The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: TheBox on black holes  (Read 16181 times)

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #250 on: 21/03/2016 13:45:34 »
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.
Maybe you should correct your own misunderstandings first. If you want to teach me, get a teaching certificate and become a professor. I don't fancy the idea of taking lessons from patronizing halfwits and failed physicists in a public forum, especially when you've already posted statements that contradict what I KNOW I've learned correctly, from actual professors.

I'm here because learning about physics is my hobby, not my career. I don't need you breathing down my neck while I'm putting together a stamp collection either, force feeding me your views on numismatism. That sort of behavior is offensive regardless of the circumstances.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2016 16:50:07 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #251 on: 21/03/2016 18:25:23 »
Maybe you should correct your own misunderstandings first. If you want to teach me, get a teaching certificate and become a professor. I don't fancy the idea of taking lessons from patronizing halfwits and failed physicists in a public forum, especially when you've already posted statements that contradict what I KNOW I've learned correctly, from actual professors.

I'm here because learning about physics is my hobby, not my career. I don't need you breathing down my neck while I'm putting together a stamp collection either, force feeding me your views on numismatism. That sort of behavior is offensive regardless of the circumstances.

It's kind of funny that you think that some sort of teaching certification is required to be a professor of physics or of any other science really. The only teaching training a professor of a science is generally required to have (at least in the US) is a brief stint as a teaching assistant at the beginning of their graduate work and that isn't so much a requirement as a way for the school to get very cheap labor instead of hiring actual teachers. Now occasionally you'll find a professor that has taken the time to learn some teaching methods but that is the exception not the rule. Sometimes schools that don't have a research program in a certain science but still want to grant undergraduate degrees in that science or schools with really large introductory class sizes will hire a lecturer who generally does have significant formal training in being a teacher but generally has a Masters in the science at best. They only ever teach intro level courses and are not ever given the title professor.

Basically the idea that you need some sort of certification to become a science professor (beyond a doctorate in the science you which to teach) is very wrong.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #252 on: 21/03/2016 20:04:51 »
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.

I was trying to converse with Thebox. Now however I have to scroll through pages of pointless argumentative drivel in order to do that.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #253 on: 22/03/2016 09:06:33 »


I was trying to converse with Thebox. Now however I have to scroll through pages of pointless argumentative drivel in order to do that.


The density of a black hole is mainly an electro-negativity,  an electro-positivity can not attract an electro-positivity.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #254 on: 22/03/2016 14:55:13 »
I was trying to converse with Thebox. Now however I have to scroll through pages of pointless argumentative drivel in order to do that.
A billion people go hungry every day. Get back to us when you have a real problem.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #255 on: 22/03/2016 18:00:21 »
And you sitting at your computer typing argumentative nonsense is helping how?
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #256 on: 23/03/2016 11:12:25 »
And you sitting at your computer typing argumentative nonsense is helping how?
It's not argumentative nonsense. Maybe you just don't understand photons and waves, like agyejy.
 

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 556
  • Thanked: 43 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #257 on: 23/03/2016 11:36:33 »
Did they see gravity waves, or did they see the exothermic output, due to a loss of gravitational potential?

The reason I ask is, a theoretical exothermic output, from the loss of gravitational potential, should look like a pulse stye output. It should be analogous to an electron lowering potential, giving off a photon; pulse output.

On the other hand, if two black holes merge, but do not disappear, the gravity waves should get stronger and stronger and then remain strong to reflect the final merger. The signal should climb a ramp and the level off. It should not pulse. Energy output, on the other hans, would be expected to pulse.

I think the scientists proved that the lowering of gravitational potential gives off energy, which I predicted a few year ago. Below was my original line of thinking.

Quote
If gravity was a force like the rest of the forces, then the lower gravitational potential, should give off energy, similar to the way the lower of EM, strong and weak nuclear forces give off energy when they lower potential.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 11:39:45 by puppypower »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #258 on: 23/03/2016 12:48:46 »
Did they see gravity waves, or did they see the exothermic output, due to a loss of gravitational potential?

