 Just an upper case 'D' and a keyslip '-' I'm certainly not conflating a mathematician who struggles with calculus with “pseudoscience.” What does "complaining without bringing the receipts" even mean? From May until today you claimed there are negative energy anti-photons and matter photons. Unless you're rejecting the Standard Model a little hint of “pseudoscience” and you instantly abandon that idea. Have you no confidence in Swansont's assertion you're not a pseudoscientist? I would have lost interest long ago if you'd abandoned that idea earlier. I have no interest in debating you about photons or anything else except maths from about eight years ago where I know the variable definitions. BTW did you ever learn how to do dimensional analysis? You never said. I'll respond to posts tomorrow. It's after midnight here.

My editor keeps crashing so I'll post individually. That there are negative energy anti-photons and also positive energy matter photons. I am not aware of anyone except Mordred asserting such particles exist. It's impossible to prove a negative but the absence of vast numbers, or even any known negative energy anti-photons makes it unlikely. This is just one instance of arguable pseudoscience. It would help if you provided your own definition.

I haven't posted in the above thread as there are issues in this and a related thread I intend to address. I'll only include one example plus another issue since this is so time consuming. An example IMO of a pseudoscientific explanation of Hawking radiation: Mordred here makes up science through lack of understanding and later produces vast numbers of equations but never provides relevant references. Isn't making things up but never providing evidence/references to support/refute them at least close to pseudoscience? Ignored, but from Quite right. I've pointed out several times that things which are the same as each other are not also different from each other. I have clearly not made this clear enough for you and to do so is quite frankly impossible. I started having a glance through your equations; thanks for the obvious errors in these two which made me realise that was a waste of time. It seems your equations go from textbook to forum without engaging your brain except to remove explanatory text and symbol definitions. I'm done wasting my time here. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________ I spoke too soon.... I overestimated Mordred's ability/willingness to see obvious errors (e.g. an opening bracket but no closing bracket). Sadly, I don't have anyone willing to collaborate with me to decide whether equations with a missing bracket are valid. Maybe I can find someone on David Icke's forum. Without definitions of terms (which are quite often changed), it's generally impossible to tell if a correctly formed equation is valid: e.g. these valid equations are from a book of electrical engineering lecture notes from ca. 1900 V=CR, P=C2R, P=CV etc. Unlike Mordred, the author defines his terms, including C for current. It seems impossible to quote directly from another thread, so.... The thread is eight years old but back then Mordred eventually looked at errors I pointed out and corrected some of them. As his attitude has worsened I think it's legitimate to revisit the last time I can remember disagreeing with him. I was fortunate enough to find published cosmology lectures which included the equations Mordred had modified with similar but more detailed text; knowing the variables it was simple to use dimensional analysis to find errors in three out of the thirteen equations I checked. (There were other errors but I was only going for the low hanging fruit.) I posted the error notifications here and included this admission of my own error Mordred soon responded... So, saying I got something wrong invites challenges for me to prove it wasn't wrong??? Mordred 'knows' there are no errors, so my pointing out errors is an attack, not an attempt to prevent other readers puzzling over equations which literally make no sense? Followed by a whole post the next day about pv=nRt, complete with 5(?) references... And a later unusually polite post, with only a hint of pv=nRt. Expecting Mordred to read a reference to dimensional analysis was obviously a stretch; my worked example in my next post, which exposed more errors in a corrected equation, didn't 'work' either. I suppose I'd better describe the errors I've spotted in Mordred's last post or I'll be accused of faking errors. Should be dU=−pdV I thought Mordred would copy it from cosmology lectures page 1 Correct eqn used later First = should be + Next equation is correct { Latex didn't copy properly. Best to look at post ρ=dpdrr˙=−3ρr˙r Fails dimensional analysis: Mordred's version of eq 3.7 in cosmology lectures page 3 } And using n and N interchangeably. _______________________________________________________________________ Mordred is a qualified scientist but he likes to have his cake and eat it on this forum. It's perfectly OK on this forum not to give source references but I suggest people compare Mordred's final 'corrected' post with the first two or three pages of cosmology lectures and see which they prefer. Unfortunately this option is not available for his other threads. I recommend dimensional analysis (page 21 - that's all you need) for anyone doing physics exams; it detects about 90% of wrong equations so you can devote time to fixing errors rather than checking all your working.

