# The Naked Scientists Forum

### Author Topic: TheBox on black holes  (Read 15241 times)

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #100 on: 02/03/2016 22:56:08 »

For starters you are off by a factor of 10. On Earth where gravitational acceleration is roughly 9.81 m/s˛ an object with a mass of 45 kg produces a force of 441.45 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Earth's surface. On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s˛ and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Moon's surface. The object has the same mass on the Earth and on the Moon. The only difference is the gravitational acceleration and thus the weight.

I know most of the explanation you just give.   What I am not getting is this,  we determine the mass of an object by ''weighing'' it on a set of scales.  Mass is defined in kilogram.

The object on the scales presses down on the  scales because of the force of Newtons being applied. The object will press down until the scales ''level'' out.

We call the result the mass of the object,

you say - ''The object has the same mass on the Earth and on the Moon''

How is this possible?

You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s˛ and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''

So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass,

so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?

#### agyejy

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 207
• Thanked: 21 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #101 on: 02/03/2016 23:10:11 »

For starters you are off by a factor of 10. On Earth where gravitational acceleration is roughly 9.81 m/s˛ an object with a mass of 45 kg produces a force of 441.45 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Earth's surface. On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s˛ and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Moon's surface. The object has the same mass on the Earth and on the Moon. The only difference is the gravitational acceleration and thus the weight.

I know most of the explanation you just give.   What I am not getting is this,  we determine the mass of an object by ''weighing'' it on a set of scales.  Mass is defined in kilogram.

The object on the scales presses down on the  scales because of the force of Newtons being applied. The object will press down until the scales ''level'' out.

We call the result the mass of the object,

you say - ''The object has the same mass on the Earth and on the Moon''

How is this possible?

You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s˛ and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''

So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass,

so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?

As I said previously the scales we have here on Earth have been built to work on Earth. The scale measures the force and then uses the known gravitational acceleration on Earth to convert that force to a mass. The scale ceases to report the correct mass when moved to the Moon where the gravitational acceleration is different. It is a problem with how the scale was built. If you adjust the scale to use the gravitational acceleration of the Moon the scale will display the correct mass on the Moon and an incorrect mass on Earth.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #102 on: 02/03/2016 23:20:54 »

As I said previously the scales we have here on Earth have been built to work on Earth. The scale measures the force and then uses the known gravitational acceleration on Earth to convert that force to a mass. The scale ceases to report the correct mass when moved to the Moon where the gravitational acceleration is different. It is a problem with how the scale was built. If you adjust the scale to use the gravitational acceleration of the Moon the scale will display the correct mass on the Moon and an incorrect mass on Earth.

Just no, everything is based and scaled of the Earth and mainly the physics of the earth.  Mass is not a real thing, this is how it reads, mass is measured in Kg, all mass is attracted to mass, equivalent - all kg is attracted to kg.

User - what is mass?

science - it's the quantity of matter in a body

user - matter is the body , huh?

science - its measured in kg

user - so its the weight

science - no weight is newtons

user - huh? you are describing the same thing with different names.

Science definition is not great, we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter, and we should say that mass is -

The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.

added - this is the physics definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

With the most contradictory statement .

''Mass is not the same as weight, even though we often calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight with a spring scale ''

So even though we caught a fish and it looks like a fish, it isn't a fish. Makes no sense what so ever....

« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 00:25:48 by Thebox »

#### agyejy

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 207
• Thanked: 21 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #103 on: 03/03/2016 00:32:32 »

As I said previously the scales we have here on Earth have been built to work on Earth. The scale measures the force and then uses the known gravitational acceleration on Earth to convert that force to a mass. The scale ceases to report the correct mass when moved to the Moon where the gravitational acceleration is different. It is a problem with how the scale was built. If you adjust the scale to use the gravitational acceleration of the Moon the scale will display the correct mass on the Moon and an incorrect mass on Earth.

Just no, everything is based and scaled of the Earth and mainly the physics of the earth.  Mass is not a real thing, this is how it reads, mass is measured in Kg, all mass is attracted to mass, equivalent - all kg is attracted to kg.