The reason I ask is, a theoretical exothermic output, from the loss of gravitational potential, should look like a pulse stye output. It should be analogous to an electron lowering potential, giving off a photon; pulse output.

On the other hand, if two black holes merge, but do not disappear, the gravity waves should get stronger and stronger and then remain strong to reflect the final merger. The signal should climb a ramp and the level off. It should not pulse. Energy output, on the other hans, would be expected to pulse.

I think the scientists proved that the lowering of gravitational potential gives off energy, which I predicted a few year ago. Below was my original line of thinking.

Quote
If gravity was a force like the rest of the forces, then the lower gravitational potential, should give off energy, similar to the way the lower of EM, strong and weak nuclear forces give off energy when they lower potential.
I was going to qualify my statement by stating that I am not an expert on black holes, but who really is, since they are unobservable? All anyone can do is make an educated guess.

I think what happens when two black holes merge is basically like a hand clap. When you clap your hands together, that compresses air. That compressed air moves outward, squashing up against the air in front of it, leaving a rarefied space behind where the air is a bit thinner. Then the squashed air molecules push up against the ones in front of them, and so on. That's how sound travels, as a wave of compression and rarefaction in the atmosphere's gases. When two black holes merge, to the best of my understanding, that causes a similar wave, a giant handclap of sorts, but spacetime itself is like the atmosphere that is "rarefied" and "compressed."
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 12:57:20 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #259 on: 23/03/2016 13:03:16 »
It's kind of funny that you think that some sort of teaching certification is required to be a professor of physics or of any other science really. The only teaching training a professor of a science is generally required to have (at least in the US) is a brief stint as a teaching assistant at the beginning of their graduate work and that isn't so much a requirement as a way for the school to get very cheap labor instead of hiring actual teachers. Now occasionally you'll find a professor that has taken the time to learn some teaching methods but that is the exception not the rule. Sometimes schools that don't have a research program in a certain science but still want to grant undergraduate degrees in that science or schools with really large introductory class sizes will hire a lecturer who generally does have significant formal training in being a teacher but generally has a Masters in the science at best. They only ever teach intro level courses and are not ever given the title professor.

Basically the idea that you need some sort of certification to become a science professor (beyond a doctorate in the science you which to teach) is very wrong.
Funny, because you have to get a teaching certificate to teach high school physics. At any rate, you would at least have to have the approval of the department heads to become a university professor. They aren't going to let some narcissistic crackpot of a public nuisance teach physics, and anyway, I wouldn't pay tuition for the same gratuitous nonsense you already posted free of charge.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 13:10:11 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #260 on: 23/03/2016 13:19:33 »


I was trying to converse with Thebox. Now however I have to scroll through pages of pointless argumentative drivel in order to do that.


The density of a black hole is mainly an electro-negativity,  an electro-positivity can not attract an electro-positivity.
See? I knew he just wanted to argue with me. He addressed my comments twice and ignored your post trying to get the thread back on track.

Sorry to be part of trashing out your thread. I understand why people think I am a troll sometimes. I have a hard time ignoring trolls. Do you remember Confused1 from physforum.com? I tried to tell him via analogy that the situation was like me shouting "shut up" at some barking dogs, and he pointed out that after a while, it's hard to tell who is louder and more annoying, the dogs, or the person shouting at them.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #261 on: 23/03/2016 14:33:53 »
When two black holes merge, to the best of my understanding, that causes a similar wave, a giant handclap of sorts, but spacetime itself is like the atmosphere that is "rarefied" and "compressed."

https://astronomynow.com/2016/03/22/astronomers-glimpse-supernova-shockwave-for-the-first-time/

This recent event probably generated a similar gravitational wave, though it would have been much weaker. Nevertheless, I would guess (I haven't checked, just found that article a few minutes ago) that this supernova was probably closer, maybe a lot closer, than the breakthrough source of gravitational waves a few weeks ago, so we may have been able to detect this event at LIGO.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 14:36:32 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #262 on: 23/03/2016 14:53:37 »
Gravitational wave source at LIGO, 1.3 billion light years, combined mass somewhere around 65 solar masses, 3 of them converted to energy to make the gravity wave:

https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/news/ligo20160211

KSN 2011a was .7 billion light years away, 300 solar masses, KSN 2011d was 1.2 billion, 500 solar masses:

http://phys.org/news/2016-03-astrophysicists-supernovae-moment-explosion.html

So, I must confess, I don't know how the mass/energy conversion percentage compares in supernovae versus black holes merging. I would assume the black hole merger would be the more cataclysmic event and would convert more mass to energy more quickly and create a stronger gravitational wave, but that's really just guesswork on my part.

