1

New Theories / Re: Does bosonic energy bond?

« on: 11/10/2018 01:08:58 »

Due to the metric expansion of space, perhaps, but it's not something they do on their own.

.
Kryptid: what is your position on the question of whether there is any "space" devoid of gravity, by which I mean the effects of gravity?

2

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How many black holes are there in the Universe?

« on: 11/10/2018 01:02:44 »

"One and one don't make two. One and one make one."
-- The Who

.
Thanks. You've revealed that you know that addition inside the classroom, in the abstract, is nice and easy, but less so outside. So, tell me, have you ever accused someone of being so obstinate in accepting your argument that it is tantamount to a denial of the result of "2 + 2?"

3

New Theories / Re: Does bosonic energy bond?

« on: 11/10/2018 00:34:29 »

Without the constraints of gravity light waves stretch out indefinitely.

.
Is that not speculative? In other words, there is no confirmation (evidence) that there is any "space" devoid of gravity, No? Yes.

4

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How many black holes are there in the Universe?

« on: 11/10/2018 00:07:47 »

Is there more than one Black Hole in the Universe?

The answer to the OP must be something akin to the answer to "how many angels can dance on the point of a needle".

.
The only reason I asked whether there were more than one is that I could not use the entity "Black Hole" as an addend in the argument I'm honing if there were not more than one. Now, you can be sure that I did assume that there were more than one. It is what happens when they become the addends in an equation that is relevant to my argument.

Sneak preview: Describe the operation, denoted by "+", in the equation, "1 + 1 = ____", when the addends are Black Holes.

Now you know were I'm going with this.

5

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / What happens when the addends are Black Holes? (1 + 1)

« on: 09/10/2018 02:31:48 »

Merge seems appropriate for two things of similar order of magnitude of mass.  But if one is tiny and the other huge, it seems more like the little one falling into and adding to the bigger one, but the process is really the same.

Does a meteor fall to Earth or do the two just merge?  Or maybe the Earth falls down onto the rock and becomes this huge meteorite on it.

.
Thanks!! Your new answer can be used to advance my argument a very long way, which I've been working on sporadically over the last few years.

FYI, I do informal debating on scientific subjects, as well as others, and have taken on the task of forming an unassailable response to those who accuse others of being so intractable in disagreement with an argument as to be guilty of violating the "obvious" truth of "2 + 2", which sometimes appears as, "2 + 2 = 5." I'm sure more than a few here have seen such things. This site not being a debate forum, such accusations may not actually occur on this site.

If I were to apply your question about Earth and a meteor in my argument, then I begin with:

1. Can we express the event in the form "1 + 1 = ___?" This, you will see, is an acceptable substitute of "2 + 2" in the abstract or in the classroom, if you like?

2. Apply the new addends (replace the 1s): "Meteor 'falls to' Earth = ____"; the operation (process) "+" become "falls to" and the addends (1 and 1) become "meteor" and "Earth" respectively. You see immediately that I've replaced what began as two identical things in the abstract--the two 1s--by two non-identical things.

At this point, the astute reader will wonder, are there to be found in Nature or by human construct any two things that are identical? The question is not without significance, though one might think it to be obvious as "no." Yet, in grade-school, high school and well beyond, we treat 1 + 1 = 2 as an unassailable truth, and it is just that always when and only when the addends remain abstract.

There is more, but I have to go now.
------------------
Based on the reply by "evan_au", I won't be taking up any more of your time, as you all are, I suspect, still looking for adequate clothing.
.

Questions about black holes belong in the "Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology" section of the forum.
However, a proposed explanation of the structure of the cosmos based on black holes belongs in the "New Theories" section of the forum.
@scherado, I recommend that you post your explanation there instead.

6

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: How many black holes are there in the Universe?

« on: 07/10/2018 19:11:35 »

As for the question in the title, the merger of two black holes was witnessed (recorded by LIGO) just 3 years ago.

.
I did read about the event you referenced and thank you for using the word "merger." It is precisely what I needed to advance an argument I've been honing over time.
 
I'll post an explanation as a new post in this thread as soon as it is written. Thanks.

7

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / How many black holes are there in the Universe?

« on: 06/10/2018 23:27:57 »

There seems to be no controversy (in Science) with respect to the existence of the Black Hole. My question:

Is there more than one Black Hole in the Universe?

8

General Science / Re: How is Question of the Week chosen?

« on: 06/10/2018 22:53:41 »

Ah, thank you global moderator, "Colin2B".

I have a question, which is a "doozy." I use that word for the sole reason that I encounter so many people who do not know the answer and should know the answer, if you get my drift.

9

Question of the Week / Re: QotW - 18.09.30 - Is second hand smoke more dangerous than smoking a cigarette?

« on: 06/10/2018 22:43:20 »

I can tell you that a doctor once showed me a lung X-ray and said: "You have emphysema." I said, "Really?" He said, "Yes."

At that time (age early 40s), the number of cigarettes I had "smoked" could be counted on one hand. How did this happen?

I will tell you.

When I was in my early 20s (early 80s) I used to drink and dance in the bars (Southeastern, NY State, USA) that hired a very popular dance-band called "The Dates."

I did this repeatedly, spending hours inhaling and exhaling the bleeping cigarette smoke in fits of exertion.

End of story.

[I did forget to mention that I had a very good time.]

10

General Science / How is Question of the Week chosen?

« on: 06/10/2018 21:45:38 »

I can't figure out where to ask a question.

Will someone tell me where I can ask a question about one of the topic sub-sections?

"Hey, scherado, why don't you just ask the question?"

Alright, perhaps that's a good idea.