User - what is mass?

science - it's the quantity of matter in a body

user - matter is the body , huh?

science - its measured in kg

user - so its the weight

science - no weight is newtons

user - huh? you are describing the same thing with different names.

Science definition is not great, we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter, and we should say that mass is -

The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.

This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter and that the magnitude of the attraction of one object to a second object is directly proportional to the mass of the second object and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the objects. The attraction is the force on the first object due to the second object (or weight of the first object as measured on the second object) and changes based on the mass of the second object and distance between the center of the first object and second object. Once again mass and weight are very different concepts. They are related but distinct.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn.

Quote
added - this is the physics definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

With the most contradictory statement .

''Mass is not the same as weight, even though we often calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight with a spring scale ''

So even though we caught a fish and it looks like a fish, it isn't a fish. Makes no sense what so ever....

This is getting to a point where I'm beginning to question your honesty. This concept is amazingly simple and the logic behind it is completely straightforward and easy to follow. Your inability to understand something so simple is either wilful ignorance (for some unfathomable reason) or an act in order to upset people that do understand it.

#### Ethos_

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 1228
• Thanked: 10 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #104 on: 03/03/2016 01:02:59 »

This is getting to a point where I'm beginning to question your honesty. This concept is amazingly simple and the logic behind it is completely straightforward and easy to follow. Your inability to understand something so simple is either wilful ignorance (for some unfathomable reason) or an act in order to upset people that do understand it.
This is the game Mr. Box plays, and it's a ruse, a stratagem to lure the unsuspecting into arguments he has no intention of ever surrendering to the facts surrounding the issue. I've finally had to simply ignore him out of frustration and intend to stick to my guns with that goal in mind.

I for one, had hoped that he was just confused and tried numerous times to help him understand the error in his judgments. But alas, to no avail. I finally had to surrender to the possibility that he was presenting himself in this fashion to simply further the confusion. After studying many of his posts, I've come to the conclusion that he is not nearly as ignorant as it may first appear. The only conclusion left is that he's doing it on purpose and I've simply had enough of the nonsense.

If you intend to continue communication with him, be prepared to deal with the same thing over and over again. Truly, I hope I'm wrong about him and would be delighted if I'm found in error about his agenda. If that be the case, then I wish him all the luck and success in his pursuit of the truth.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 01:56:45 by Ethos_ »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #105 on: 03/03/2016 09:51:13 »

As I said previously the scales we have here on Earth have been built to work on Earth. The scale measures the force and then uses the known gravitational acceleration on Earth to convert that force to a mass. The scale ceases to report the correct mass when moved to the Moon where the gravitational acceleration is different. It is a problem with how the scale was built. If you adjust the scale to use the gravitational acceleration of the Moon the scale will display the correct mass on the Moon and an incorrect mass on Earth.

Just no, everything is based and scaled of the Earth and mainly the physics of the earth.  Mass is not a real thing, this is how it reads, mass is measured in Kg, all mass is attracted to mass, equivalent - all kg is attracted to kg.

User - what is mass?

science - it's the quantity of matter in a body

user - matter is the body , huh?

science - its measured in kg

user - so its the weight

science - no weight is newtons

user - huh? you are describing the same thing with different names.

Science definition is not great, we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter, and we should say that mass is -

The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.

This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter and that the magnitude of the attraction of one object to a second object is directly proportional to the mass of the second object and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the objects. The attraction is the force on the first object due to the second object (or weight of the first object as measured on the second object) and changes based on the mass of the second object and distance between the center of the first object and second object. Once again mass and weight are very different concepts. They are related but distinct.

You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn.

Quote
added - this is the physics definition

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass

With the most contradictory statement .

''Mass is not the same as weight, even though we often calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight with a spring scale ''

So even though we caught a fish and it looks like a fish, it isn't a fish. Makes no sense what so ever....

This is getting to a point where I'm beginning to question your honesty. This concept is amazingly simple and the logic behind it is completely straightforward and easy to follow. Your inability to understand something so simple is either wilful ignorance (for some unfathomable reason) or an act in order to upset people that do understand it.

