The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: TheBox on black holes  (Read 16211 times)

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #225 on: 14/03/2016 07:43:27 »
So what is your view on gauge gravitation theory?
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #226 on: 14/03/2016 14:38:37 »
I actually didn't ever say "plain" waves. I did accidently say "plain" when I was referring to mathematical planes but I never said "plain" waves. You in fact quoted the one and only time I made that mistake which wasn't about plane waves and tried to apply it my entire post. Either you are having trouble reading or you are simply lying in an attempt to make me angry.
You said: "...the wave will have motion along all three of the plains." Okay, so the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plains, but what about the spherical wave of an earthquake? Don't get mad. Stop making mistakes.

The number of planes along which a single photon travels is always three.
FALSE! Just plain false. Or, just plane false. Whichever you prefer.

I said: "I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical?" Your reply:
That's a very dubious claim. Just for starters nucleosynthesis in stars isn't cyclic. Heavier elements are built up but never return to being hydrogen or helium.
That's not a claim. That's a question. Big difference. Speaking of claims, despite your earlier claim, I think YOU are trying to make ME mad. That's why you keep reading things into my posts that I didn't say. If you put that question back into the context where it belongs, it makes sense. I said, "There's no process in the universe that happens "just once," there's no "single" example of anything. Therefore, I have a hard time believing there's just one Big Bang." Now, of course, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is part of the context of the Big Bang. Maybe you should try leaving my statements in their context where they belong.

You don't know what's happening in a black hole because they can't be observed. My suggestion is that Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is being reversed inside black holes. Mass, energy, particles, light elements, heavy elements, all of it is merging into a plasma soup, just like the plasma soup that emerged from the Big Bang before it started decaying to more stable forms.

I am eagerly awaiting your latest straw man argument. The suspense is killing me.

« Last Edit: 14/03/2016 14:42:05 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #227 on: 14/03/2016 21:52:31 »
I actually didn't ever say "plain" waves. I did accidently say "plain" when I was referring to mathematical planes but I never said "plain" waves. You in fact quoted the one and only time I made that mistake which wasn't about plane waves and tried to apply it my entire post. Either you are having trouble reading or you are simply lying in an attempt to make me angry.
You said: "...the wave will have motion along all three of the plains." Okay, so the rain in Spain stays mainly in the plains, but what about the spherical wave of an earthquake? Don't get mad. Stop making mistakes.

I admitted that I said plains when I meant planes while talking about mathematical planes however I never made that typo when I was talking about plane waves. Also I'm clearly not angry after all I'm not repeatedly attempting to shame a person for a typo.

Quote
The number of planes along which a single photon travels is always three.
FALSE! Just plain false. Or, just plane false. Whichever you prefer.

Prove it. I'm pretty sure I actually already linked at least one reference on the propagation of single photons (if not I can and it wasn't that last thing I linked on light propagation either). Single photon wave functions travel forward while also dispersing (getting larger) in directions perpendicular to their motion. The wave function spreads into a spherical cone and the photon can be found anywhere on the edge of that spherical cone. Thus you can't describe the propagation of a single photon without taking into account all three dimensions.

Quote
I said: "I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical?" Your reply:
That's a very dubious claim. Just for starters nucleosynthesis in stars isn't cyclic. Heavier elements are built up but never return to being hydrogen or helium.
That's not a claim. That's a question.

The first half is a statement or claim if you will. The second half is a question. Clearly you wouldn't say the first half if you didn't think it was true.

Quote
Big difference. Speaking of claims, despite your earlier claim, I think YOU are trying to make ME mad. That's why you keep reading things into my posts that I didn't say. If you put that question back into the context where it belongs, it makes sense. I said, "There's no process in the universe that happens "just once," there's no "single" example of anything. Therefore, I have a hard time believing there's just one Big Bang." Now, of course, Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is part of the context of the Big Bang. Maybe you should try leaving my statements in their context where they belong.

