The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: TheBox on black holes  (Read 16205 times)

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #150 on: 04/03/2016 14:20:57 »
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.
False. I don't have to admit anything, especially to some bloviated blowhard with zero credentials.

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.
That's pretty funny. I criticized you for using the imprecise word "matter", now you resort to the word "things." So, the agyegy theory is that "stuff is made of things." The Craig W. Thomson theory is that "mass is made of energy." Pretty easy to see which explanation is closer to reality.

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.
That's great. Maybe you can help me understand this:

List of unsolved problems in physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Why did the universe have such low entropy in the past, resulting in the distinction between past and future and the second law of thermodynamics?[2] Why are CP violations observed in certain weak force decays, but not elsewhere? Are CP violations somehow a product of the Second Law of Thermodynamics, or are they a separate arrow of time? Are there exceptions to the principle of causality? Is there a single possible past? Is the present moment physically distinct from the past and future or is it merely an emergent property of consciousness? Why does time have a direction? What links the quantum arrow of time to the thermodynamic arrow?

How does the quantum description of reality, which includes elements such as the superposition of states and wavefunction collapse or quantum decoherence, give rise to the reality we perceive? Another way of stating this is the measurement problem – what constitutes a "measurement" which causes the wave function to collapse into a definite state? Unlike classical physical processes, some quantum mechanical processes (such as quantum teleportation arising from quantum entanglement) cannot be simultaneously "local", "causal" and "real", but it is not obvious which of these properties must be sacrificed or if an attempt to describe quantum mechanical processes in these senses is a category error that doesn't even make sense to talk about if one properly understands quantum mechanics.

Is there a theory which explains the values of all fundamental physical constants?[2] Is the theory string theory? Is there a theory which explains why the gauge groups of the standard model are as they are, why observed spacetime has 3 spatial dimensions and 1 temporal dimension, and why all laws of physics are as they are? Do "fundamental physical constants" vary over time? Are any of the particles in the standard model of particle physics actually composite particles too tightly bound to observe as such at current experimental energies? Are there fundamental particles that have not yet been observed, and, if so, which ones are they and what are their properties? Are there unobserved fundamental forces implied by a theory that explains other unsolved problems in physics?

Given an arbitrary compact gauge group, does a non-trivial quantum Yang–Mills theory with a finite mass gap exist?

Are there physical phenomena, such as wave function collapse or black holes, which irrevocably destroy information about their prior states? How is quantum information stored as a state of a quantum system?

At the present time, the values of the dimensionless physical constants cannot be calculated; they are determined only by physical measurement.[3][4] What is the minimum number of dimensionless physical constants from which all other dimensionless physical constants can be derived? Are dimensionful physical constants necessary at all?

Is the theory of cosmic inflation correct, and, if so, what are the details of this epoch? What is the hypothetical inflaton field giving rise to inflation? If inflation happened at one point, is it self-sustaining through inflation of quantum-mechanical fluctuations, and thus ongoing in some extremely distant place?[5]

Why is the distant universe so homogeneous when the Big Bang theory seems to predict larger measurable anisotropies of the night sky than those observed? Cosmological inflation is generally accepted as the solution, but are other possible explanations such as a variable speed of light more appropriate?[6]

Is the universe heading towards a Big Freeze, a Big Rip, a Big Crunch, or a Big Bounce? Or is it part of an infinitely recurring cyclic model?

Why is there far more matter than antimatter in the observable universe?

Why does the zero-point energy of the vacuum not cause a large cosmological constant? What cancels it out?[7]

What is the identity of dark matter?[6] Is it a particle? Is it the lightest superpartner (LSP)? Do the phenomena attributed to dark matter point not to some form of matter but actually to an extension of gravity?

What is the cause of the observed accelerated expansion (de Sitter phase) of the Universe? Why is the energy density of the dark energy component of the same magnitude as the density of matter at present when the two evolve quite differently over time; could it be simply that we are observing at exactly the right time? Is dark energy a pure cosmological constant or are models of quintessence such as phantom energy applicable?