How is the "question of the week" chosen?

11

That CAN'T be true! / Re: What size alphabet is required to name each non-negative integer?

« on: 20/02/2018 11:57:09 »

You may well have been looking for something else.
However, ChiralSPO's answer is correct.

.
Well, you should infer something from the big green enclosure I placed around "ChiraSPO"'s answer.

12

That CAN'T be true! / Re: What size alphabet is required to name each non-negative integer?

« on: 19/02/2018 20:25:26 »

`c

One letter.

Allow me to count the first few numbers off, starting with zero (the first non-negative integer)

.
Well, I'll be the first to declare (positively) that your answer does not merit a thread. Perhaps, I was...loo[k]ing for some other....thing....and I'll start a new thread....

....if I do.

13

That CAN'T be true! / What size alphabet is required to name each non-negative integer?

« on: 19/02/2018 15:27:08 »

What size alphabet is required to name each non-negative integer?
You are advised in advance that the following is a trick question. It is, in full:

What size English alphabet is required to provide a unique name for each non-negative integer?

14

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 12/02/2018 21:32:41 »

Quote from: scherado on 08/02/2018 19:58:16

    Quote from: Thebox on 08/02/2018 14:37:34

        Do not like constructive criticism?    You made a post after Colin's post, therefore you made a reply to opportunity  ignoring the moderators content of his post. 

    .
    Do not read (comprehend) well? I've told you what I am doing with respect to replies. There is no there to your therefore, therefore, you are incorrect. I will now reveal another part of my plan:I am going to post a quote that is relevant to some content in this thread in the next few hours; it was intended for the "main" post, but I am, now, responding to gratuitous criticism. You can put that into your pipe and get good use out if it.

Your question of does time exist had been answered , seems to be the point you have completely ignored.   Time exists is the answer. 

.
I could not find me asking "does time exist".. I quote myself:
.

What is the duration of a moment in 'Time'? (Given: the answer will be the decimal-portion of 0.______..., where the unit is Second.) In other words, some fraction of a second.

.
I hereby, forevermore change the question to:

What is the duration of a "moment?"

Yet, this is placing the cart before the horse,

In what units?-?-?-?

My position is that 'Time' is inextricably linked to Matter that is involved in some physical process. One example is the physical process employed in the so-called "atomic clock," ("9,192,631,770 cycles of microwave light absorbed or emitted by the hyperfine transition of cesium-133 atoms in their ground state undisturbed by external fields."); another example is Earth's revolution around (the) Sun; the other, Earth's period of rotation.

15

Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / [quote author=Colin2B lRe: What does "time-like" mean in the following sentence?

« on: 08/02/2018 22:23:09 »

With ‘time-like’ this was developed by Minkowski in his spacetime maths, but the meaning remained the same as far as i can see, and is now a solid part of GR.

developed by Minkowski?

I give a quote by the Big Cheese Himself, Albert Einstein, published, 1934, and Uttered some time previous to the publication. We all can agree on that point. No? YES.

What did Einstein mean by "time-like"? The question is asked outside the mathematical realm.

The purpose of this thread is clear.

16

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 08/02/2018 20:55:03 »

a quote that is relevant to some content in this thread

.
This quote is offered for reasons obvious--a reckless conclusion, yes.

Carl C. Jung, from The Undiscovered Self, 1957, 1958, translated and revised by R.F.C. Hull, pages 31:
.

............................................................... society has
an indisputable right to protect itelf against arrant subjectiv-
ism, but, in so far as society is itself composed of de-individual-
ized human beings, it is completely at the mercy of ruthless
individualists. Let it band together into groups and organiza-
tions as much as it likes--it is just this banding together and the
resultant extinction of the individual personality that makes it
succumb so readily to a dictator. A million zeros together
do not, unfortunately add up to one. ...

(Bold is mine.)

17

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 08/02/2018 19:58:16 »

Do not like constructive criticism?    You made a post after Colin's post, therefore you made a reply to opportunity  ignoring the moderators content of his post. 

.
Do not read (comprehend) well? I've told you what I am doing with respect to replies. There is no there to your therefore, therefore, you are incorrect. I will now reveal another part of my plan:I am going to post a quote that is relevant to some content in this thread in the next few hours; it was intended for the "main" post, but I am, now, responding to gratuitous criticism. You can put that into your pipe and get good use out if it.

18

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 08/02/2018 14:37:18 »

Once again apologies for not making that clearer. Just wondering therefore if you have another way of approaching the time-singularity issue? It’s a hard one given the Planck-scale space-time singularity dogma.

.
Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

I can assure you that any and all of the things with which you expressed agreement are based upon the one-and-only conception of 'Time' I accept, which is based upon one-and-only-one observation of our conception of it, that it is a physical process; that 'Time' does not exist, or--possibly better, is not relevant, without Matter in motion, or Matter that is not inert. The physical process may be the one employed in the "atomic clock" or Earth revolving around Sun.

19

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 08/02/2018 14:08:57 »

You give them an answer and they ignore it lol. 

.
I am NOT ignoring anything, I am in the middle of composing my reply, which is near completion. While I'm doing that, I will determine whether this forum has an "ignore" or "block" feature.

20

New Theories / Re: Could Time be a singularity?

« on: 06/02/2018 02:27:27 »

You're absolutely right. To talk about time as a singularity as a "moment" can only work talking about the parameters within which that singularity exists, like in between time-before and time-after, both of which would represent a "relativity" cradling the time-now singularity....somehow.

.
You lost me after the first three words. (Two and five-sevenths of a word, to be precise--this being a forum for scientists.)