Just because an event happens more than once doesn't make it cyclic. Something that is cyclic starts out in one state progresses through several other states (or just one other state) and then returns exactly to the state at which it started. Stars do not return to clouds of hydrogen and helium and no novae, supernovae, and other star death does not count because any resulting clouds do not have the same composition, are generally traveling away from the dead star in all directions, and a core is left behind. The fact that other stars form does not make the processes cyclic. There very well could be other Big Bangs past the edge of the visible universe. This is a theory that has been floating around for quite some time. But again that doesn't make them cyclical.

Quote
You don't know what's happening in a black hole because they can't be observed. My suggestion is that Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is being reversed inside black holes. Mass, energy, particles, light elements, heavy elements, all of it is merging into a plasma soup, just like the plasma soup that emerged from the Big Bang before it started decaying to more stable forms.

There is currently no way to know anything about what happens to things that fall into black holes. Without observational evidence or a good predictive theoretical framework that is designed to work for the conditions at the singularity there is no point in idle speculation. Certainly idle speculation of what goes on inside a black hole should not be used to then speculate about the nature of the universe as a hole. Certainly the answer, should there be one, to what goes on inside a black hole will be important to cosmology but until we have evidence and an theoretical framework it is meaningless to speculate. Its especially meaningless when your speculations lead you to the conclusion that the entire universe and everything in it is cyclic because events like star formation happened more than once in different places in spite of the accepted definition of cyclic.

Quote
I am eagerly awaiting your latest straw man argument. The suspense is killing me.

You libel me in basically every post for no reason and I'm supposedly the one trying to make you angry?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #228 on: 15/03/2016 10:56:16 »
So what is your view on gauge gravitation theory?

I am not sure to whom your question is  aimed at, I personally have not heard of that and will have to do some research to gain some knowledge of it.

Thank you for providing something new to me.


added-

''Gauge theory gravity (GTG) is a theory of gravitation cast in the mathematical language of geometric algebra. To those familiar with general relativity, it is highly reminiscent of the tetrad formalism although there are significant conceptual differences.''


Algebra does not explain gravity surely unless 0=0, A=A,B=B, X=X,Y=X,Z=X,t=X?

I tried watching a video , I had no idea what they were trying to say.

added - I have read Wiki and do not pretend to understand all of it, but


y→y'= delta y→x,y,z'= f(x)  when discussing light, so I assume this must apply to gravity also .

gravity contraction =   (>r=<A ) where r is radius length between objects and A is the area of the visual x,y plane of the objects.



I think the gauge theory you  mentioned is similar to what I am saying about space-time v ''space-time''

Space-time existing in an invariant ''n-dimensional space-time''




















« Last Edit: 15/03/2016 11:45:46 by Thebox »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #229 on: 15/03/2016 15:28:12 »
You libel me in basically every post for no reason and I'm supposedly the one trying to make you angry?
"Libel" is me trying to damage your reputation. You're "agyegy," a sock puppet, so the only reputation you have that I am aware of is your reputation for going off on tangents, obfuscating issues, putting words in my mouth, bloviating at great length, contradicting factual statements, being a condescending know-it-all, and a stalker that followed me here from physforum.com.

I'm almost starting to think you are waitedavid137's sock puppet. Why is it you always target me? There's plenty of other people to correct out there. I think I know the answer. Like him, you are a pseudointellectual. You can't think. All you can do is regurgitate. I think memorizers like the two of you feel threatened by actual smart people.
« Last Edit: 15/03/2016 15:31:21 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #230 on: 15/03/2016 15:49:26 »
Prove it. I'm pretty sure I actually already linked at least one reference on the propagation of single photons (if not I can and it wasn't that last thing I linked on light propagation either). Single photon wave functions travel forward while also dispersing (getting larger) in directions perpendicular to their motion. The wave function spreads into a spherical cone and the photon can be found anywhere on the edge of that spherical cone. Thus you can't describe the propagation of a single photon without taking into account all three dimensions.
What do you mean, "prove it" ?? Are you this dense for real, or is it an act?