It is quite clear now to me why you invaded this thread, you are clearly a troll and have come over here to try help your buddies get rid of me, anyone can clearly see you have been dishonest .

I clearly stated - we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter.

You reply - ''This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter.''

''You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. ''

I understand more than you do for a certainty. do not come into my threads quoting wiki and pretending you are a scientist, you will be soon shown that your ability to personally think is none existent. ....

« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 09:54:50 by Thebox »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #106 on: 03/03/2016 09:58:08 »

This is getting to a point where I'm beginning to question your honesty. This concept is amazingly simple and the logic behind it is completely straightforward and easy to follow. Your inability to understand something so simple is either wilful ignorance (for some unfathomable reason) or an act in order to upset people that do understand it.
This is the game Mr. Box plays, and it's a ruse, a stratagem to lure the unsuspecting into arguments he has no intention of ever surrendering to the facts surrounding the issue. I've finally had to simply ignore him out of frustration and intend to stick to my guns with that goal in mind.

I for one, had hoped that he was just confused and tried numerous times to help him understand the error in his judgments. But alas, to no avail. I finally had to surrender to the possibility that he was presenting himself in this fashion to simply further the confusion. After studying many of his posts, I've come to the conclusion that he is not nearly as ignorant as it may first appear. The only conclusion left is that he's doing it on purpose and I've simply had enough of the nonsense.

If you intend to continue communication with him, be prepared to deal with the same thing over and over again. Truly, I hope I'm wrong about him and would be delighted if I'm found in error about his agenda. If that be the case, then I wish him all the luck and success in his pursuit of the truth.

Game?  you are the only one playing games around here with  your false pretences.   I am one of the only few on here who actually does any science on here, most of you only know to quote wiki and have no idea how to do science or make any science of your own with values such as The Box Singularity.

I know what I have created stop trying to take me for a fool.  I know I'm good because I always get good at what I want to get good at.

You said was going to ignore me, please do so, I do not wan't troll talking to me, I want a real scientist .

#### Craig W. Thomson

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 370
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #107 on: 03/03/2016 13:57:38 »
This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.
Then try a new arrangement until you manage to finally say something sensible.

(shrugs)

#### Craig W. Thomson

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 370
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #108 on: 03/03/2016 14:03:12 »
I've finally had to simply ignore him out of frustration and intend to stick to my guns with that goal in mind.
The only conclusion left is that he's doing it on purpose and I've simply had enough of the nonsense.
You have a bad habit of not talking about science. At least agyejy and TheBox can provoke a thought. Your posts are merely annoying. There are moderators. We don't need you to play our daddy. Say something about science, or be quiet please.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 14:05:31 by Craig W. Thomson »

#### Craig W. Thomson

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 370
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #109 on: 03/03/2016 14:18:11 »
This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter.
FALSE, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I'll let an actual scientist speak for me this time:

https://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~strassler/

"The word Matter. “Matter” as a term is terribly ambiguous; there isn’t a universal definition that is context-independent.  There are at least three possible definitions that are used in various places:

“Matter” can refer to atoms, the basic building blocks of what we think of as “material”: tables, air, rocks, skin, orange juice — and by extension, to the particles out of which atoms are made, including electrons and the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of an atom.

"OR it can refer to what are sometimes called the elementary “matter particles” of nature: electrons, muons, taus, the three types of neutrinos, the six types of quarks — all of the types of particles which are not the force particles (the photon, gluons, graviton and the W and Z particles.)  Read here about the known apparently-elementary particles of nature.  [The Higgs particle, by the way, doesn’t neatly fit into the classification of particles as matter particles and force particles, which was somewhat artificial to start with; I have a whole section about this classification below.]

"OR it can refer to classes of particles that are found out there, in the wider universe, and that on average move much more slowly than the speed of light.

"With any of these definitions, electrons are matter (although with the third definition they were not matter very early in the universe’s history, when it was much hotter than it is today.) With the second definition, muons are matter too, and so are neutrinos, even though they aren’t constituents of ordinary material.  With the third definition, some neutrinos may or may not be matter, and dark matter is definitely matter, even if it turns out to be made from a new type of force particle.  I’m really sorry this is so confusing, but you’ve no choice but to be aware of these different usages if you want to know what “matter” means in different people’s books and articles."

