A solution to information loss paradox in black holes

[Native]

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.

Love is a subjective matter and I, contrary to you, don´t mix feeling with scientific investigations. Of course I keep on posting "these same videos" as they contains serious critique of the standing cosmological nonsense.

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

Again you are subjectively focusing on the person instead of his works.

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?

From our conversations in general I doubt you´ll take any critique of the standing cosmology seriously.

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.

For me to believe in all this, you first have to explain how the assumed BB came to be. I dont give anything for a theory which isn´t causally and logical explained.

Ionized atoms is found and measured all over in the Earth atmosphere and magnetic field and this lead to "the evidence of the CMBR" and this "evidence" has never been measured outside the Earth. It´s just the usual hindsight bias addings in "Standard Cosmology"

gnostic said: ↑
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.

This was what i meant in generally and not according to your reply below.

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.

Again:
For me to believe in all this, you first have to explain how the assumed BB came to be. I dont give anything for a theory which isn´t causally and logical explained.

I don´t care who said anything or not about dark this or that and when in any papers. As said anbove, my comment on this was in generally. When modern cosmologists don´t know, they just adds something dark (in hindsight) to the Universe.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
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.

I didn´t bring up Electric Universe in this thread. you did.

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

Likewise.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
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?

Maybe I wasn´t clear enough with my "curved spacetime". I generally was criticising Einstein´s strange idea of "curved space" as described here - Curved space - Wikipedia - With other words, I was only criticising Einsteins "gravitational model" and nothing else.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
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. Your ignorance of the hypothesis and theories, means that you misunderstood what it proposes, resulting in you replacing it with your own.

You´re really in love with the term "ignorance", aren´t you?

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.

You are eminent when it comes to the theory of theories - and ignoring all facts which goes against a theory. This is the difference between you and me and this makes you unqualified to judge anything cosmological or personal at all.

 

[night912]

Native said: ↑
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.

You keep repeating that statement but show the data. Just because you talk about a scientific theory, does not mean that you are actually doing science. You keep claiming that there's data that is inconsistent with the theory but never showed the data. That's not science.

You´re really in love with the term "ignorance", aren´t you?

Love is a subjective matter and I, contrary to you, don´t mix feeling with scientific investigations.

You are eminent when it comes to the theory of theories - and ignoring all facts which goes against a theory.

Such as?

This is the difference between you and me and this makes you unqualified to judge anything cosmological or personal at all.

Actually, the difference between you and me is that you try to apply a theory to things that it does not deal with and make claims that the theory is wrong without any evidence to support those claims. I just dismiss those those claims.

Please show me the facts that I ignored when I showed that you are ignorant of science. I didn't ignore this fact, "science doesn't require the Big Bang Theor to replicate the "big bang."

 

[gnostic]

I didn´t bring up Electric Universe in this thread. you did.

No, not in this thread, I agreed...but in other threads, whenever you bring up Robitaille, you have also brought up the unfalsifiable and pseudoscience “electric universe” concept.

My original response to you was that you had claimed that the Big Bang theory was unfalsifiable and was unrepeatable, but I have shown you where evidence could be found, hence your claims are wrong.

I bought up redshift and CMBR (from the Recombination Epoch), the 2 essential evidence that supported the Big Bang model, hence that make it both falsifiable and repeatedly tested...

The mapping of CMBR are evidence for both the Primordial Nucleosynthesis (or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis), and Recombination Epoch (where electrons bonding with atomic nuclei to form stable and electrical neutral atoms for the first time).

The Cosmic Background Radiation are the universe’s detectable and measurable oldest electromagnetic radiation...hence, radiation has nothing to do with Dark Energy.

The Recombination Epoch talk of bonding electrons to the elements’ nuclei...hence, Alpher and Herman were talking about ordinary matters, they weren’t talking about Dark Matter.

So why do I bring up BBN, CMBR and Recombination Epoch, which all occurred over hundred million of years before the formation of the earliest stars, when you are talking about something that different, and had nothing to do with what I was saying?

You continuously denying that the Big Bang is falsifiable, is not so much there aren’t no evidence. You simply disagree with how the evidence are understood...therefore it had nothing to do with falsifiability.

I am in agreement with Night912. You don’t understand what falsifiability mean. You don’t understand what scientific evidence means to the Big Bang model. And you don’t understand the Big Bang model...PERIOD!

Instead of supplying evidence and data that counter the Big Bang cosmology, you reposted the stupid Robitaille’s YouTube clips again...a person who never worked at any observatories before, whose only real credentials are in medical radiology.

Seriously, Native? Is that really the best you got? Some videos from a well-known pseudoscience crank?