Is a non-spherically symmetric gravitational pull from outside the observable Universe responsible for some of the observed motion of large objects such as galactic clusters in the universe?

Some large features of the microwave sky at distances of over 13 billion light years appear to be aligned with both the motion and orientation of the solar system. Is this due to systematic errors in processing, contamination of results by local effects, or an unexplained violation of the Copernican principle?

What is the 3-manifold of comoving space, i.e. of a comoving spatial section of the Universe, informally called the "shape" of the Universe? Neither the curvature nor the topology is presently known, though the curvature is known to be "close" to zero on observable scales. The cosmic inflation hypothesis suggests that the shape of the Universe may be unmeasurable, but, since 2003, Jean-Pierre Luminet, et al., and other groups have suggested that the shape of the Universe may be the Poincaré dodecahedral space. Is the shape unmeasurable; the Poincaré space; or another 3-manifold?

Why does the predicted mass of the quantum vacuum have little effect on the expansion of the universe?

Can quantum mechanics and general relativity be realized as a fully consistent theory (perhaps as a quantum field theory)?[8] Is spacetime fundamentally continuous or discrete? Would a consistent theory involve a force mediated by a hypothetical graviton, or be a product of a discrete structure of spacetime itself (as in loop quantum gravity)? Are there deviations from the predictions of general relativity at very small or very large scales or in other extreme circumstances that flow from a quantum gravity theory?

Do black holes produce thermal radiation, as expected on theoretical grounds? Does this radiation contain information about their inner structure, as suggested by Gauge-gravity duality, or not, as implied by Hawking's original calculation? If not, and black holes can evaporate away, what happens to the information stored in them (since quantum mechanics does not provide for the destruction of information)? Or does the radiation stop at some point leaving black hole remnants? Is there another way to probe their internal structure somehow, if such a structure even exists?

Does nature have more than four spacetime dimensions? If so, what is their size? Are dimensions a fundamental property of the universe or an emergent result of other physical laws? Can we experimentally observe evidence of higher spatial dimensions?

Can singularities not hidden behind an event horizon, known as "naked singularities", arise from realistic initial conditions, or is it possible to prove some version of the "cosmic censorship hypothesis" of Roger Penrose which proposes that this is impossible?[9] Similarly, will the closed timelike curves which arise in some solutions to the equations of general relativity (and which imply the possibility of backwards time travel) be ruled out by a theory of quantum gravity which unites general relativity with quantum mechanics, as suggested by the "chronology protection conjecture" of Stephen Hawking?

Are there non-local phenomena in quantum physics? If they exist, are non-local phenomena limited to the entanglement revealed in the violations of the Bell inequalities, or can information and conserved quantities also move in a non-local way? Under what circumstances are non-local phenomena observed? What does the existence or absence of non-local phenomena imply about the fundamental structure of spacetime? How does this relate to quantum entanglement? How does this elucidate the proper interpretation of the fundamental nature of quantum physics?

Are the branching ratios of the Higgs boson decays consistent with the standard model? Is there only one type of Higgs boson?

Why is gravity such a weak force? It becomes strong for particles only at the Planck scale, around 1019 GeV, much above the electroweak scale (100 GeV, the energy scale dominating physics at low energies). Why are these scales so different from each other? What prevents quantities at the electroweak scale, such as the Higgs boson mass, from getting quantum corrections on the order of the Planck scale? Is the solution supersymmetry, extra dimensions, or just anthropic fine-tuning?

Did particles that carry "magnetic charge" exist in some past, higher-energy epoch? If so, do any remain today? (Paul Dirac showed the existence of some types of magnetic monopoles would explain charge quantization.)[10]

Is the proton fundamentally stable? Or does it decay with a finite lifetime as predicted by some extensions to the standard model?[11] How do the quarks and gluons carry the spin of protons?[12]

Is spacetime supersymmetry realized at TeV scale? If so, what is the mechanism of supersymmetry breaking? Does supersymmetry stabilize the electroweak scale, preventing high quantum corrections? Does the lightest supersymmetric particle (LSP or Lightest Supersymmetric Particle) comprise dark matter?

