A solution to information loss paradox in black holes

[ChristineM]

Without completely agreeing with @questfortruth in all his ideas, the peer review process is not that easy as it is administrated and moderated by consensus scientists who very seldomly have the skills of looking outside "the squared box issues" in a given article and therefore reject such articles, whether the issues are valid or not.

About peer review
https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article..., peer review typically,peers" of peer review).

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

 

[gnostic]

Without completely agreeing with @questfortruth in all his ideas, the peer review process is not that easy as it is administrated and moderated by consensus scientists who very seldomly have the skills of looking outside "the squared box issues" in a given article and therefore reject such articles, whether the issues are valid or not.

The validity of any model are depended on verifiable observations - the evidence and data. If a model hasn’t been properly and rigorously tested, then the consensus among peers will reject the model.

The peers are to ensure that the model is:

• that the model is falsifiable (meaning that the scientist must provide instructions on how one would test the model or how to find the evidence,
• that the model has been been tested in accordance with scientific method, (eg test results from experiments, multiple verifiable evidence discovered in the fields, etc)
• that the evidence and data presented have no errors,
• that the data has not been doctored or distorted,
• that the conclusion is based on the evidence and data, and not based on personal preference, wants, likes, and so on (this is concern with biases).

If you were really a physicist and a mathematician then you would know the importance as to why a model must be falsifiable, tested and peer review, and you must do so by objective as possible by finding and presenting the evidence.

Thinking outside of the box, is good and well, but only if there verifiable observations or verifiable evidence to support a model.

Without evidence, the model is unfalsifiable pseudoscience. And if you were competent in physics and maths, you would know all, instead of whining about peer review rejecting untested and untestable speculations.

That’s really all untested and unsubstantiated “thinking-outside-box” model is, unscientific assumptions and speculations.

 

[Native]

The validity of any model are depended on verifiable observations - the evidence and data. If a model hasn’t been properly and rigorously tested, then the consensus among peers will reject the model.

The peers are to ensure that the model is:

• that the model is falsifiable (meaning that the scientist must provide instructions on how one would test the model or how to find the evidence,
• that the model has been been tested in accordance with scientific method, (eg test results from experiments, multiple verifiable evidence discovered in the fields, etc)
• that the evidence and data presented have no errors,
• that the data has not been doctored or distorted,
• that the conclusion is based on the evidence and data, and not based on personal preference, wants, likes, and so on (this is concern with biases).

If you were really a physicist and a mathematician then you would know the importance as to why a model must be falsifiable, tested and peer review, and you must do so by objective as possible by finding and presenting the evidence.

Thinking outside of the box, is good and well, but only if there verifiable observations or verifiable evidence to support a model.

Without evidence, the model is unfalsifiable pseudoscience. And if you were competent in physics and maths, you would know all, instead of whining about peer review rejecting untested and untestable speculations.

That’s really all untested and unsubstantiated “thinking-outside-box” model is, unscientific assumptions and speculations.

It´s all nothing more than a peer review theory, which even isn´t strictly followed in several cosmological models, beginning with a "Big Bang" which isn´t repeatable, follwed up with dark matter and energy which is pure hindsight bias assumptions in order to confirm an already hopeless cosmological gravitational model.

Such pseudoscientific nonsens easily finds the way through the peer review systems simply because of consensus.

 

[night912]

It´s all nothing more than a peer review theory, which even isn´t strictly followed in several cosmological models, beginning with a "Big Bang" which isn´t repeatable,

Your theory on how peer review and the scientific method works, is wrong. The scientific method does not require scientists to repeat a "big bang."
And since you lack the understanding of those two, you're not qualify to judge if the Big Bang Theory was properly peer reviewed or not.

follwed up with dark matter and energy which is pure hindsight bias assumptions in order to confirm an already hopeless cosmological gravitational model.

Again, your ignorance makes you unqualified.

Such pseudoscientific nonsens easily finds the way through the peer review systems simply because of consensus.

Your opinion is noted and dismissed due to your ignorance of science and scientific peer review.

 

[Native]

Your theory on how peer review and the scientific method works, is wrong. The scientific method does not require scientists to repeat a "big bang."
And since you lack the understanding of those two, you're not qualify to judge if the Big Bang Theory was properly peer reviewed or not.