Actually, I take that back. I just realized, this is old news. It just got posted to my Google news page recently. D'oh! Obviously, if there had been a gravitational wave significant enough to detect associated with those supernovae, LIGO's more recent black hole event wouldn't have been the news story confirming Einstein's prediction. Between that and the mass numbers above, I think I'm probably right about black hole mergers being the more extreme event with the stronger gravitational wave.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 15:07:46 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #263 on: 23/03/2016 17:51:21 »


I was trying to converse with Thebox. Now however I have to scroll through pages of pointless argumentative drivel in order to do that.


The density of a black hole is mainly an electro-negativity,  an electro-positivity can not attract an electro-positivity.

I can't see how you can possibly justify that.
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 210
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #264 on: 23/03/2016 19:51:24 »
It's not argumentative nonsense. Maybe you just don't understand photons and waves, like agyejy.

I've made it very clear that this statement is not true.

Quote
Funny, because you have to get a teaching certificate to teach high school physics. At any rate, you would at least have to have the approval of the department heads to become a university professor. They aren't going to let some narcissistic crackpot of a public nuisance teach physics, and anyway, I wouldn't pay tuition for the same gratuitous nonsense you already posted free of charge.

At a campus with a major research focus ability to teach is at the bottom of the list of things the school is looking for. The undergraduate courses at famous research institutions are notoriously bad for exactly that reason.

Quote
See? I knew he just wanted to argue with me. He addressed my comments twice and ignored your post trying to get the thread back on track.

Funny you ignored me when I asked to return to the topic of the thread (I believe I asked at least twice) and you ignored similar request from the moderation staff. So what does that say about you?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #265 on: 24/03/2016 08:20:02 »


I was trying to converse with Thebox. Now however I have to scroll through pages of pointless argumentative drivel in order to do that.


The density of a black hole is mainly an electro-negativity,  an electro-positivity can not attract an electro-positivity.

I can't see how you can possibly justify that.


Consider expansion and contraction of gases, metal etc. 


Only pos can expand pos.


+E=>4/3 pi r

-E=<4/3 pi r


Something that becomes more negative becomes more dense.    Something that becomes more positive becomes less dense.


I think it is quite apparent, (my phone does not ''stick'' to the wall because my phone and the wall contains positive.


Positive and positive can not ''stick'' together.


Ok I am off fishing, cya all tomoz night maybe.




 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #266 on: 24/03/2016 14:23:37 »
Funny you ignored me when I asked to return to the topic of the thread (I believe I asked at least twice) and you ignored similar request from the moderation staff. So what does that say about you?
It says I'm not a brown noser, that I think for myself, that I'm not a "yes man," that I don't just take the word of non-scientists and moderators at face value. I'm interested in finding the TRUTH, not some perverted version of it disseminated by a handful of narcissistic halfwits with not one physics doctorate between them.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #267 on: 24/03/2016 14:30:29 »
Consider expansion and contraction of gases, metal etc. 
I'm pretty sure that's simply because of energy. When a photon is absorbed by an electron, the electron moves more vigorously. It needs more room to do that. That's why things expand. When they release that extra photon energy and cool off, they contract.
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #268 on: 24/03/2016 19:40:04 »
Funny you ignored me when I asked to return to the topic of the thread (I believe I asked at least twice) and you ignored similar request from the moderation staff. So what does that say about you?
It says I'm not a brown noser, that I think for myself, that I'm not a "yes man," that I don't just take the word of non-scientists and moderators at face value. I'm interested in finding the TRUTH, not some perverted version of it disseminated by a handful of narcissistic halfwits with not one physics doctorate between them.