Source: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

So, practice what you preach: "You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn."
« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 14:22:45 by Craig W. Thomson »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #110 on: 03/03/2016 14:27:22 »
This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter.
FALSE, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself.

"The word Matter. “Matter” as a term is terribly ambiguous; there isn’t a universal definition that is context-independent.  There are at least three possible definitions that are used in various places:

“Matter” can refer to atoms, the basic building blocks of what we think of as “material”: tables, air, rocks, skin, orange juice — and by extension, to the particles out of which atoms are made, including electrons and the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of an atom.

"OR it can refer to what are sometimes called the elementary “matter particles” of nature: electrons, muons, taus, the three types of neutrinos, the six types of quarks — all of the types of particles which are not the force particles (the photon, gluons, graviton and the W and Z particles.)  Read here about the known apparently-elementary particles of nature.  [The Higgs particle, by the way, doesn’t neatly fit into the classification of particles as matter particles and force particles, which was somewhat artificial to start with; I have a whole section about this classification below.]

"OR it can refer to classes of particles that are found out there, in the wider universe, and that on average move much more slowly than the speed of light.

"With any of these definitions, electrons are matter (although with the third definition they were not matter very early in the universe’s history, when it was much hotter than it is today.) With the second definition, muons are matter too, and so are neutrinos, even though they aren’t constituents of ordinary material.  With the third definition, some neutrinos may or may not be matter, and dark matter is definitely matter, even if it turns out to be made from a new type of force particle.  I’m really sorry this is so confusing, but you’ve no choice but to be aware of these different usages if you want to know what “matter” means in different people’s books and articles."

Source: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

So, practice what you preach: "You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn."

I completely agree the definition of matter is  terribly ambiguous.  At the moment I have it defined in my theory ambiguously

Matter - Solidity or substance that occupies space

I am working on this to try to direct it to an exact point of something rather than an ambiguous point.

I think we can either call photons and like matter or we can call particle solidity matter, at the moment it describes both but they are different so should  be distinguishable.

How about matter for particles of solidity and convertual matter for photons etc?

#### Craig W. Thomson

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 370
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #111 on: 03/03/2016 14:36:27 »
You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s˛ and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''

So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass,

so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?
Let's say you were on a spacewalk outside a spacecraft. Far above the earth, you are weightless, and so is the spacecraft. However, if you get in between that spacecraft and something else, you will get crushed by its mass despite the "weightless" conditions. That's the difference between mass and weight.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 14:42:07 by Craig W. Thomson »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #112 on: 03/03/2016 14:45:19 »
You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s˛ and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''

So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass,

so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?
Let's say you were on a spacewalk outside a spacecraft. Far above the earth, you are weightless, and so is the spacecraft. However, if you get in between that spacecraft and something else, you will get crushed by its mass despite the "weightless" conditions. That's the difference between mass and weight.

When you raise an object of the ground, the mass of the object increase relative to the rest mass, an example -the object of 45 kg hits the ground at an equivalent to 90 kg.  ?

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #113 on: 03/03/2016 14:47:12 »
You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s˛ and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''

So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass,

so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?
Let's say you were on a spacewalk outside a spacecraft. Far above the earth, you are weightless, and so is the spacecraft. However, if you get in between that spacecraft and something else, you will get crushed by its mass despite the "weightless" conditions. That's the difference between mass and weight.

it is the speed and pressure that crushes you not the mass in that instant,

If the spaceship was a set of scales the scales will measure a greater mass at the point of contact for an instant before the spaceship is sent hurling through space.

Rest mass is different to potential mass.  An object in a lesser acceleration inertial reference frame will  have less mass at rest than an object with a greater mass in a greater field of acceleration,  in another words if an object was on an event horizon to a black hole , it will  have a greater mass than if it wasn't.

There is very simple experiment you can do,

place a 1 kg object on a set of scales, the scales will show 1 kg of mass at rest, raise the object in the air a couple of meters, drop the object, the scales now reads for an instant an increase in mass.

« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 16:15:32 by Thebox »

#### Craig W. Thomson

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 370
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #114 on: 03/03/2016 16:27:41 »
place a 1 kg object on a set of scales, the scales will show 1 kg of mass at rest, raise the object in the air a couple of meters, drop the object, the scales now reads for an instant an increase in mass.
That's different. In a way, what you did was demonstrate the potential to turn kinetic energy into mass, LOL

Here's a better experiment. Take your scale with you on an elevator. Step on it and check your weight. Now, press a button to go up. You now weigh more. Press it again to go down, this time you weigh less. At no point did your mass change.

Now, imagine you are on your scale in the elevator, and you don't push a button, but rather, the Earth suddenly increases to double its mass. You will weigh twice as much, even though your mass did not change. You would also feel like the elevator was going up, even though it was standing still.

This is what scientists are talking about when they say "gravity equals acceleration."

Speed has nothing to do with that. Well, maybe not "nothing," but at least in this particular context. If you are spacewalking, something happens, and now you are pinned between two massive spacecraft moving toward one another at a rate of only one centimeter per second, you're just going to get crushed in slow motion, that's all. Again, that's the difference between mass and weight. Weight is a measurement of mass in a SPECIFIC environment, as in, you would weigh less on the Moon, more on Jupiter, less on an elevator going down, more on an elevator going up. Mass is a measure of mass in ANY environment. Trust me, the mass of two weightless spacecraft is more than sufficient to put the squeeze on you and your musings.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 16:35:18 by Craig W. Thomson »

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #115 on: 03/03/2016 16:45:04 »

Here's a better experiment. Take your scale with you on an elevator. Step on it and check your weight. Now, press a button to go up. You now weigh more. Press it again to go down, this time you weigh less. At no point did your mass change.

Now, imagine you are on your scale in the elevator, and you don't push a button, but rather, the Earth suddenly increases to double its mass. You will weigh twice as much, even though your mass did not change. You would also feel like the elevator was going up, even though it was standing still.

The statement you  made is contradictory, if something on a set of scales weighs more or less kilograms by relative velocity, it has more or less mass.
Weight is force of Newtons,  Mass is kilogram, the mass of an object is relative to the weight of the force.

The potential mass increases the greater the speed and distance away from the inertial reference rest frame.

Imagine we have a platform with a 1 kg object at rest mass on it.  Relative to the object on the platform or when the object is on the ground the object has the same rest mass.

If the object was to fall the rest mass instantly increases of the object relative to the ground. Speed  increasing the objects rest mass to relativistic mass.

#### Craig W. Thomson

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 370
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #116 on: 03/03/2016 16:51:48 »
it is the speed and pressure that crushes you not the mass in that instant,
Here's a good topic for debate related to what we are talking about, and somewhat related to the thread.

I have noticed that people tend to fall into two camps in these forums. Some people say that "foreshortening" is "real," and some say it is not. That is, if you were travelling in a spacecraft approaching the speed of light, you would appear "compressed" or "foreshortened." Some people say that is a real physical effect, and some say it is an "apparent" effect that we seem to see, but that is an illusion, that the whole of spacetime and everything is compressed relative to everything else, so all you would have is everything equally compressed and functional.

I fall into the former camp. I think it is real. Remember the elevator? Forget the scale. Get a tape measure. Stand up straight, not on your toes, no cheating. Get a measurement of your height. Now lay down. Take the same measurement, and you will find you are something like 3/4 of an inch longer than you are all tall. The reason is simple. Gravity pulls you down, so all those ligaments and cartilage want to spread out. Stand up, and all the cartilage gets compressed between your head and feet. Now, pressing the elevator buttons, you will find that you are also a little shorter than usual on the way up, and a little taller on the way down.

Curiouser and curiouser. Personally, since scientists keep telling me that "gravity equals acceleration," I have come to the opinion that, if I were travelling in an elevator that was going up at some significant fraction of the speed of light, I would most likely be pancake shaped, and that would be my real shape, not an apparent effect an observer would see due to the warping of spacetime. No, I think I would actually be a puddle of soup.