Why are there three generations of quarks and leptons? Is there a theory that can explain the masses of particular quarks and leptons in particular generations from first principles (a theory of Yukawa couplings)?[13]

What is the mass of neutrinos, whether they follow Dirac or Majorana statistics? Is mass hierarchy normal or inverted? Is the CP violating phase 0?[14][15][16]

Why has there never been measured a free quark or gluon, but only objects that are built out of them, like mesons and baryons? How does this phenomenon emerge from QCD?

Why is the strong nuclear interaction invariant to parity and charge conjugation? Is Peccei–Quinn theory the solution to this problem?

Why is the experimentally measured value of the muon's anomalous magnetic dipole moment ("muon g−2") significantly different from the theoretically predicted value of that physical constant?[17]

What is the electric charge radius of the proton? How does it differ from gluonic charge?

What combinations of quarks are possible? Why were pentaquarks so difficult to discover?[18] Are they a tightly-bound system of five elementary particles, or a more weakly-bound pairing of a baryon and a meson?[19]

Why do the accretion discs surrounding certain astronomical objects, such as the nuclei of active galaxies, emit relativistic jets along their polar axes?[20] Why are there quasi-periodic oscillations in many accretion discs?[21] Why does the period of these oscillations scale as the inverse of the mass of the central object?[22] Why are there sometimes overtones, and why do these appear at different frequency ratios in different objects?[23]

Why is the Sun's corona (atmosphere layer) so much hotter than the Sun's surface? Why is the magnetic reconnection effect many orders of magnitude faster than predicted by standard models?

What is responsible for the numerous interstellar absorption lines detected in astronomical spectra? Are they molecular in origin, and if so which molecules are responsible for them? How do they form?

How do these short-duration high-intensity bursts originate?[2]

What is the origin of the M-sigma relation between supermassive black hole mass and galaxy velocity dispersion?[24] How did the most distant quasars grow their supermassive black holes up to 1010 solar masses so early in the history of the Universe?

Rotation curve of a typical spiral galaxy: predicted (A) and observed (B). Can the discrepancy between the curves be attributed to dark matter?

Why does the number of objects in the Solar System's Kuiper belt fall off rapidly and unexpectedly beyond a radius of 50 astronomic units?

Why is the observed energy of satellites flying by Earth sometimes different by a minute amount from the value predicted by theory?

Is dark matter responsible for differences in observed and theoretical speed of stars revolving around the center of galaxies, or is it something else?

What is the exact mechanism by which an implosion of a dying star becomes an explosion?

[6] Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are impossibly high,given that there are no sufficiently energetic cosmic ray sources near the Earth? Why is it that (apparently) some cosmic rays emitted by distant sources have energies above the Greisen–Zatsepin–Kuzmin limit?[2][6]

Why does the magnetosphere of Saturn exhibit a (slowly changing) periodicity close to that at which the planet's clouds rotate? What is the true rotation rate of Saturn's deep interior?[25]

What is the origin of magnetar magnetic field?

Is the Universe at very large scales anisotropic, making the cosmological principle an invalid assumption? The number count and intensity dipole anisotropy in radio, NRAO VLA Sky Survey (NVSS) catalogue[26] is inconsistent with the local motion as derived from cosmic microwave background[27][28] and indicate an intrinsic dipole anisotropy. The same NVSS radio data also shows an intrinsic dipole in polarization density and degree of polarization[29] in the same direction as in number count and intensity. There are other several observation revealing large-scale anisotropy. The optical polarization from quasars shows polarization alignment over a very large scale of Gpc.[30][31][32] The cosmic-microwave-background data shows several features of anisotropy,[33][34][35][36] which are not consistent with the Big Bang model.

Why do galaxies and quasars produce about 5 times less ultraviolet light than expected in the low-redshift universe?

Why is space roar six times louder than expected? What is the source of space roar?