 

[Bourne]

POP-SCIENCE INTRODUCTION:

MY IDEA:

There are two levels of nature description: macro and micro. On the macro level, the paradox arises because any kind of stuff, which falls into Black Holes, ends up in the same outcome: the black body radiation spectrum of particles. Thus, at this level of description, the "unitarity" of Quantum Mechanics becomes broken.

But I argue, that happens transition of information from macro to micro level. The information becomes encoded into micro-level: the position of particles of the black body radiation field.

SUPPORTING FACT:

The entropy of the cosmos grows. Thus, at the macro-level, all become homogeneous disorder: "the thermal death". But the information remains: the growth of entropy does not influence the amount of information there (only Black Holes do influence).

CONSEQUENCE to Christian Theology:

If the information does not become lost, then the sinners can not trash and nihilate their bodies using Black Holes (in try to escape the resurrection of the dead at the Judgement Day).

Author of the ideas: Dmitri Martila, 23.september 2020.


And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Revelation 20:13-14


Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
Matthew 5:17 NIV

If a barn burns and blows away in the wind, the information is lost

No paradox

 

[Bourne]

You keep repeating that statement but show the data. Just because you talk about a scientific theory, does not mean that you are actually doing science. You keep claiming that there's data that is inconsistent with the theory but never showed the data. That's not science.


Love is a subjective matter and I, contrary to you, don´t mix feeling with scientific investigations.


Such as?


Actually, the difference between you and me is that you try to apply a theory to things that it does not deal with and make claims that the theory is wrong without any evidence to support those claims. I just dismiss those those claims.

Please show me the facts that I ignored when I showed that you are ignorant of science. I didn't ignore this fact, "science doesn't require the Big Bang Theor to replicate the "big bang."

What big bang? no one even uses this term seriously anymore

 

[night912]

What big bang? no one even uses this term seriously anymore

Ask the pseudoscientist, Native, he is the one who suggested that the Big Bang Theory was wrong because it, the "big bang," couldn't be repeated. I was just pointing out his error.

 

[Bourne]

Ask the pseudoscientist, Native, he is the one who suggested that the Big Bang Theory was wrong because it, the "big bang," couldn't be repeated. I was just pointing out his error.

The big bang theory was never either right or wrong as it is merely an idea, like a dream. To be real there would have to be evidence that it happened which would be retraceable trajectories of the mass thrown out and a really big void where the mass began. Background radiation discovered on Crawford hill where I bike ride is evidence that background radiation exist, nothing more

 

[rational experiences]

The big bang theory was never either right or wrong as it is merely an idea, like a dream. To be real there would have to be evidence that it happened which would be retraceable trajectories of the mass thrown out and a really big void where the mass began. Background radiation discovered on Crawford hill where I bike ride is evidence that background radiation exist, nothing more

Back.......warning by biological mind conscious Healer selves....never look back.

His story in his own male human past....100 years ago you did not exist and were deceased as a human being adult male thinker. What is relative to self advice, to be conscious.

Back, a theme, once Earth O God the planet released radiation out of its body, the GROUND.

Science held, thinker always looking back, in science infers irrationally information as "back in time".

Living inside of cold gas mass atmosphere that surrounds him. Another male human relative teaching, the cold gas heavens is your back ground, keeps you safe.

Back and ground says...the radiation out of God mass came back and it came out of the ground.

Cold space, owner of a cold gas to own space you can live and walk through highest state.

Heated space/gas heavens will kill you as it came back or returned as a life/sacrifice. For a human today is only as OLD/AGE as what your claim self is.

A human does not own any other form of AGE as self presence conscious advice...another one of the scientists coercive lying statements.

 

[Bourne]

Back.......warning by biological mind conscious Healer selves....never look back.

His story in his own male human past....100 years ago you did not exist and were deceased as a human being adult male thinker. What is relative to self advice, to be conscious.

Back, a theme, once Earth O God the planet released radiation out of its body, the GROUND.

Science held, thinker always looking back, in science infers irrationally information as "back in time".

Living inside of cold gas mass atmosphere that surrounds him. Another male human relative teaching, the cold gas heavens is your back ground, keeps you safe.

Back and ground says...the radiation out of God mass came back and it came out of the ground.

Cold space, owner of a cold gas to own space you can live and walk through highest state.

Heated space/gas heavens will kill you as it came back or returned as a life/sacrifice. For a human today is only as OLD/AGE as what your claim self is.

A human does not own any other form of AGE as self presence conscious advice...another one of the scientists coercive lying statements.

I always pass on apple juice laced LSD

 

[rational experiences]

I always pass on apple juice laced LSD

I always ignore (Bourne-movie themed) threats.

 

[Bourne]

I always ignore (Bourne-movie themed) threats.

Actually that is wrong.

 

[joelr]

Native said: ↑
Einsteins "curved spacetime" is even more speculative nonsense than Newtons.