#### Craig W. Thomson

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 370
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #117 on: 03/03/2016 17:01:59 »
Look who's talking ...

You should know this more than anyone, as you hang around forums like these at least as much as I do. No matter what statement you make, no matter how accurate you try to be, someone is going to rip it apart.

Sometimes, that's just because reality is so weird, reality seems to contradict itself. Then, we apply lexically ambiguous languages like English to describe these processes.

A good example: Mass and energy are equivalent. True. Mass is not energy. True. Mass is made of energy. True or false, depending on how you look at it.

I'm not trying to be an authority on this subject, though I do know a few things about it. Nevertheless, I will probably make even more contradictory statements in the future, and so will you, and so will everyone else because that is the nature of the subject matter, so I don't really understand what you are complaining about here.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 17:09:10 by Craig W. Thomson »

The following users thanked this post: Thebox

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #118 on: 03/03/2016 17:05:59 »
it is the speed and pressure that crushes you not the mass in that instant,
Here's a good topic for debate related to what we are talking about, and somewhat related to the thread.

I have noticed that people tend to fall into two camps in these forums. Some people say that "foreshortening" is "real," and some say it is not. That is, if you were travelling in a spacecraft approaching the speed of light, you would appear "compressed" or "foreshortened." Some people say that is a real physical effect, and some say it is an "apparent" effect that we seem to see, but that is an illusion, that the whole of spacetime and everything is compressed relative to everything else, so all you would have is everything equally compressed and functional.

I fall into the former camp. I think it is real. Remember the elevator? Forget the scale. Get a tape measure. Stand up straight, not on your toes, no cheating. Get a measurement of your height. Now lay down. Take the same measurement, and you will find you are something like 3/4 of an inch longer than you are all tall. The reason is simple. Gravity pulls you down, so all those ligaments and cartilage want to spread out. Stand up, and all the cartilage gets compressed between your head and feet. Now, pressing the elevator buttons, you will find that you are also a little shorter than usual on the way up, and a little taller on the way down.

Curiouser and curiouser. Personally, since scientists keep telling me that "gravity equals acceleration," I have come to the opinion that, if I were travelling in an elevator that was going up at some significant fraction of the speed of light, I would most likely be pancake shaped, and that would be my real shape, not an apparent effect an observer would see due to the warping of spacetime. No, I think I would actually be a puddle of soup.

Interesting , I fall into the neither , I believe the visual Lorentz contraction of a body in motion is just a thing of light perception, however I consider the object in motion, the length expands and is stretched by the force of gravity puling it backwards, like an elastic band stretching rather than a contraction.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #119 on: 03/03/2016 17:10:22 »
Look who's talking ...

You should know this more than anyone, as you hang around forums like these at least as much as I do. No matter what statement you make, no matter how accurate you try to be, someone is going to rip it apart.

Sometimes, that's just because reality is so weird, reality seems to contradict itself. Then, we apply lexically ambiguous languages like English to describe these processes.

A good example: Mass and energy are equivalent. True. Mass is not energy. True. Mass is made of energy. True or false, depending on how you look at it.

I'm not trying to be an authority on this subject, though I do know a few things about it. Nevertheless, I will probably make even more contradictory statements in the future, and so will you, and so will everyone else because that is the nature of the subject matter, so I don't really understand what you are complaining about here.

My apologies, you are correct, it does not matter how we word it at times , someone will have ago lol.

#### Craig W. Thomson

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 370
• Thanked: 4 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #120 on: 03/03/2016 17:17:04 »
Interesting , I fall into the neither , I believe the visual Lorentz contraction of a body in motion is just a thing of light perception, however I consider the object in motion, the length expands and is stretched by the force of gravity puling it backwards, like an elastic band stretching rather than a contraction.
What is that, the Bob Clampett explanation of Lorentz animation? I guess that's what I get for suggesting I was pancake-shaped. You're frigging hilarious, TheBox, like, seriously.