Not only is the Big Bang untestable, it is also not falsifiable and both is needed in order to obey the scientific method. Still, most concensus peer reviewers accepts this in posted articles.

Native said: ↑
follwed up with dark matter and energy which is pure hindsight bias assumptions in order to confirm an already hopeless cosmological gravitational model.

Again, your ignorance makes you unqualified.

Apparently you´re not aware of that "dark matter" and and "dark energy" both are nothing else but assumptions and additions when contradicted in the first place = added in hindsight when a gravitational model of celestial motion was contradicted by observation and when the initial assumed expansion velocity in the Universe also was contradicted.

In the real scientific method, these contradictions should have lead to a factual revision and binning of the hypothesis instead of just adding more assumptions of unseen matters and unexplainalbe energies to the initial contradicted assumptions.

Maybe you should do a little home work on your own ignorances of scientific problems?

 

[night912]

Not only is the Big Bang untestable, it is also not falsifiable and both is needed in order to obey the scientific method. Still, most concensus peer reviewers accepts this in posted articles.

Again, your ignorance makes you unqualified.

Native said: ↑
follwed up with dark matter and energy which is pure hindsight bias assumptions in order to confirm an already hopeless cosmological gravitational model.
Apparently you´re not aware of that "dark matter" and and "dark energy" both are nothing else but assumptions and additions when contradicted in the first place = added in hindsight when a gravitational model of celestial motion was contradicted by observation and when the initial assumed expansion velocity in the Universe also was contradicted.

In the real scientific method, these contradictions should have lead to a factual revision and binning of the hypothesis instead of just adding more assumptions of unseen matters and unexplainalbe energies to the initial contradicted assumptions.

Maybe you should do a little home work on your own ignorances of scientific problems?

Again, your ignorance makes you unqualified.

 

[Native]

Again, your ignorance makes you unqualified.

Again, your ignorance makes you unqualified.

Is this the only reply you can come up with in a discussion?

 

[night912]

Is this the only reply you can come up with in a discussion?

Your ignorance makes you unqualified. So what's the point in continuing with the discussion, when it's apparent that you have already made up your mind to stay ignorant and unwilling to take in new knowledge in order to understand the topic that's being discussed.

So the answer to your question is, NO, it's not the only reply that I can come up with in a discussion. This post is the evidence that supports my answer.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
Is this the only reply you can come up with in a discussion?

Your ignorance makes you unqualified. So what's the point in continuing with the discussion, when it's apparent that you have already made up your mind to stay ignorant and unwilling to take in new knowledge in order to understand the topic that's being discussed.

So the answer to your question is, NO, it's not the only reply that I can come up with in a discussion. This post is the evidence that supports my answer.

At least I´m happy for you that you also are able to make circular arguments - which contains no factual arguments at all

 

[night912]

Native said: ↑
Is this the only reply you can come up with in a discussion?

At least I´m happy for you that you also are able to make circular arguments - which contains no factual arguments at all

Apparently your ignorance also falls into the topic of logic. Your ignorance makes you unqualified to discuss logic.

 

[Native]

Apparently your ignorance also falls into the topic of logic. Your ignorance makes you unqualified to discuss logic.

As your sentences contains no factual substance, I´ll give you the last word of nothingness

 

[gnostic]

Not only is the Big Bang untestable, it is also not falsifiable and both is needed in order to obey the scientific method. Still, most concensus peer reviewers accepts this in posted articles.

Wrong.

In the 1920s, the hypothesis was predicted by 2 out of the 3 pioneers of the Big Bang model (then known as the expanding universe model), Robertson (1924-25) and Lemaître (1927) both predicted that the redshift of Vesto Slipher in 1912, could be used to determine the distant galaxies were moving toward each other (blueshift) or moving away from each other (redshift), based on the electromagnetic spectrum.

It was Edwin Hubble in 1929, who made the discovery of redshift, thereby demonstrating predictions of Robertson and Lemaître.

Since then, astronomers have been using the redshifts on galaxies and stars, repeatedly, thereby satisfying the repeatability of the scientific evidence.