Again, a photon travels forward along the intersection of two planes in a straight line at c in a vacuum. You can consider that line the intersection of plane x and plane y. If the photon wishes to continue travelling in a straight line along the intersection of the x and y planes, it CANNOT FOLLOW A STRAIGHT LINE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. It can ONLY OSCILLATE along the z plane. Again, except for maybe entangled particles or some strange case, a single particle like a photon cannot go two different directions at the same time. If it is following a straight line, it cannot follow a perpendicular straight line simultaneously. I grow weary from having to explain this to you about a dozen times in as many days in plane, plain English. Get yourself an English tutor, a science teacher, a therapist, or all three, but leave me alone if you're going to waste my time with your endless obfuscation.
« Last Edit: 15/03/2016 15:54:59 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #231 on: 15/03/2016 15:56:42 »
there is no point in idle speculation.
Then please leave this thread immediately.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #232 on: 15/03/2016 22:02:58 »
"Libel" is me trying to damage your reputation. You're "agyegy," a sock puppet, so the only reputation you have that I am aware of is your reputation for going off on tangents, obfuscating issues, putting words in my mouth, bloviating at great length, contradicting factual statements, being a condescending know-it-all, and a stalker that followed me here from physforum.com.

I'm almost starting to think you are waitedavid137's sock puppet. Why is it you always target me? There's plenty of other people to correct out there. I think I know the answer. Like him, you are a pseudointellectual. You can't think. All you can do is regurgitate. I think memorizers like the two of you feel threatened by actual smart people.

So more libel then?

What do you mean, "prove it" ?? Are you this dense for real, or is it an act?

Again, a photon travels forward along the intersection of two planes in a straight line at c in a vacuum. You can consider that line the intersection of plane x and plane y. If the photon wishes to continue travelling in a straight line along the intersection of the x and y planes, it CANNOT FOLLOW A STRAIGHT LINE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. It can ONLY OSCILLATE along the z plane. Again, except for maybe entangled particles or some strange case, a single particle like a photon cannot go two different directions at the same time. If it is following a straight line, it cannot follow a perpendicular straight line simultaneously. I grow weary from having to explain this to you about a dozen times in as many days in plane, plain English. Get yourself an English tutor, a science teacher, a therapist, or all three, but leave me alone if you're going to waste my time with your endless obfuscation.

You are interpreting the schematic diagrams of light propagation too literally. For a plane wave it is understood that the magnetic and electric fields both extend to infinity in both perpendicular directions. The electric field points in one direction and the magnetic field points in the direction perpendicular to that and the direction of forward motion. Both fields overlap at all points in space. That is what it means to be a vector field and is one of the very first things you learn in a college course on electromagnetism. Here is a pretty good answer from stackexchange with diagrams demonstrating what I just said:

http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/194233/what-does-a-light-wave-look-like-3d-model

For cylindrical and spherical waves things are a little different but the electric and magnetic fields still overlap. In the case of a single photon the electric and magnetic fields generally only have appreciable magnitude over a relatively small area but they still overlap at every point in that area. That area also increases with time and the peak intensity decreases with time so that the overall energy stored in the fields remains the same.

Then please leave this thread immediately.

Why? I'm allowed to express my opinions to exactly the same degree you are entitled to express yours.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #233 on: 16/03/2016 13:56:44 »
You are interpreting the schematic diagrams of light propagation too literally. For a plane wave it is understood that the magnetic and electric fields both extend to infinity in both perpendicular directions.
False. It is understood that "infinity" is not a legitimate solution to an equation. I'm only beginning to learn Calculus, but I think what you are referring to is a "limit, " as in:

Limit (mathematics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In mathematics, a limit is the value that a function or sequence "approaches" as the input or index approaches some value.[1] Limits are essential to calculus (and mathematical analysis in general) and are used to define continuity, derivatives, and integrals.

So, maybe according to the mathematics, those fields "approach" infinity or something, but they do NOT actually extend to infinity.

Sorry to be the one to have to tell you, but there's another limit: The speed of light. No part of a photon can be infinitely far away because it would take infinitely long to get back. In fact, when a photon is absorbed, that takes place "in an instant." The photon is annihilated and an atom in an excited state is created on the spot. There's no hanging around for hundreds of millions of years waiting for some component of a photon to get back from the Andromeda Galaxy.

