The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: TheBox on black holes  (Read 16067 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #125 on: 03/03/2016 20:50:08 »


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


You clearly  did not give it enough though, if you  had you would realise the relativistic affect of mass increase which I have explained.  Clearly you are clued up to present information but that does not mean you are in a position of having the ability to think about new information. If you are not interesting in this discussion with no other purpose but to post present information back, may I suggest you are in the wrong thread.

In a baby example of relativistic mass, hold an house brick in your hand at arms length, I assure you within a short time you will feel the effects of relativistic  mass increase.

Try the same experiment with the brick on the ground, you will not experience the relativistic mass increase.




« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 20:57:14 by Thebox »
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #126 on: 03/03/2016 21:07:13 »
You clearly  did not give it enough though, if you  had you would realise the relativistic affect of mass increase which I have explained.  Clearly you are clued up to present information but that does not mean you are in a position of having the ability to think about new information. If you are not interesting in this discussion with no other purpose but to post present information back, may I suggest you are in the wrong thread.

The concept of mass and the theory of relativity do not work the way you think they do. You seem to be incapable of understanding the distinction between the force exerted by something when that something is undergoing an acceleration and the magnitude of its mass. I suspect you are also having trouble understanding the concept of net force and net acceleration.

Quote
In a baby example of relativistic mass, hold an house brick in your hand at arms length, I assure you within a short time you will feel the effects of relativistic  mass increase.

Try the same experiment with the brick on the ground, you will not experience the relativistic mass increase.

Case in point this has absolutely no connection to the theory of relativity. I assume you are attempting to reference the perceived increase of weight of a held object as your muscles become tired. This is an illusion produced by your brain interpreting signals from your muscles. You muscle fibers cannot stay contracted without a source of chemical energy. The longer you attempt to keep your muscles fibers contracted the more chemical energy they have to be supplied with and the less time the cells in the fiber have to clean out the waste products from using that chemical energy. Two things eventually happen. The first is that if the muscle fibers need more energy than you can naturally produce they eventually run out of energy and send signals to your brain telling you that they are tired which your brain interprets as the object getting heavier. The second is that if the muscle cells are producing more waste than your body can remove from the muscle cells the waste builds up and the muscle cells send pain signals that eventually will cause your brain to tell the muscles to stop contracting so the waste can be removed. If your brain didn't do that the cells would be damaged and die.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #127 on: 03/03/2016 21:13:30 »
                                       

The concept of mass and the theory of relativity do not work the way you think they do.


Really ?  so mass, the theory of relativity, special relativity, all written down, is all written in some ancient language and there is only you that can understand it?




 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #128 on: 03/03/2016 21:21:58 »
                                       

The concept of mass and the theory of relativity do not work the way you think they do.


Really ?  so mass, the theory of relativity, special relativity, all written down, is all written in some ancient language and there is only you that can understand it?

That would be another non-sequitur. The fact that you do not understand the concept of mass and the theory of relativity does not in anyway indicate anything about either of those things. It certainly does not imply that I think only I can understand them. It only implies things about you, your current level of understanding, and perhaps your ability to reason. Given time and a willingness to listen to/learn from reasoned arguments and observational evidence you could learn to understand these things. The only barrier between you and understanding is your behavior.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #129 on: 03/03/2016 21:24:58 »


Say something about science, or shut your trap.

Let's get something straight, I'll offer my opinions and or my understanding when and wherever I choose. You can take your insults and put them where the sun don't shine Mr. T.

And BTW, it's clear to many of us that you haven't taken the time or effort to examine my activity here at TNS, if you had and could get over your touchy and offended act, it would be clear to you that I also come here to discuss science.

So........get over it!
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #130 on: 03/03/2016 21:34:29 »

That would be another non-sequitur. The fact that you do not understand the concept of mass and the theory of relativity does not in anyway indicate anything about either of those things. It certainly does not imply that I think only I can understand them. It only implies things about you, your current level of understanding, and perhaps your ability to reason. Given time and a willingness to listen to/learn from reasoned arguments and observational evidence you could learn to understand these things. The only barrier between you and understanding is your behavior.