Is there a universal age–metallicity relation (AMR) in the Galactic disk (both "thin" and "thick" parts of the disk)? Although in the local (primarily thin) disk of the Milky Way there is no evidence of a strong AMR,[37] a sample of 229 nearby "thick" disk stars has been used to investigate the existence of an age–metallicity relation in the Galactic thick disk, and indicate that there is an age–metallicity relation present in the thick disk.[38][39] Stellar ages from asteroseismology confirm the lack of any strong age-metallicity relation in the Galactic disc.[40]

Why is there a discrepancy between the amount of lithium-7 predicted to be produced in Big Bang nucleosynthesis and the amount observed in very old stars?[41]

In 2007 the Ulysses spacecraft passed through the tail of comet C/2006 P1 (McNaught) and found surprising results concerning the interaction of the solar wind with the tail.

The ultraluminous X-ray source M82 X-2 was thought to be a black hole, but in October 2014 data from NASA's space-based X-ray telescope NuStar indicated that M82 X-2 is a pulsar many times brighter than the Eddington limit.

Fermi acceleration is thought to be the primary mechanism that accelerates astrophysical particles to high energy. However, it is unclear what mechanism causes those particles to initially have energies high enough for Fermi acceleration to work on them.[42]

Transient radio pulses lasting only a few milliseconds, from emission regions thought to be no larger than a few hundred kilometers, and estimated to occur several hundred times a day. While several theories have been proposed, there is no generally accepted explanation for them. They may come from cosmological distances, but there is no consensus on this, either.

What are the phases of strongly interacting matter, and what roles do they play in the evolution of cosmos? What is the detailed partonic structure of the nucleons? What does QCD predict for the properties of strongly interacting matter? What determines the key features of QCD, and what is their relation to the nature of gravity and spacetime? Do glueballs exist? Do gluons acquire mass dynamically despite having a zero rest mass, within hadrons? Does QCD truly lack CP-violations? Do gluons saturate[disambiguation needed] when their occupation number is large? Do gluons form a dense system called Color Glass Condensate? What are the signatures and evidences for the Balitsky-Fadin-Kuarev-Lipatov, Balitsky-Kovchegov, Catani-Ciafaloni-Fiorani-Marchesini evolution equations?

What is the nature of the nuclear force that binds protons and neutrons into stable nuclei and rare isotopes? What is the origin of simple patterns[which?] in complex nuclei? What is the nature of exotic excitations in nuclei at the frontiers of stability and their role in stellar processes? What is the nature of neutron stars and dense nuclear matter? What is the origin of the elements in the cosmos? What are the nuclear reactions that drive stars and stellar explosions?

Fusion energy may potentially provide power from abundant resource (e.g. hydrogen) without the type of radioactive waste that fission energy currently produces. However, can ionized gases (plasma) be confined long enough and at a high enough temperature to create fusion power? What is the physical mechanism of the transition from Low to High confinement scenarios?

What is the solution to the Schrödinger equation for the hydrogen atom in arbitrary electric and magnetic fields?

What's the momentum of photons in optical media?
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #151 on: 04/03/2016 14:30:04 »
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.
Give me a break. You don't understand squat. You're just another layman hanging around a science forum pretending to understand things that PhD's don't even understand completely.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #152 on: 04/03/2016 17:36:41 »
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''?

I never used wikipedia as my source for anything I told you. In general wikipedia is not a good source and can often be wrong which is why I don't use wikipedia as a source.

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.

Your definition of relativity is wrong, your definition of mass is wrong, a frame of reference cannot be both inertial and accelerating because inertial literally means not accelerating, and you seem to have a problem understanding the difference between the subjective perceptions of the human brain and objective measurements. The rest of the post I took this quote from is just more of the same.

Switching people.

False. I don't have to admit anything, especially to some bloviated blowhard with zero credentials.

Sure if you don't want to admit it you don't have to admit it but it just makes you seem unreasonable and no one wants to talk to an unreasonable person.

Quote
That's pretty funny. I criticized you for using the imprecise word "matter", now you resort to the word "things." So, the agyegy theory is that "stuff is made of things." The Craig W. Thomson theory is that "mass is made of energy." Pretty easy to see which explanation is closer to reality.