You seem to keep forgetting, math is a language, and no language captures the essence of reality 100% correctly. Stop taking mathematics so literally.
« Last Edit: 16/03/2016 14:03:20 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #234 on: 16/03/2016 14:16:20 »


You seem to keep forgetting, math is a language, and no language captures the essence of reality 100% correctly. Stop taking mathematics so literally.

In my opinion maths is limitless , it  is travel that has a limit.    To me what captures the essence of reality is simply what we see and observe, I am quite sure I can observe myself and Andromeda simultaneously, I am quite sure that Andromeda is not coming ''backwards'' in ''time''.

I am more than sure that the now of Andromeda is approaching my now.

 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #235 on: 16/03/2016 16:57:49 »
False. It is understood that "infinity" is not a legitimate solution to an equation. I'm only beginning to learn Calculus, but I think what you are referring to is a "limit, " as in:

Limit (mathematics)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In mathematics, a limit is the value that a function or sequence "approaches" as the input or index approaches some value.[1] Limits are essential to calculus (and mathematical analysis in general) and are used to define continuity, derivatives, and integrals.

So, maybe according to the mathematics, those fields "approach" infinity or something, but they do NOT actually extend to infinity.

If only I had said something about how plane waves are idealizations and therefore not actually possible. Oh wait I did:

Here is a little bit about wave propagation:

https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg712-01/notes/basicprinciples-07.pdf

Generally speaking there is no such thing as a perfect plane or cylindrical wave because they require an infinite plane or line to generate them. All waves propagating through space have some spherical nature to them because their sources are all finite in extent.

It would have been even better if I had continued by explaining how the idealized plane wave case generalizes to say the single photon case. Oh wait I did that too:

For cylindrical and spherical waves things are a little different but the electric and magnetic fields still overlap. In the case of a single photon the electric and magnetic fields generally only have appreciable magnitude over a relatively small area but they still overlap at every point in that area. That area also increases with time and the peak intensity decreases with time so that the overall energy stored in the fields remains the same.

Also, the fact that a vector field is taken to extend to infinity in all directions isn't a limit and really has nothing to do with calculus (in most cases). It is verbal (and sometimes mathematical) shortcut for saying that whatever is happening at the edges of whatever system we are studying isn't impacting the particular property we are talking about. Of course one would never treat a single photon like that or at least not without a great deal of care mathematically.

Quote
Sorry to be the one to have to tell you, but there's another limit: The speed of light. No part of a photon can be infinitely far away because it would take infinitely long to get back. In fact, when a photon is absorbed, that takes place "in an instant." The photon is annihilated and an atom in an excited state is created on the spot. There's no hanging around for hundreds of millions of years waiting for some component of a photon to get back from the Andromeda Galaxy.

Well for starters I clearly had this to say about single photons:

In the case of a single photon the electric and magnetic fields generally only have appreciable magnitude over a relatively small area but they still overlap at every point in that area. That area also increases with time and the peak intensity decreases with time so that the overall energy stored in the fields remains the same.

Hmm, I don't see anything about a single photon extending to infinity in there. Unless someone changed the definition of "relatively small" to "infinite" while I wasn't looking. I seem to recall someone saying something about strawman arguments awhile back but I can't seem to remember who. Whoever it was should probably remember that when one lives in a glass house one shouldn't throw stones.

That aside it is well known and experimentally verified that quantum mechanics and therefore quantum mechanical fields are inherently non-local. Which means when a photon is absorbed by an atom at a certain position all the electric and magnetic field oscillations associated with that photon at all points in space that photon can be said to exist (everywhere you could have possibly detected it) instantly vanish. This was a hard thing for many physicists to come to grips with but it has been experimentally verified so there is no other choice but to accept it. Luckily no information is transmitted from the points where the oscillations vanish to the absorption point or vice versa so causality is preserved.

Quote
You seem to keep forgetting, math is a language, and no language captures the essence of reality 100% correctly. Stop taking mathematics so literally.