You are seriously arrogant and trying to flame by again being intentionally presumption , you  understand but I  don't understand, your arrogance is overwhelming.   

You are him of the other forum aren't you saying the same thing over and over like you are saying here?


I am beginning to agree with C.W you are coming across like some stalker.


We are in a that can't be true section, me and CW are having an intellectual gibberish  conversation, talking hypothetical situations and all sorts of rubbish or not so rubbish, you are welcome to join in talking , just stop telling us we don't know what present information is.

Look I can read

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

I can watch


There is nothing complicated about any of it.







 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #131 on: 03/03/2016 21:45:22 »


You are him of the other forum aren't you saying the same thing over and over like you are saying here?

Remember I warned you about that paranoia?

Quote from: Thebox
just stop telling us we don't know what present information is.


Mr. Box,......agyejy has as much right to question your beliefs and presumed facts as you have to question his. Nobody, and I repeat, nobody has the right to command anyone here to stop their objections to your views or anyone else's..............................PERIOD
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #132 on: 03/03/2016 21:49:10 »


You are him of the other forum aren't you saying the same thing over and over like you are saying here?

Remember I warned you about that paranoia?

Quote from: Thebox
just stop telling us we don't know what present information is.


Mr. Box,......agyejy has as much right to question your beliefs and presumed facts as you have to question his. Nobody, and I repeat, nobody has the right to command anyone here to stop their objections to your views or anyone else's..............................PERIOD

It is not a bother if he comes on and says I am wrong for this reason of logic  , but to keep repeating that I don't understand is very wrong and that is what is winding me up .



 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #133 on: 03/03/2016 21:50:14 »
You are seriously arrogant and trying to flame by again being intentionally presumption , you  understand but I  don't understand, your arrogance is overwhelming. 

Being correct isn't arrogant and demonstrating that statement someone has made is incorrect is not flaming.

Quote
You are him of the other forum aren't you saying the same thing over and over like you are saying here?


I am beginning to agree with C.W you are coming across like some stalker.

You really are starting to sound a bit paranoid.

Quote
We are in a that can't be true section, me and CW are having an intellectual gibberish  conversation, talking hypothetical situations and all sorts of rubbish or not so rubbish, you are welcome to join in talking , just stop telling us we don't know what present information is.

Why? What obligation do I have not to prove that the statements you are making are incorrect?

Quote
Look I can read

http://www.bartleby.com/173/

I can watch


There is nothing complicated about any of it.

The ability to read something or watch something is not the same as the ability to understand something. This is especially true when you refuse to alter your opinions and viewpoints when presented with reasoned arguments and observational evidence. One also has to be careful of the provenance of the sources of information they learn from.

Quote from: Ethos_
Mr. Box,......agyejy has as much right to question your beliefs and presumed facts as you have to question his. Nobody, and I repeat, nobody has the right to command anyone here to stop their objections to your views or anyone else's..............................PERIOD

Well technically this is a privately owned space and thus the owners of the space and/or their representatives have that right. We generally call that moderation.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #134 on: 03/03/2016 21:55:17 »


It is not a bother if he comes on and says I am wrong for this reason of logic  , but to keep repeating that I don't understand is very wrong and that is what is winding me up .
So.......he's supposed to agree with you when he feels you are mistaken? Listen Box, there is no shame in being mistaken, we all have been at some time in our lives. What is shameful however is to reject offhand everything someone else has to offer without considering their position. A word to the wise is sufficient.............................
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #135 on: 03/03/2016 21:56:23 »


Being correct isn't arrogant and demonstrating that statement someone has made is incorrect is not flaming.

Ok, you obviously think you are smart, so obviously it should be really easy for you to use all your knowledge to prove this ''idiot'' wrong.