I used the word thing because I wished to include fields (like the electromagnetic field), force carriers (like photons and gluons), all the known subatomic particles (protons, neutrons, electrons, etc), and all other physical phenomena in the universe (dark matter, dark energy, virtual particles, etc) without have to type all that out. Someone you held up as an expert that should know more than both of us unequivocally disagrees with the concept that anything can be made of energy. Also, composite entities are certainly made out of things (like atoms out of subatomic particles).

Quote
That's great. Maybe you can help me understand this:

List of unsolved problems in physics
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There was no need to quote all that. Also, it has absolutely no relevance to the current discussion.

Give me a break. You don't understand squat. You're just another layman hanging around a science forum pretending to understand things that PhD's don't even understand completely.

This seems to be little more than an insult. It certainly isn't a reasoned argument.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #153 on: 04/03/2016 17:59:07 »
I never used wikipedia as my source for anything I told you. In general wikipedia is not a good source and can often be wrong which is why I don't use wikipedia as a source.
Using you as a source would be an even bigger mistake.

no one wants to talk to an unreasonable person
Oh, I don't know, TheBox and I are both talking to you, so ...

There was no need to quote all that. Also, it has absolutely no relevance to the current discussion.
False. You said I only think there are contradictions in science because I don't understand science. In response, I posted a long list of unsolved problems and contradictions that the most highly qualified physicists in the world haven't been able to explain. So, when you sit here and act like an authority, contradicting material I've read in books written by highly accredited professionals and learned in college courses taught by other highly accredited professionals, all the while using words like "matter" and "things" when you refer to mass/energy equivalence and conversion, I have no alternative but to laugh in your face.

Oh, and let's not forget that time you said my photon model was inappropriate and cited earthquakes as proof, LOL, rolling eyes. Reading your posts is like reading a bunch of random, out-of-context stuff copied and pasted from various otherwise legitimate Wikipedia entries.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2016 18:10:23 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #154 on: 04/03/2016 18:08:53 »
Your definition of relativity is wrong, your definition of mass is wrong, a frame of reference cannot be both inertial and accelerating because inertial literally means not accelerating, and you seem to have a problem understanding the difference between the subjective perceptions of the human brain and objective measurements. The rest of the post I took this quote from is just more of the same

So inertia is something else you don't understand.   Inertia is the resistance to change while at rest mass or resistance to change  relativistic   mass velocity , You obviously don't know what you are talking about.


« Last Edit: 04/03/2016 18:12:28 by Thebox »
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #155 on: 04/03/2016 18:14:28 »
False. You said I only think there are contradictions in science because I don't understand science. In response, I posted a long list of unsolved problems and contradictions that the most highly qualified physicists in the world haven't been able to explain. So, when you sit here and act like an authority, contradicting material I've read in books written by highly accredited professionals and learned in college courses taught by other highly accredited professionals, all the while using words like "matter" and "things" when you refer to mass/energy equivalence and conversion, I have no alternative but to laugh in your face.

An unsolved problem or an unexplained observation is not a contradiction. Nothing on that list is a contradiction.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #156 on: 04/03/2016 18:24:42 »
So inertia is something else you don't understand.   Inertia is the resistance to change while at rest mass or resistance to change in relativistic   mass velocity in motion, You obviously don't know what you are talking about.
Yes, if I remember his comments from physforum.com correctly, he argued against the idea that mass is a measurement of inertia, but here, he keeps telling me "mass is a property, not a thing." In my estimation, there are two possibilities: Either he doesn't understand, which would be pretty pathetic considering how he acts as though he's more than qualified to teach us about the subject, or he understands but he obfuscates issues to make others appear foolish. Either way, he seems to have a need to feed his fragile ego.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #157 on: 04/03/2016 18:31:04 »
Yes, if I remember his comments from physforum.com correctly, he argued against the idea that mass is a measurement of inertia, ...

I would never make that argument if for no other reason than it runs counter to even Newtonian physics.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #158 on: 04/03/2016 18:31:56 »
An unsolved problem or an unexplained observation is not a contradiction. Nothing on that list is a contradiction.
False. Just off the top of my head, there are at least four contradictions on that list.