In 1948, Ralph Alpher, Robert Herman and George Gamow wrote papers together, that contributed greatly to the original expanding universe model or the Big Bang theory as it became popularly known by in 1949 onward.

Gamow and Alpher predicted the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), while Alpher and Herman predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which weren’t discovered until 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. The discovery was accidental when they were setting up their own radio telescope.

Since then (1964), the CMBR were repeatedly used to measure the earlier residual of cosmic background radiation of the earlier universe with increasing higher resolutions of space telescopes, eg COBE, WMAP and Planck.

HENCE, satisfying the falsifiability and repeatability of Scientific Method.

So you are wrong about the Big Bang being unfalsifiable and untested. You really shouldn’t make false claim, especially when your own favorite cosmology don’t satisfy scientific requirements.

You can choose to disagree with the evidence and data, but you cannot say the big bang theory is unfalsifiable or untested.

 

[gnostic]

In the real scientific method, these contradictions should have lead to a factual revision and binning of the hypothesis instead of just adding more assumptions of unseen matters and unexplainalbe energies to the initial contradicted assumptions.

There are nothing wrong with revision or adding to extant scientific models as long as the new information have empirical and verifiable observations/evidence to back them up, Native.

Both of Newton’s theories on motion and gravitational forces were fine in his days and went unchallenged, but the early 20th century, demonstrated both were incomplete, especially when dealing with much larger universe, after Hubble discovered the Milky Way wasn’t the only galaxy in the universe.

Einstein’s respective theories on motion (Special Relativity) and gravitation (General Relativity) covered areas that were unknown to Isaac Newton.

Since then - since Einstein’s days - there have been attempted to unify Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, and the current “PROPOSED” theoretical model is that theory on gravity may expanded further to include “Quantum Gravity”. It is just a matter of “if” and “when” it is possible to test this latest theoretical model.

Likewise, the theory of Evolution began with Charles Darwin in 1859 with Natural Selection. Not only Natural Selection were expanded and updated with new testing techniques, eg DNA, in the 20th century, and in the areas of paleontology various dating methods (eg radiometric methods, luminescence techniques, etc), biologists have uncovered 4 more evolutionary mechanics:

1. Mutations
2. Genetic Drift
3. Genetic Hitchhiking
4. Gene Flow

These newer mechanics didn’t so much make Natural Selection obsolete, as to find supplement and multiple directions that evolution could have occurred.

In the world of mathematics, both Newton and Leibniz brought new ways that expanded the medieval algebra of Muslim mathematicians - Calculus. Calculus over the centuries that followed were expanded and updated, particularly in the 20th century.

I don’t see why you would have problems with updates, revisions and corrections.

It is called progress, Native - scientific progress and mathematical progress.

You (and cladking too) often make really big stinks about progresses of modern science.

 

[Native]

Wrong.

In the 1920s, the hypothesis was predicted by 2 out of the 3 pioneers of the Big Bang model (then known as the expanding universe model), Robertson (1924-25) and Lemaître (1927) both predicted that the redshift of Vesto Slipher in 1912, could be used to determine the distant galaxies were moving toward each other (blueshift) or moving away from each other (redshift), based on the electromagnetic spectrum.

So. you rely in a measuring method which shows up both an expanding and attracting motion and take this as a general evidence for an expanding universe model? Where are the logics in this???

Gamow and Alpher predicted the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), while Alpher and Herman predicted the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR), which weren’t discovered until 1964 by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson. The discovery was accidental when they were setting up their own radio telescope.

The "CMB" is false interpretations - listhen here -

Since then (1964), the CMBR were repeatedly used to measure the earlier residual of cosmic background radiation of the earlier universe with increasing higher resolutions of space telescopes, eg COBE, WMAP and Planck.

Take a look here and see how scientists are PhotoShopping the teleskope data -

You can choose to disagree with the evidence and data, but you cannot say the big bang theory is unfalsifiable or untested.

Of course I don´t disagree with data - but I disagree when data is misunderstood or not consistent with all parts in a theory or hypothesis. And I especially disagree when science inserts all kind of "dark things" into their cosmological theories.