I clearly wasn't. Also, you are doing that thing where you try to copy the form of my arguments. You really shouldn't do that it never works out well.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #236 on: 17/03/2016 15:48:56 »
Well for starters I clearly had this to say about single photons
You have a lot to say. Too much, in fact. You're doing that thing that waitedavid137 does, which never works out well. Would you like to throw in a few words about the kitchen sink? Or maybe some more information about "plain waves" that readers would find helpful.
« Last Edit: 17/03/2016 15:51:52 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #237 on: 17/03/2016 16:14:11 »
You have a lot to say. Too much, in fact. You're doing that thing that waitedavid137 does, which never works out well. Would you like to throw in a few words about the kitchen sink? Or maybe some more information about "plain waves" that readers would find helpful.

Just to be clear your current line of argument is that I've provided too much support for my statements and because of that I am wrong? That is a very interesting line of reasoning. Also, I really suggest you stop trying to provoke me into anger (we've already cleared up that I never made the "plain" typo when speaking of plane waves). I find it slightly humorous but the moderators might eventually start to take a dim view of it. We've already been asked to stay civil at least once in this thread.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #238 on: 18/03/2016 12:32:39 »
You have a lot to say. Too much, in fact. You're doing that thing that waitedavid137 does, which never works out well. Would you like to throw in a few words about the kitchen sink? Or maybe some more information about "plain waves" that readers would find helpful.

Just to be clear your current line of argument is that I've provided too much support for my statements and because of that I am wrong? That is a very interesting line of reasoning. Also, I really suggest you stop trying to provoke me into anger (we've already cleared up that I never made the "plain" typo when speaking of plane waves). I find it slightly humorous but the moderators might eventually start to take a dim view of it. We've already been asked to stay civil at least once in this thread.
No, my argument is that you can't stick to the subject. I'm talking about photons, all of a sudden you're describing how spherical wave fronts act in an earthquake. I basically said photons can't travel in a straight line at c and in another straight line perpendicular to that at c, and you posted a bazillion science facts about everything under the sun to try to discredit the argument, but you never did. You've been trying to provoke me to anger for several months now, just in case anyone who is reading this doesn't know about you from physforum.com like I do. Your patronization and condescension is way out of line, especially since you only half know what you are talking about. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.

Is there one single web site out there that isn't polluted with half-wits? I really thought science forums would be different.
« Last Edit: 18/03/2016 12:34:51 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #239 on: 18/03/2016 13:27:29 »
. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.



Whoa! that is a rather rude and disrespectful thing to say about a moderator.   You are the one who is privileged to be here, you and your friend have done nothing but moan at each other ''flaming''.

Neither of you are an authority on science, STOP being so deluded.
 
The following users thanked this post: jeffreyH

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3927
  • Thanked: 55 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #240 on: 18/03/2016 13:40:00 »
No, my argument is that you can't stick to the subject. I'm talking about photons, all of a sudden you're describing how spherical wave fronts act in an earthquake. I basically said photons can't travel in a straight line at c and in another straight line perpendicular to that at c, and you posted a bazillion science facts about everything under the sun to try to discredit the argument, but you never did. You've been trying to provoke me to anger for several months now, just in case anyone who is reading this doesn't know about you from physforum.com like I do. Your patronization and condescension is way out of line, especially since you only half know what you are talking about. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.

Is there one single web site out there that isn't polluted with half-wits? I really thought science forums would be different.

You just don't like being corrected by anybody. Which is why you instantly go into fight mode when challenged. That is not the way to learn. You say you have just started studying calculus. Well carry on reading because you have a LOT to learn.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #241 on: 18/03/2016 17:59:50 »
No, my argument is that you can't stick to the subject. I'm talking about photons, all of a sudden you're describing how spherical wave fronts act in an earthquake. I basically said photons can't travel in a straight line at c and in another straight line perpendicular to that at c, and you posted a bazillion science facts about everything under the sun to try to discredit the argument, but you never did. You've been trying to provoke me to anger for several months now, just in case anyone who is reading this doesn't know about you from physforum.com like I do. Your patronization and condescension is way out of line, especially since you only half know what you are talking about. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.

Is there one single web site out there that isn't polluted with half-wits? I really thought science forums would be different.

