A Challenge to Thermodynamic Theory

[fritznien]

Don't you think its a bit ironic that in the centre of our milky way is a large black hole that the stars (including our own sun) revolves around and in turn our planet revolves around our sun. Why I call this ironic is this, black holes are considered to violate (nearly) all our known laws of physics. (this is by the same people who promote the "laws" of thermodynamics)

So, if it wasn't for something that violates the laws of physics, we wouldn't exist! Think about that for a second!

try again, black holes are standard physics as predicted by relativity.
yes they are very strange but hawking is the grand old man of physics not a crackpot to the mainstream.
fritznien

[Poit]

try again, black holes are standard physics as predicted by relativity.
yes they are very strange but hawking is the grand old man of physics not a crackpot to the mainstream.
fritznien

So your saying that a blackhole violates NONE of the known laws of physics? none at all? because if you arn't my point stands

[fritznien]

So your saying that a blackhole violates NONE of the known laws of physics? none at all? because if you arn't my point stands

the only things you know about black holes is what guys like Steven hawking tell you.
they get it from relativity. so far no one has found any holes in GR.
when they do it will be rewritten or superseeded like newtons law of universal gravity.
the point i am making is not that the physics books are perfect, far from it.
the point is you are going to need more than claims to update them.
you need hard repeatable data. not crap in a utube video.
when you have a real self runner, by the hundred, not just some jerk like mylow with a crappy vid and endless mouth.
then you got something.
  please note an expert in the field says doing magic tricks for the camera is "BULLSHIT"Penn&teller
he should know.so who are you going to beleave the guys who tell you life will be beautiful all the time and never delivers, or
the guys who actually make things that work. even if not as well as we would like.
fritznien

[pauldude000]

I am glad to see serious thought being given to such conceptual discrepancies. Many of the problems you see stem from outdated or inapplicable notions to begin with.


Conservation of energy within a system is dependent upon the postulated concept of 'closed systems', and is true only conditionally upon a closed system.


However, I have yet to see any system that is truly closed! Not even ONE!


All real systems are subject to extraneous energy, of one form or another, whether you speak of this extraneous energy as electromagnetic or various field energies. Experiments have been attempted in the past to remove all energy from a system (by cooling to 0 degrees kelvin, I.E. absolute zero), and this led to the discovery of what is called now commonly called ZPE or Zero Point Energy.


I have frustrated the heck out of EE's and physicists before, but am not trying to antagonize anyone.


For the EE's reading, consider this: If an electronic circuit is closed, then explain why anything would need to be shielded from external RF......... ? (A minor 'for instance'.)


For the physicists: Concerning even simple Newtonian physics, the classical models are far too simplified and account for only a small handful of the possible vectors and factors. A magnet holding papers to a refrigerator door is continually doing real work, supporting not only it's own mass, but the mass of the papers against a constant downwards acceleration of 9.18 meters per sec per sec.


By very definition it is "perpetual motion", depending upon a persons definition. I state this as a magnet working against the load of gravity by internal magnetic energy is as close to a closed system as is possible in reality. Perpetual motion is NOT frowned upon in physics OUTSIDE a closed system, as you find with wind generators, solar cells, ocean wave powered generators, and yes magnets, etc., etc.


Many concepts simply fall flat, such as the concept of 'perpetual motion = impossible' since the concept of a 'closed system' is what is flawed.   The closed system hypothesis is as dead as the flat earth theory, and just as inaccurate.


I do not wish this to seem as a rant, which it is not nor is it intended to be anything but a statement of the obvious, so I shall stop here.




Paul Andrulis

[pauldude000]

This is a P.S. for smokey... (Forgot to mention it.... sorry


Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so to speak. Thermodynamics as a whole does have some value, even if parts of it are flawed or even just plain silly. I can say the same for any branch of science I have perused, to a point. (Some branches in their entirety smack more of religion than science.)


Finding errors in logic is easy, just look for circular reasoning and multiple definitions. You will find numerous examples. That is why I am an amateur EX-physicist, and not an EX amateur physicist.


Prove all things, and kick the garbage to the curb. 

Paul Andrulis