In this sense, a BB idea in fact falsifies itself by inserting "dark energy" in order to "explain" "a secondary increasing expansion velocity", which is pure hindsight bias addition and science fiction based on wrong cosmological perceptions and distance measuring.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
In the real scientific method, these contradictions should have lead to a factual revision and binning of the hypothesis instead of just adding more assumptions of unseen matters and unexplainalbe energies to the initial contradicted assumptions.

There are nothing wrong with revision or adding to extant scientific models as long as the new information have empirical and verifiable observations/evidence to back them up, Native.

You can get everything to fit theoretically when adding (a la the hindsight bias method) all kinds of unseen dark matter and energies when a theory is contradicted. What you can´t get is real and logical explanations if not discarding a contradicted theory.

Both of Newton’s theories on motion and gravitational forces were fine in his days and went unchallenged, but the early 20th century, demonstrated both were incomplete, especially when dealing with much larger universe, after Hubble discovered the Milky Way wasn’t the only galaxy in the universe.

STILL Newtons gravitational nonsense is theoretically used all over the places in the entire Universe.

Einstein’s respective theories on motion (Special Relativity) and gravitation (General Relativity) covered areas that were unknown to Isaac Newton.

Einsteins "curved spacetime" is even more speculative nonsense than Newtons.

In the world of mathematics, both Newton and Leibniz brought new ways that expanded the medieval algebra of Muslim mathematicians - Calculus. Calculus over the centuries that followed were expanded and updated, particularly in the 20th century.

Try to use your calculus on the motions in a galaxy and its central formation.

I don’t see why you would have problems with updates, revisions and corrections.

No problems at all - if the updates, revisions and corrections are logical and consistent with the overall idea.

You (and cladking too) often make really big stinks about progresses of modern science.

And you´re having huge problems with swalloving "cosmological data" raw withpout giving these a critical and logical analysis, which is why you just repeats what you´ve read - whether it consists any logics at all.

 

[gnostic]

So. you rely in a measuring method which shows up both an expanding and attracting motion and take this as a general evidence for an expanding universe model? Where are the logics in this???

The "CMB" is false interpretations - listhen here -

Take a look here and see how scientists are PhotoShopping the teleskope data -

Of course I don´t disagree with data - but I disagree when data is misunderstood or not consistent with all parts in a theory or hypothesis. And I especially disagree when science inserts all kind of "dark things" into their cosmological theories.

In this sense, a BB idea in fact falsifies itself by inserting "dark energy" in order to "explain" "a secondary increasing expansion velocity", which is pure hindsight bias addition and science fiction based on wrong cosmological perceptions and distance measuring.

Man, Native.

I see that you are still in love with this Pierre-Marie Robitaille, because you keep posting these same YouTube videos elsewhere that are nothing more than pseudoscience.

Do you really expect me to take a person whose only credentials are in medical radiology?

One thing he isn't - he isn't an astrophysicist. He pretended to be astrophysicist when he is not.

Or is the only reason why you keep posting his videos, because he is the only one of those advocates who support your favorite pseudoscience cosmology - Electric Universe?

Now, if you were to show me videos from actual astrophysicist who can actually debunk CMBR, then I would take you more seriously. But since you keep posting video from this a well-known crank, a hack, a phony "astrophysicist", I have really no interests in talking about Robitaille's fraudulent claims that he has single-handedly debunked CMBR.

Do you have any genuine refute of CMBR? Someone who isn't Robitaille?

Second, the CMBR is the direct results of early ionized atoms (mostly ionized hydrogen, being the most abundant in the universe, followed by ionized helium) being coupled with matching electrons for the first time, thereby forming electrical-neutral atoms. This was formation of ordinary matters, not dark matters.

This resulted decoupling of photons as well as releasing heat signature as Cosmic Background Radiation. Neither hydrogen atoms, nor photons, are not dark matter or dark energy. If the moron named Robitaille actually bother to read Alpher-Herman paper, he wouldn't blood know they weren't talking about dark matter or dark energy.

Robitaille is simply a bloody id##t?

In 1948, George Gamow, Ralph Alpher and Robert Herman never talked about Dark Matter or Dark Energy, so both you and Robitaille are making assumption that don't exist in their joint papers. Both the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis and CMBR (which occurred in the Recombination Epoch) were all about how ordinary matters (eg hydrogen, deuterium, helium, lithium) in the young universe before the formation of the earliest stars, it was never about Dark Matters.