1) Non-locality

2) Wave-particle duality

3) Infinity as a result of combining the equations of Relativity and QM to describe singularities

4) There's no reason the universe should have started from a point of zero entropy.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #159 on: 04/03/2016 18:36:36 »
Yes, if I remember his comments from physforum.com correctly, he argued against the idea that mass is a measurement of inertia, ...

I would never make that argument if for no other reason than it runs counter to even Newtonian physics.
Good, not only am I glad I was mistaken, I'm pleasantly surprised to have finally made a statement broadly applicable enough for you agree with it and not nitpick it apart like some obsessive-compulsive know-it-all.

Miracles never cease.
« Last Edit: 04/03/2016 18:38:53 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #160 on: 04/03/2016 18:40:32 »
1) Non-locality

2) Wave-particle duality

4) There's no reason the universe should have started from a point of zero entropy.

Your common sense feelings about how the universe should behave based on daily subjective observations are not a part of science. The fact that you feel these things contradict how you believe the universe should work does not actually make them contradictions within science.

Quote
3) Infinity as a result of combining the equations of Relativity and QM to describe singularities

This isn't a contradiction because it results from the attempt to apply theories outside their domain of application. Quantum Mechanics was never supposed to handle gravity and Relativity was never supposed to describe very small things. It is unsurprising that neither theory when extended that far past their valid domain of application give incorrect answers. Well that and the appearance of an infinity while calculating an observable property isn't a contradiction it is just a unphysical answer.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #161 on: 04/03/2016 21:36:55 »
, he argued against the idea that mass is a measurement of inertia,

To be honest the ambiguity of some definitions tend to lead them to meaning the same thing.   Mass is a measurement of inertia and also rest mass is a measurement equal to Newtons, although three different words with three different definitions they all actually relate to the same thing.
In my younger years when I did a bit of vehicle mechanics we use to class inertia has liking to a ''sharp'' applied force to undo rusty nuts.

The nuts mass remained the same but the rust gave the nut more resistance to change so we would have to apply torque or an impact driver to create inertia a type of ''shock'' force  to apply the change we demanded of undoing the nut. 

So to me inertia is like when something is ''glued'' to the floor rather than just loosely ''standing'' .


 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #162 on: 05/03/2016 14:33:49 »
the appearance of an infinity while calculating an observable property isn't a contradiction it is just a unphysical answer.
False. Infinity is a nonsense answer. Scientists never measure things at infinity. Even the speed of light is finite. This is a contradiction, plain and simple. Plus, you've added another contradiction. Singularities don't have "observable properties." Singularities are unobservable, but they are most definitely physical entities.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #163 on: 05/03/2016 14:40:29 »
Your common sense feelings about how the universe should behave based on daily subjective observations are not a part of science.
On the contrary, your common sense feelings about how I should behave based on your subjective interpretations of physics are not a part of science.
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 1277
  • Thanked: 14 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #164 on: 05/03/2016 16:01:50 »

False. Infinity is a nonsense answer.
I agree, when infinities pop up in physical calculations, those results are telling us that we're missing some important detail within the mathematical construct.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #165 on: 05/03/2016 16:04:15 »
My dad's bigger than your dad!
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #166 on: 05/03/2016 16:09:45 »

False. Infinity is a nonsense answer.
I agree, when infinities pop up in physical calculations, those results are telling us that we're missing some important detail within the mathematical construct.

Not quite, it is telling you that the measurement is beyond the radius of light ,
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #167 on: 05/03/2016 16:44:23 »
Infinity is an undefined answer as no non-abstract equation can result in or contain it.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3162
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #168 on: 05/03/2016 16:46:05 »
Infinity is an undefined answer as no non-abstract equation can result in or contain it.

But surely we can present N in place of infinity?

 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #169 on: 05/03/2016 18:35:52 »
False. Infinity is a nonsense answer. Scientists never measure things at infinity. Even the speed of light is finite. This is a contradiction, plain and simple. Plus, you've added another contradiction. Singularities don't have "observable properties." Singularities are unobservable, but they are most definitely physical entities.