:D

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #121 on: 03/03/2016 17:23:09 »
Interesting , I fall into the neither , I believe the visual Lorentz contraction of a body in motion is just a thing of light perception, however I consider the object in motion, the length expands and is stretched by the force of gravity puling it backwards, like an elastic band stretching rather than a contraction.
What is that, the Bob Clampett explanation of length contraction? I guess that's what I get for suggesting I was pancake-shaped. You're frigging hilarious, TheBox, like, seriously.

:D

Seriously, consider at this time in your location you are stretched between two points, however the nearest point contracts you , if you were to to magically start to hover and mover a vertical path upwards you would stretch the space-time that holds you contracted becoming stretched yourself, as you reached  the the other body, your stretched length then contracts again relative to the other bodies gravitational strength.

I understand this relativistic affect is hard to swallow, I am sure you will glance in dismay, but I do not consider one way journey and affect , I consider all the parameters.
« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 17:28:52 by Thebox »

#### agyejy

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 207
• Thanked: 21 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #122 on: 03/03/2016 18:14:02 »
I clearly stated - we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter.

You reply - ''This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter.''

You clearly indicated that you believed that current scientific understanding says that mass attracts mass. You even used a little fictional conversation between a fictional "user" that clearly represented you and "science". I simply pointed out that science never made that argument.

Quote
''You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. ''

I understand more than you do for a certainty. do not come into my threads quoting wiki and pretending you are a scientist, you will be soon shown that your ability to personally think is none existent. ....

This is a non-sequitur.

When you raise an object of the ground, the mass of the object increase relative to the rest mass, an example -the object of 45 kg hits the ground at an equivalent to 90 kg.  ?

An object might hit the ground with a force equivalent to the weight of a 90kg object but this is only true under very specific circumstances in regards to exactly how long it takes the falling object to decelerate after first contacting the ground and the mass of the object. Raising the object does not increase its mass in the way you describe.

Switching people I am addressing now.

Then try a new arrangement until you manage to finally say something sensible.

(shrugs)

FALSE, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I'll let an actual scientist speak for me this time:

...

So, practice what you preach: "You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn."

None of the things you quoted actually disapprove my statement. Clearly definitions of matter can be confused and inexact but that inexactness is never so bad that it is wrong to say that matter is attracted to matter. Further, I point you to several other parts of that very article which you seemed to ignore:

Quote
Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
Quote
Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway).  But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.
(Emphasis mine.)
Quote
Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar.  All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
Quote
The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles.  At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.

These are all points that I have made to you and you have disputed. Since you have clearly held up this person as an authority on these things that should be believed over both you and me then you currently have no choice but to admit that you are wrong in exactly the ways I indicated earlier.

A good example: Mass and energy are equivalent. True. Mass is not energy. True. Mass is made of energy. True or false, depending on how you look at it.

Mass and energy are properties of things. Properties are not things and therefore can not be made from something. Things have a property. Properties are not made out of things. I point you once again to the website you linked:

Quote
Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway).  But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.
(Emphasis mine.)

If energy isn't stuff but stuff has energy then energy must be a property just like mass is a property. Relativity has taught us that the properties of mass and energy are really describing the same thing.

Quote
I'm not trying to be an authority on this subject, though I do know a few things about it. Nevertheless, I will probably make even more contradictory statements in the future, and so will you, and so will everyone else because that is the nature of the subject matter, so I don't really understand what you are complaining about here.

When correctly stated and understood science is not contradictory. The scientific method is pretty much designed to identify and remove contradictory ideas from any system of thought to which it is applied. Sometimes to the layman even correctly stated science can sound contradictory but that is simple a symptom of a lack of understanding.

#### Thebox

• Neilep Level Member
• Posts: 3139
• Thanked: 42 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #123 on: 03/03/2016 20:33:42 »
Raising the object does not increase its mass in the way you describe.

You clearly give that very little thought.   non-sequitur  , I am just trying to remember who says that off the other forums.

#### agyejy

• Sr. Member
• Posts: 207
• Thanked: 21 times
##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #124 on: 03/03/2016 20:42:22 »
You clearly give that very little thought.

I gave it exactly as much thought as was required to come to the correct conclusion.

#### The Naked Scientists Forum

##### Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #124 on: 03/03/2016 20:42:22 »