So what are you going on about CMBR and dark this or dark that? We are talking about 2 different things.

 

[gnostic]

You can get everything to fit theoretically when adding (a la the hindsight bias method) all kinds of unseen dark matter and energies when a theory is contradicted. What you can´t get is real and logical explanations if not discarding a contradicted theory.

Your Electric Universe is nothing more than hindsight bias.

All I brought up was redshift (1920s) and CMBR (1948, 1964)...that these were predicted, falsifiable and tested. I didn't bring up Dark Matter or Dark Energy. You did.

So stop putting words I didn't bloody say, Native.

 

[joelr]

Einsteins "curved spacetime" is even more speculative nonsense than Newtons.

Have you yet found a paper explaining why relativity exactly explains the GPS errors and presenting an alternate solution?
The GPS uses 24 satellites all with atomic clocks and takes into account a ridiculous amount of mathematics. They have amounted to a giant experimental confirmation of GR.

Relativity in the Global Positioning System

"
The GPS is a remarkable laboratory for applications of the concepts of special and general relativity. GPS is also valuable as an outstanding source of pedagogical examples. It is deserving of more scrutiny from relativity experts.

Alternative global navigation systems such as GLONASS, GALILEO, and BEIDOU are all based on concepts of clock synchronization based on a locally inertial reference system freely falling along with the earth. This concept, fundamentally dependent on a relativistic view of space and time, appears to have been amply confirmed by the success of GPS."



All other factors have been calculated as well as 2nd and 3rd order relativistic effects"

"These clocks have gravitational and motional frequency shifts which are so large that, without carefully accounting for numerous relativistic effects, the system would not work....Relativistic principles and effects which must be considered include the constancy of the speed of light, the equivalence principle, the Sagnac effect, time dilation, gravitational frequency shifts, and relativity of synchronization........Recently frequency jumps arising from satellite orbit adjustments have been identified as relativistic effects."



And GR seems to be holding up well:


"
The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment
The status of experimental tests of general relativity and of theoretical frameworks for analyzing them is reviewed and updated. Einstein's equivalence principle (EEP) is well supported by experiments such as the Eötvös experiment, tests of local Lorentz invariance and clock experiments. Ongoing tests of EEP and of the inverse square law are searching for new interactions arising from unification or quantum gravity. Tests of general relativity at the post-Newtonian level have reached high precision, including the light deflection, the Shapiro time delay, the perihelion advance of Mercury, the Nordtvedt effect in lunar motion, and frame-dragging. Gravitational wave damping has been detected in an amount that agrees with general relativity to better than half a percent using the Hulse-Taylor binary pulsar, and a growing family of other binary pulsar systems is yielding new tests, especially of strong-field effects. Current and future tests of relativity will center on strong gravity and gravitational waves.
The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment - PubMed

 

[night912]

Of course I don´t disagree with data - but I disagree when data is misunderstood or not consistent with all parts in a theory or hypothesis.

Again, your ignorance makes you unqualified. You r ignorance of the hypothesis and theories, means that you misunderstood what it proposes, resulting in you replacing it with your own. And because of arrogance, you believe that you understand the theory better than the one(s) who created it and/or those who utilize it as part of their field of study, you apply it to areas it was not intended for. And you refuse to acknowledge that even after others point that out alone with an explanation

Someone may have the knowledge and understanding of reading a ruler correctly everytime he wants to know the length of an object. But no matter how good he is with using a ruler for measurement, whenever he use the ruler to take the temperature of boiling water, every single result will end up being invalid.

The reason why some people are anti-science and/or against a particular theory/model, majority of the time is because they don't fully have an understanding of it. The most common ones are the Theory of Evolution and the Big Bang Theory. Using them to explain the origin of life and dark matter/energy, respectively, is inapplicable be they're being irrational.

Once you argue that a particular theory is flawed and give your reasons why it fails to explain a phenomenon that it was not intended for, it is strong evidence of your ignorance regarding that theory. So your ignorance makes you unqualified to peer review the theory.