Time does not exist, anything after 0 measurement is instant  history.


Prove that wrong , come  back when you can.


 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #136 on: 03/03/2016 21:58:25 »


It is not a bother if he comes on and says I am wrong for this reason of logic  , but to keep repeating that I don't understand is very wrong and that is what is winding me up .
So.......he's supposed to agree with you when he feels you are mistaken? Listen Box, there is no shame in being mistaken, we all have been at some time in our lives. What is shameful however is to reject offhand everything someone else has to offer without considering their position. A word to the wise is sufficient.............................

Well I have raised the pirate flag in this thread and put our friend to the test.  We will see if he can think for himself or just another book hog.

 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #137 on: 03/03/2016 22:02:05 »


Well technically this is a privately owned space and thus the owners of the space and/or their representatives have that right. We generally call that moderation.
Yes, that is true agyejy but is usually only enforced when someone has become totally rude and insulting. In any case, I think you know the spirit of my remark and why I said it.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #138 on: 03/03/2016 22:04:38 »


Well technically this is a privately owned space and thus the owners of the space and/or their representatives have that right. We generally call that moderation.
Yes, that is true agyejy but is usually only enforced when someone has become totally rude and insulting. In any case, I think you know the spirit of my remark and why I said it.

To me it looks like you are trying to infiltrate into this forum like they/you did over at phys forum, that forum is now shut, it is not paranoia, you clearly seem as if you know  ag.

 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #139 on: 03/03/2016 22:14:17 »


To me it looks like you are trying to infiltrate into this forum like they/you did over at phys forum, that forum is now shut, it is not paranoia, you clearly seem as if you know  ag.
I have never had any correspondence with the fellow Mr. Box. Other than his activity here at TNS. I'm being totally up front with you about this, I have had no affiliation with him whatsoever. Nevertheless, I find his posts intelligent and in agreement with current scientific theory.

I seriously think you would benefit from an honest study of relativity and when I say study, I mean consider the views from the experts before you start making up new theories on your own.  Give it an honest try, you may be surprised at how your perception of reality might change.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #140 on: 03/03/2016 22:21:59 »


To me it looks like you are trying to infiltrate into this forum like they/you did over at phys forum, that forum is now shut, it is not paranoia, you clearly seem as if you know  ag.
I have never had any correspondence with the fellow Mr. Box. Other than his activity here at TNS. I'm being totally up front with you about this, I have had no affiliation with him whatsoever. Nevertheless, I find his posts intelligent and in agreement with current scientific theory.

I seriously think you would benefit from an honest study of relativity and when I say study, I mean consider the views from the experts before you start making up new theories on your own.  Give it an honest try, you may be surprised at how your perception of reality might change.

I agree his input is very wise of present knowledge and I hope he takes no offence by my words, BUT, I have been looking at Einstein for about 6 years now, I pretty much understand the guy , to keep presuming I don't understand is arrogant.   


Do you think I could have a The theory of realistic if I didn't understand science?  A box singularity that I know is quite cool science and not been done before?

How long do you think I have got in life to learn now I am middle aged?

As long as I get somebody to understand the box singularity, job done for me (tired of trying to explain), science over. Something new and realistic to go at for science.





 


« Last Edit: 03/03/2016 22:24:42 by Thebox »
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #141 on: 03/03/2016 22:30:05 »


I agree his input is very wise of present knowledge and I hope he takes no offence by my words, BUT, I have been looking at Einstein for about 6 years now, I pretty much understand the guy , to keep presuming I don't understand is arrogant.   
No Mr. Box, it only means that you and I don't understand it the same way.

Quote from: Thebox
Do you think I could have a The theory of realistic if I didn't understand science?  A box singularity that I know is quite cool science and not been done before?

How long do you think I have got in life to learn now I am middle aged?