I never said infinities were not non-sensical. I said they were not contradictions. Going to a dictionary:

Quote
contradiction
[kon-truh-dik-shuh n]

noun
1.
the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2.
assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3.
a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4.
direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5.
a contradictory act, fact, etc.

Once again calculating an answer of infinity just tells you that something is wrong. It is not inherently a contradiction. There could be a contradiction somewhere in your reasoning but that contradiction only exists because you failed to properly follow the scientific method or you simply suck at math. Also, scientists are fairly sure literal singularities probably don't exist. Just things that come pretty close. That and everything that exists has some observable properties. Most notably black holes emit Hawking radiation, can have accretion discs, gravitationally attract things, have spin, potentially have charge, etc. All of which was observable properties.

 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #170 on: 06/03/2016 15:40:27 »
False. Infinity is a nonsense answer. Scientists never measure things at infinity. Even the speed of light is finite. This is a contradiction, plain and simple. Plus, you've added another contradiction. Singularities don't have "observable properties." Singularities are unobservable, but they are most definitely physical entities.

I never said infinities were not non-sensical. I said they were not contradictions. Going to a dictionary:

Quote
contradiction
[kon-truh-dik-shuh n]

noun
1.
the act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2.
assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3.
a statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4.
direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5.
a contradictory act, fact, etc.

Once again calculating an answer of infinity just tells you that something is wrong. It is not inherently a contradiction. There could be a contradiction somewhere in your reasoning but that contradiction only exists because you failed to properly follow the scientific method or you simply suck at math. Also, scientists are fairly sure literal singularities probably don't exist. Just things that come pretty close. That and everything that exists has some observable properties. Most notably black holes emit Hawking radiation, can have accretion discs, gravitationally attract things, have spin, potentially have charge, etc. All of which was observable properties.
This is a physics forum, not an English class. Unfortunately, your argument at this point consists in nothing more than lexical nitpicking. Despite your protests, there's not a heck of a lot of difference between saying that getting infinity as a solution "is a contradiction," or that it "means something is wrong."

Also, you said everything that exists "has some observable properties." So, I guess infinities don't exist; you cannot observe infinity, as you clearly don't have sufficient time to verify that their properties are consistent everywhere. Is that "a contradiction," or is it an example of you "sucking at math" ??
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #171 on: 06/03/2016 16:07:49 »
Where, exactly, has anyone used mathematics in this thread?
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #172 on: 06/03/2016 16:38:52 »
Where, exactly, has anyone used mathematics in this thread?
Maybe I'm not using math, but I am talking about it. From Wikipedia:

Physics[edit]

"In physics, approximations of real numbers are used for continuous measurements and natural numbers are used for discrete measurements (i.e. counting). It is therefore assumed by physicists that no measurable quantity could have an infinite value. For instance, by taking an infinite value in an extended real number system, or by requiring the counting of an infinite number of events. It is, for example, presumed impossible for any type of body to have infinite mass or infinite energy. Concepts of infinite things such as an infinite plane wave exist, but there are no experimental means to generate them."

I was definitely talking about a mathematical contradiction when I used as an example what happens when one combines the equations of QM with those of Relativity to describe singularities and ends up with infinity as the solution. Please don't ask me to demonstrate that. I'm not bad at math, but I have insufficient experience to perform operations like those. I'm taking scientists word for it on that one.
« Last Edit: 06/03/2016 16:40:55 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #173 on: 06/03/2016 17:25:37 »
Well to state that someone "sucks at math" presupposes that the author of the statement has the necessary qualifications to make the determination.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #174 on: 06/03/2016 17:42:47 »
Well to state that someone "sucks at math" presupposes that the author of the statement has the necessary qualifications to make the determination.
Gotcha. I paraphrase quotes from Peter Fong, Leonard Susskind and Brian Greene, agyejy replies by quoting Noah Webster. You nailed it.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #174 on: 06/03/2016 17:42:47 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length