Maybe I wasn´t clear enough with my "curved spacetime". I generally was criticising Einstein´s strange idea of "curved space" as described here - Curved space - Wikipedia - With other words, I was only criticising Einsteins "gravitational model" and nothing else.

Right but the GPS corrections are using GR/curved space to triangulate 24 atomic clocks and to solve many mathematical problems (all listed last post) and it works.

 

[joelr]

The big bang theory was never either right or wrong as it is merely an idea, like a dream. To be real there would have to be evidence that it happened which would be retraceable trajectories of the mass thrown out and a really big void where the mass began. Background radiation discovered on Crawford hill where I bike ride is evidence that background radiation exist, nothing more

Space is expanding from all points so you do not end up with a center where a void would exist.
Retraceable trajectories of the universe we can see does back up the big bang model. Galaxies that are over 10 billion light years away do resemble proto-galaxies that would be forming at that time if the universe was 13 billion years old. The background radiation was predicted to show fluxuations that would resemble it once being in a compact quantum state. This was found to be true.

Mass wasn't thrown out at all. The actual fabric of space and time - spacetime - began expanding and it contained all the energy in the universe. Eventually as it had more room to spread out the energy was concentrated in certain areas, again confirming the idea that it was once in a quantum state. The model makes many predictions that have shown to be true. There are still many questions and mysteries scientists are working on about the beginning of our local universe.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
You are eminent when it comes to the theory of theories - and ignoring all facts which goes against a theory.

Such as?

Apparently you don´t read and pondering over what I´m writing - and I don´t care to repeat everything again just for you.

 

[questfortruth]

you don´t read and pondering over what I´m writing

I read you. You are almost the most adequate soul out there.

 

[Native]

Native said: ↑
I didn´t bring up Electric Universe in this thread. you did.

No, not in this thread, I agreed...but in other threads, whenever you bring up Robitaille, you have also brought up the unfalsifiable and pseudoscience “electric universe” concept.

First: You can investigate and repeat from here the Robitaille research as much as you like. Secondly: Is everything you don´t know of just "pseudoscience"? Or are jyou just repeating the consensus scientists who also don´t like the alternative explanations of cosmos?

My original response to you was that you had claimed that the Big Bang theory was unfalsifiable and was unrepeatable, but I have shown you where evidence could be found, hence your claims are wrong.

I bought up redshift and CMBR (from the Recombination Epoch), the 2 essential evidence that supported the Big Bang model, hence that make it both falsifiable and repeatedly tested...

The mapping of CMBR are evidence for both the Primordial Nucleosynthesis (or the Big Bang Nucleosynthesis), and Recombination Epoch (where electrons bonding with atomic nuclei to form stable and electrical neutral atoms for the first time).

The Cosmic Background Radiation are the universe’s detectable and measurable oldest electromagnetic radiation...hence, radiation has nothing to do with Dark Energy.

The Recombination Epoch talk of bonding electrons to the elements’ nuclei...hence, Alpher and Herman were talking about ordinary matters, they weren’t talking about Dark Matter.

So why do I bring up BBN, CMBR and Recombination Epoch, which all occurred over hundred million of years before the formation of the earliest stars, when you are talking about something that different, and had nothing to do with what I was saying?

You continuously denying that the Big Bang is falsifiable, is not so much there aren’t no evidence. You simply disagree with how the evidence are understood...therefore it had nothing to do with falsifiability.

I am in agreement with Night912. You don’t understand what falsifiability mean. You don’t understand what scientific evidence means to the Big Bang model. And you don’t understand the Big Bang model...PERIOD!

Instead of supplying evidence and data that counter the Big Bang cosmology, you reposted the stupid Robitaille’s YouTube clips again...a person who never worked at any observatories before, whose only real credentials are in medical radiology.

Are you aware of the very scientific basics which you´re believing in and arguments from?

5 % is normal matter and the rest is dark assumptions. The standing cosmological consensus is theoretically and intellectually in the dark with the rest 95 % of everything.

Dark Matter was invented when Newtons laws of celestial motions of objects was disproved in galaxies. 26 % of the cosmological theories is based on unseen dark matter and its connected hindsight bias additions!

Dark Energy was invented to "explain" an assumed and "still increasing expansion" of the Universe - without telling us where such a dark force derives from. 69 % of the cosmological theories is based on unseen dark energy and it´s connected hindsight bias additions!

All in all you - and your fellow thinkers - have in fact just 5 % real knowlegde to back you up when stating other alternative debaters to know nothing about cosmological science or to be ignorant in these matters.

The rest 95 % of your arguments is factually in the dark mode according to the standing theories themselves.

 

[Native]

There are still many questions and mysteries scientists are working on about the beginning of our local universe.

Of course there are - as the entire BB idea is unnatural and speculative nonsense.