Have only a few minutes to correct a handful of the errors you produce at amazing speed: Took longer than 10 seconds to check there was no mention of matter and antimatter photons in the wiki; in your next post you seem to claim that photons and antiphotons have opposite spin (or does helicity have a special meaning to you?) I'm not going to trawl through the rest of your references for a possible source ref. I notice you have now gone down from 'Feymanns golden rules' to 'Feymanns golden rule'. It may help you if I point out that while 'Feymann' is not the same as 'Fermi', it is not true that 'Feymann' is the same as 'Fermi'. If you read through the above quote very carefully you'll notice there isn't even a 'Feymanns golden rule,' let alone, as I wasted my time typing earlier, 'Fermi Golden Rules, Feynman Golden Rules and Feymann Golden Rules don't exist AFAIK.' (You do seem to have corrected some of your references in your penultimate post.) Of course, with only one 'Feymanns golden rule' instead of at least two, the end results will now be determined differently. I pity whatever has to move the photon around as the determination of the end results keeps changing.* Seeing you quietly correcting errors you've made without acknowledging I pointed them out is getting tedious. Quite right. I've pointed out several times that things which are the same as each other are not also different from each other. I have clearly not made this clear enough for you and to do so is quite frankly impossible. I started having a glance through your equations; thanks for the obvious errors in these two which made me realise that was a waste of time. It seems your equations go from textbook to forum without engaging your brain except to remove explanatory text and symbol definitions. I'm done wasting my time here. * using your concept that equations determine end results

How particles scatter, or form new particles etc etc always depends on their cross sections . That uses the Breit Wigner equations along with the Feymann golden rules. It not some case of a photon knowing anything. When it encounters another particle the cross sections and Feymann golden rules are used to determine the end results. Granted we also have a table that is helpful . https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_Clebsch–Gordan_coefficients Sorry about delay.... I don't think your passive voice alternative for 'distinguish' is any better than my anthropomorphism, which is hard to resist when you claim photons are their own antiparticles but also different from their antiparticles. Saying "Breit Wigner equations .... and Feymann golden rules are used to determine the end results" raises interesting questions. Who or what uses the rules to determine the end results? You stated it's not the photon. I agree that photons don't know the rules, but I also think that such rules are only (imperfect) descriptions and prescriptive rules are at best only a statistical guide to the end result and certainly don't determine it. As Fermi Golden Rules, Feynman Golden Rules and Feymann Golden Rules don't exist AFAIK, is there an end result? A reference to anti-photons and matter photons would still be appreciated.

With e.g. electron/positron annihilation photons are normally produced. Photons with sufficient energy colliding could become an electron/positron pair etc as I said. Gravitons are the only possibility I see for low energy photons. A longer quote to show what I find problematic: "A photon is its own antiparticle." .... "anti-photons will annihilate with matter photons." How do photons distinguish between anti-photons and matter photons? Presumably if two high energy matter photons collide it is impossible for them to create a matter/antimatter pair. If you have a reference to there being both anti-photons and matter photons please share it. It can be the particle or anti particle which falls in. It has, loosely speaking, negative energy which reduces the energy/mass of the black hole.

Just a note on singularities: in physics they are places/situations where the currently used theory is not valid. If "the equations do lead to the infinite density singularity" the equations fail where they predict a singularity i.e. fail to predict anything. "Singularity science" is as scientific as Scientology. There may or may not be an unknown theory of black holes with no singularity but that theory or any other will not change what goes on in black holes. Saying they contain a singularity is no more meaningful than saying there is a singularity in Donald Trump's brain. From Halc quoting Rennie "The whole point of a singularity is that our equations become singular there and cannot describe what happens." Maybe some confusion? Photons produced from matter or antimatter interactions can have the same or different polarity etc. Photons can (rarely) interact with each other but not annihilate each other (except by creating a matter/antimatter pair etc. A photon can destructively interfere with itself but this only affects its observed location, not its existence. Some cross posting...

As before, I''ll use values which produce easily described effects. e.g. 50 Hz A.C. to a 1kW convection heater - the wire to the heater, as well as the heater, will always be warmer than the environment. In this example, most power will be dissipated as IR radiation but a small amount will be 50Hz radiation from the wiring etc. dc current is in practice current which has been constant long enough for transients associated with such as inductive or capacitive reactance to become negligible. 'Instantaneous' is not a meaningful concept for measuring e.g. current (coulombs per second) or power (joules per second) - e.g. 0 coulombs in 0 seconds could be any current i.e. not defined. Calculus, which involves indefinitely small nonzero quantities, is used rather than 'instantaneous' but if applied, everything including inductive and capacitive reactance has to be included. In particular, alternating current in the wire, and magnetic fields will not be calculated as constant even using indefinitely small nonzero quantities. You might better consider dc or ac separately rather than trying to consider ac as 'almost dc.' Or perhaps you just want to consider A.C. circuits where reactance and radiative loss are negligible.