Ah so instead your argument is that the theory and mathematics specifically designed to describe the propagation of light (and any wave motion in general) doesn't actually describe the propagation of light. Honestly this argument isn't really any better than the other one.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #242 on: 19/03/2016 11:16:45 »
. As far as moderators "taking a dim view of things," I already have a debate on climate change going with alancalverd, a "skeptic moderator" who is apparently as full of crap as you. Maybe you should try to become a moderator.
Whoa! that is a rather rude and disrespectful thing to say about a moderator.   You are the one who is privileged to be here, you and your friend have done nothing but moan at each other ''flaming''.

Neither of you are an authority on science, STOP being so deluded.
Whoa, I never said I was an authority. I don't pretend to be something I'm not. I've always made it clear from the first day I started posting in science forums that I am a layman. I'm not "privileged" to be here if a moderator is going to attempt to misinform me. alancalverd either doesn't know what he is talking about when it comes to climate science, or he has a financial or corporate interest for posting his opinions. Wrong is wrong regardless of any title one holds. I'm interested in the truth, not authoritarian science figures.  No, I'm not a "certified" authority on climate change, but I have been studying it since 1988, I've read dozens of books about it, and I did take some science and math in college while pursuing another degree. I didn't exactly fail out of those courses, as I've pointed out numerous times. I know the basics. You and alancalverd are both privileged to be here because you both spout nonsense and disregard the scientific method and empirical evidence.

You're a big one to talk anyway. You came to physforum.com with pmb a few months back SPECIFICALLY to flame waitedavid137. Now, agyegy has followed your example, and he followed me here to troll me just like he was at physforum.com. If you were paying attention, you would have noticed that before he showed up, I wasn't "moaning." He has specifically targeted me, and I'm not going to just roll over and let him have his say. He's the one pretending to be an authority, not me. I'm just calling him out. If you learned your science correctly and paid attention when people explained stuff to you instead of promulgating your peculiarly interesting scientific nonsense, you could see he's obfuscating the issues to win the argument, talking in circles and going off on tangents.

Physics makes sense to me until people like you, agyegy and alancalverd start explaining it. That's okay. I've learned a lot the last couple of years trying to fact check folks just like the three of you. You're actually doing me a favor.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2016 11:45:07 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #243 on: 19/03/2016 16:01:32 »
For a plane wave it is understood that the magnetic and electric fields both extend to infinity in both perpendicular directions.
False, just on the premise of Zeno's Paradox alone. I don't even need to go into the complex mathematics in great detail. Gravity is a field. Part of the math needed to understand how gravity works is that it falls off as a square of distance from the gravitational source. Nothing terribly complicated about that math. So, you are talking about a "summable series," which is finite. That's a pretty simple math concept as well. That's what I've learned. Fields are an example of a summable series, not an example of infinity.

What's that you said? "Ah so instead your argument is that the theory and mathematics specifically designed to describe the propagation of light (and any wave motion in general) doesn't actually describe the propagation of light. Honestly this argument isn't really any better than the other one."

Let me clarify: Magnetic, electric and gravitational fields diminish with distance, that is. I don't want you to go off on a tangent about color charge and quarks. Still talking about photons here.
« Last Edit: 19/03/2016 16:19:54 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 #244 on: 19/03/2016 18:51:11 »
Thebox just ignore them. Their only aim seems to be to pollute your thread. Who knows, it may be the same person using two usernames and talking to themselves. Let them get on with it. It is getting very boring now.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #245 on: 19/03/2016 21:57:34 »
For a plane wave it is understood that the magnetic and electric fields both extend to infinity in both perpendicular directions.
False, just on the premise of Zeno's Paradox alone. I don't even need to go into the complex mathematics in great detail. Gravity is a field. Part of the math needed to understand how gravity works is that it falls off as a square of distance from the gravitational source. Nothing terribly complicated about that math. So, you are talking about a "summable series," which is finite. That's a pretty simple math concept as well. That's what I've learned. Fields are an example of a summable series, not an example of infinity.

What's that you said? "Ah so instead your argument is that the theory and mathematics specifically designed to describe the propagation of light (and any wave motion in general) doesn't actually describe the propagation of light. Honestly this argument isn't really any better than the other one."

Let me clarify: Magnetic, electric and gravitational fields diminish with distance, that is. I don't want you to go off on a tangent about color charge and quarks. Still talking about photons here.