You're still a young man Mr. Box, I'm almost 74 years old and I learn something new every day. If fact, the more I learn, the less intelligent I feel. My ego has had to take a back set many times over the years, so don't think the learning is over just yet. You still have many years to solve many things.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #142 on: 03/03/2016 22:31:18 »
Ok, you obviously think you are smart, so obviously it should be really easy for you to use all your knowledge to prove this ''idiot'' wrong.

I would like to make it clear that you called yourself an idiot. I never did.

Quote
Time does not exist, anything after 0 measurement is instant  history.


Prove that wrong , come  back when you can.

Your statement is indecipherable. It does not appear to adhere to the syntax of the english language. Based on your previously expressed views I'm not even sure what definitions you are using for time, exist, measurement, instant, and history. Truthfully modern science hasn't even completely settled on a single consistent concept of time. So even if your statement wasn't indecipherable it probably wouldn't have a scientific answer one way or the other within our current understanding of science.

However, I would point out that the concept of time certainly exists or we wouldn't have the words time, history, past, present, future, instant, etc. So at the very least time exists in the sense that it is a concept that humans think/talk about.

Quote
I agree his input is very wise of present knowledge and I hope he takes no offence by my words, BUT, I have been looking at Einstein for about 6 years now, I pretty much understand the guy , to keep presuming I don't understand is arrogant. 

Simply spending time does not guarantee or demonstrate understanding.

Quote
Do you think I could have a The theory of realistic if I didn't understand science?  A box singularity that I know is quite cool science and not been done before?

How long do you think I have got in life to learn now I am middle aged?

As long as I get somebody to understand the box singularity, job done for me, science over. Something new and realistic to go at for science.

If anything that theory proves beyond any doubt you have failed to understand modern science.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #143 on: 03/03/2016 22:37:05 »
No Mr. Box, it only means that you and I don't understand it the same way.


That's the point , I understand it the same way and I understand more to it and some things differently.   I will give you a prime example,  in the relativity video I provided , notice the part when it comes to the beam of the light and the angle of the beam, relatively neither observer or a third observer or 4th observer observes a beam unless it is a laser travelling through a medium such as smoke reflecting of a mirror, a normal surface does not reflect a laser.


All observers observe that which is not opaque, the clarity of space.

So the explanation is null and void and contradictory.

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #144 on: 03/03/2016 22:42:29 »



Your statement is indecipherable. It does not appear to adhere to the syntax of the english language.


Well let me assure you that other people understood it very well, they agreed .   

Let me put it another way for you,

The moments on a clock, the moments on a sundial, the moments of cycle rate of the Caesium atom, all recording history, even 1 cycle on a caesium clock is history .

So when I don't jump for joy when I hear the term time-dilation, do not be surprised.





 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #145 on: 03/03/2016 23:05:28 »
Well let me assure you that other people understood it very well, they agreed .   

Truth is not determined via popular vote.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #146 on: 04/03/2016 08:51:15 »


Truth is not determined via popular vote.

Interesting, you have told me I am wrong by the opinion of popular  vote of Wiki. So are you now saying that the popular vote and ideas on wiki are not the ''truth''?

 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3153
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #147 on: 04/03/2016 08:57:50 »
Case in point this has absolutely no connection to the theory of relativity. I assume you are attempting to reference the perceived increase of weight of a held object as your muscles become tired. This is an illusion produced by your brain interpreting signals from your muscles.

Relativity is what two observers agree on, I assure you we would both agree the weight is getting heavier relative to us, relative to the ground, relative to space.  Relativistic mass is when the object is not at rest mass in an inertial accelerating reference frame, the greater the speed and/or distance, the greater the mass relative to another body , relative to  the ground.

An object at rest on the moons inertial accelerating reference frame, has less mass than the same object on Earth.


courtesy of google pics -




Looks relativistic massless to me.


 ''I suspect you are also having trouble understanding the concept of net force and net acceleration. ''

Let me think, can I do subtraction......oh yes I could last time I subtracted.