And you have humility too.
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #269 on: 25/03/2016 14:35:45 »
And you have humility too.
No, I DON'T have humility. What I DO have are a cum laude college degree, a high IQ, a vast skill set, and an attitude because people like you think they know more than me, like just about every other person on the internet. Nevertheless, I came to the internet humble, seeking a physics forum to learn, not to teach. People like you created this version of me.

Teach me something, or get out of my face, because you're keeping me from learning.

Hint: That's easier to do if you say something about science instead of talking about the people posting. They aren't the thread topic. Science is.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 14:55:50 by Craig W. Thomson »
 

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3921
  • Thanked: 53 times
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #270 on: 25/03/2016 16:25:49 »
And you have humility too.
No, I DON'T have humility. What I DO have are a cum laude college degree, a high IQ, a vast skill set, and an attitude because people like you think they know more than me, like just about every other person on the internet. Nevertheless, I came to the internet humble, seeking a physics forum to learn, not to teach. People like you created this version of me.

Teach me something, or get out of my face, because you're keeping me from learning.

Hint: That's easier to do if you say something about science instead of talking about the people posting. They aren't the thread topic. Science is.

Your modesty is inspirational.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #271 on: 26/03/2016 10:06:41 »
And you have humility too.
No, I DON'T have humility. What I DO have are a cum laude college degree, a high IQ, a vast skill set, and an attitude because people like you think they know more than me, like just about every other person on the internet. Nevertheless, I came to the internet humble, seeking a physics forum to learn, not to teach. People like you created this version of me.

Teach me something, or get out of my face, because you're keeping me from learning.

Hint: That's easier to do if you say something about science instead of talking about the people posting. They aren't the thread topic. Science is.


I have had enough of this crap, clearly you  think you are smarter than anyone in the world, your degree, your IQ level, a vast skill set, all irrelevant.

I know NOTHING and keep it that way , that makes me ''smarter'' than you. 



Do not insult Jeff, Jeff is one of the good ones, I will bring it to you, if you persist.





 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #272 on: 26/03/2016 10:10:34 »

It says I'm not a brown noser, that I think for myself, that I'm not a "yes man," that I don't just take the word of non-scientists and moderators at face value. I'm interested in finding the TRUTH, not some perverted version of it disseminated by a handful of narcissistic halfwits with not one physics doctorate between them.

Ok, I tried before to engage in debate with you and you let yourself get side tracked, what would you like to know?
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3160
  • Thanked: 45 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #273 on: 26/03/2016 10:12:22 »
 


The same applies to you, what do you want to know?


 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 370
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #274 on: 26/03/2016 12:15:51 »
I have had enough of this crap, clearly you  think you are smarter than anyone in the world, your degree, your IQ level, a vast skill set, all irrelevant.

I know NOTHING and keep it that way , that makes me ''smarter'' than you. 

Do not insult Jeff, Jeff is one of the good ones, I will bring it to you, if you persist.
Whatever, dude. Let me tell you what crap I've had enough of. No, I'm not the smartest person in the world, but my IQ score, according to the stats, indicates you need a sample of about 8,000 people to find one as smart as me. I excel at science, always have. I graduated cum laude, which means "with honors." I'm sick and tired of being attacked by a bunch of know-it-alls and nameless, faceless, aggressive trolls who insist I don't understand things when I understand them just fine.

You wouldn't know what it's like to be in my position. You come here and talk nonsense, which is fine, you like to give people something to think about, so I haven't called you out on it, but your science is total B.S. You won't listen to anyone, you can't even tell the difference between who knows their stuff and who doesn't because you don't know your stuff. Your sophomoric iconoclasm is just plain annoying.

I'M one of the good ones, if you take me out of the context of being relentlessly trolled and flamed. Or, you can say stuff like you just said and I can give you some of the same crap I'm giving them. Makes no difference to me. Nobody cares about my feelings when they are ripping me apart. Why should I be any different?
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #274 on: 26/03/2016 12:15:51 »

 

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