By mathematical definition a plane wave is a wave in which all planes perpendicular to the direction of travel have completely uniform electric and magnetic fields. It is why true plane waves aren't physically possible and only approximations to actual waves that exist under very strict circumstances. The way the strength of a field varies with distance from the source depends entirely on the shape of the source.

http://bolvan.ph.utexas.edu/~vadim/Classes/15s/ContinuousCharges.pdf <- Here is some information on how the electric fields of various charge distributions vary with distance from the distribution. You'll note a lot of variation and that sometimes the equation for the electric field strength contains no variable for distance which means it is constant everywhere. Now that requires an infinite source but again this is just an approximation and only approximates the real world under very strict conditions (i.e. when the distance between you and a charged metal plate is much less than the length and width of the plate). The point that I'm trying to get through to you here is that basically all of physics is about finding appropriate approximations that give the correct answers to problems that can't be solved analytically. In doing that one often uses no physical concepts such as infinite charge distributions. It doesn't make the math wrong nor does it make it completely inapplicable. You just have to remember what specific conditions allowed you to make the approximation and restrict yourself accordingly. For a human very very far from a source of spherical waves plane waves are a good approximation because the radius of the spherical surface is so large the waves look like a flat plane to a human scale observer and the electric and magnetic fields are constant everywhere on that plane. Thus the human observer is completely justified in making the plane wave approximation as he will get the same answers (within the margin of error for any measurement) for any problems specifically on his scale in his lab using the approximation as he would taking into account the actual spherical nature of the waves. If you don't understand how and why approximations are used and how to connect them to the physical reality then you really have no chance of understanding physics.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3164
  • Thanked: 46 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #246 on: 20/03/2016 14:28:28 »


By mathematical definition a plane wave is a wave in which all planes perpendicular to the direction of travel have completely uniform electric and magnetic fields. It is why true plane waves aren't physically possible and only approximations to actual waves that exist under very strict circumstances. The way the strength of a field varies with distance from the source depends entirely on the shape of the source.


You will see plane wave when you die on the heart monitor screen.

 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #247 on: 20/03/2016 14:30:26 »
Thebox just ignore them. Their only aim seems to be to pollute your thread. Who knows, it may be the same person using two usernames and talking to themselves. Let them get on with it. It is getting very boring now.
At least I'm talking about science. You're making up hypotheses about me that aren't true.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=craig%20w%20thomson

That's me, and I don't appreciate people making false accusations about me. If you're bored and not getting your fill of science here, I suggest you go read a book.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #248 on: 20/03/2016 14:39:13 »
If you don't understand how and why approximations are used and how to connect them to the physical reality then you really have no chance of understanding physics.
Again, I don't need you to tell me what I already know:

"A mathematical model is never a completely accurate representation of a physical situation-it is an idealization. A good model simplified reality enough to permit mathematical calculations but is accurate enough to provide valuable conclusions. It is important to realize the limitations of the model."

That's from the Calculus Early Transcendentals textbook on my desk, and it's a lot less wordy than your verion you just posted. If you want to be a teacher, go get a teaching certification and be a teacher, but quit forcing lessons on me that I DON'T NEED.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #249 on: 20/03/2016 23:48:05 »
Again, I don't need you to tell me what I already know:

"A mathematical model is never a completely accurate representation of a physical situation-it is an idealization. A good model simplified reality enough to permit mathematical calculations but is accurate enough to provide valuable conclusions. It is important to realize the limitations of the model."

That's from the Calculus Early Transcendentals textbook on my desk, and it's a lot less wordy than your verion you just posted. If you want to be a teacher, go get a teaching certification and be a teacher, but quit forcing lessons on me that I DON'T NEED.

Either you understand that quote and thus you knew that the post I previously responded to was absolutely wrong or you don't understand that quote and thus you didn't know that previous post of your was wrong. So your choices now are you understand and you purposefully said something you knew was wrong to avoid admitting that I was correct or you didn't (and perhaps still don't) understand. Honestly if you find it so offensive that someone would attempt to correct your misunderstandings and help you learn something through rational discourse and evidence then maybe you don't belong on a science forum.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #249 on: 20/03/2016 23:48:05 »

 

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