L=X

At(-ve=c)

Bt(+ve=c)


At-Bt=0t net difference


I get no  time dilation between two point using the constant of the speed of light as my ''clock'' 


While the spaceship travels from A to B with an on-board Caesium clock and an observer is on Earth in an inertial reference frame with another Caesium clock, both Caesium clocks lose their synchronisation , the one on Earth remains at ground state while the one in motion experiences time dilation and length contraction, I am timing them both with my very accurate space-time clock of light between the start and finish points of the not opaque clarity of space, and the light travelling from the finishing point to the start point and the invert journey round trip.

My clock shows NO time dilation and no length contraction, the finishing point did not get nearer to my third person observation.




Velocity does not change, an object travelling 1035 mph will travel  24,901 miles in 24 hours.   This does not alter, 86400 seconds is equal to approx 24,901 miles, 1 second is equal to approx 0.288 mile.   The whole Universe , we have time equal to a distance travelled equal to a speed, we have the speed of time set equal to the speed of the Earth's rotational spin.


24,901/86400= approx 0.288 mile


Yes you may look with spine chilling glances, you may reply but we use the Caesium atom now, but may I remind you that the cycles of the transition of the Caesium atom were made to equal the old second, changing the ''colour'' of the clock did not change what it was equal to.

In analogy let us imagine we have a camcorder on earth aimed at the moon and a camcorder on the moon aimed at earth, sam on a spaceship on earth had 3 camcorders on-board the spaceship, 1 looking at the moon , one looking at the earth, and 1 recording himself.


The spaceship sets off to the moon that automatically triggers the camcorders synchronised start.  When sam reaches the moon sensor pad landing zone, the camcorders instantly pause recording.


All the camcorders record in synchronisation of the time the photon packets arrive, in real time,



Now although we think sam has just experienced a slowing time of time, the hard evidence and data on the hard drives of the camcorders, the amount of data space it used, all shows to be equal and shows Sam experienced nothing different to any observer.

In short we use the real time speed of the recordings to time the journeys using the camcorders as a clock.

''Time is the synchronisation of observation''


If two observers disagree on the synchronisation of observation, they are disagreeing on time and would have to disagree about the speed of light .


I wrote this a while a back I wondered what it meant , now it is clearer to me.

''A separation of time and space, illuminated by the fabric of light, a fabric constant that allows the perception of distance , a fabric that alters the very essence of space, an opaqueness to vision clarified by it's very existence.  An existence that synchronises my mind to all of space, a constant that couples my mind to matter, distance a sense of separation of mind over matter,

In my mind time stands still, synchronised to timeless space,  all that I observe, a change in time, synchronisations different to my own.

I observe four dimensions through a fifth dimension of synchronised state, a dimension that allows four dimensions to exist but to not out welcome their stay.''


By the 5th dimension I meant the Box singularity. I think this is the reason people fail to understand me, I am thinking 5th dimensional beyond the 4 dimensions you are in, a bit like being inside the ''twilight zone'', a reality you can't see  by the entrapment firmament of the 4 dimensions.










 


























« Last Edit: 04/03/2016 10:49:10 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4698
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #148 on: 04/03/2016 09:03:29 »
Craig, Ethos

Whilst it is sometimes amusing to watch others quibble over angels and pinheads, it would be much appreciated if you (a) stuck to the question and (b) retained a gentlemanly decorum. The fact that you are both wrong in this case doesn't add much to the debate.

Please take a deep breath and "think nice".

 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #149 on: 04/03/2016 14:07:17 »
Craig, Ethos

Whilst it is sometimes amusing to watch others quibble over angels and pinheads, it would be much appreciated if you (a) stuck to the question and (b) retained a gentlemanly decorum. The fact that you are both wrong in this case doesn't add much to the debate.

Please take a deep breath and "think nice".
I stand corrected alan..................taking deep breath.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #149 on: 04/03/2016 14:07:17 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums