Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => That CAN'T be true! => Topic started by: guest39538 on 11/02/2016 17:52:55
-
Hang no more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35524440
I have viewed quite a lot of this already, I for one think it is more propaganda from science. I do not believe them, they have made the experiment sound so complex as to not let normal people even understand it. I smell conspiracy all over. How odd that science is being pressured everywhere by people then out pops this in an attempt to keep Einstein ''alive'',
Complete lies regardless what they tell us.
-
Hang no more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35524440
I have viewed quite a lot of this already, I for one think it is more propaganda from science. I do not believe them, they have made the experiment sound so complex as to not let normal people even understand it. I smell conspiracy all over. How odd that science is being pressured everywhere by people then out pops this in an attempt to keep Einstein ''alive'',
Complete lies regardless what they tell us.
And I had begun to think there was hope for you Mr. Box, evidently I was sadly mistaken.....................
-
It's a very simple experiment to detect a very simple phenomenon. The only problem was of engineering, not science, because the effect is extremely subtle. What bit don't you understand? We've been using gravity since the universe began, and laser interferometers for about 50 years. If the whole thing was a conspiracy, the result would have been announced a long time ago!
-
Hang no more.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-35524440
A new era of astronomy has birthed.
No it hasn't, I watched your link, since when do we observe black holes directly?
Since when does a computer simulation prove anything?
How do you know any ripples are not inverted light etc etc?
How does anyone in the right mind perceive that machines on earth that uses a t shaped laser detect two black holes in space?
What garbage
-
It's a very simple experiment to detect a very simple phenomenon. The only problem was of engineering, not science, because the effect is extremely subtle. What bit don't you understand? We've been using gravity since the universe began, and laser interferometers for about 50 years. If the whole thing was a conspiracy, the result would have been announced a long time ago!
And science was not under pressure until the last few years , physics is under pressure to produce. The experiment proves nothing.
''That view was reinforced by Professor Stephen Hawking, who is an expert on black holes. Speaking exclusively to BBC News he said he believed that the detection marked a moment in scientific history.'' nobody can be an expert in something we do not observe.
''Einstein himself actually thought a detection might be beyond the reach of technology.'' Einstein is correct on that one.
-
It's a very simple experiment to detect a very simple phenomenon. The only problem was of engineering, not science, because the effect is extremely subtle. What bit don't you understand? We've been using gravity since the universe began, and laser interferometers for about 50 years. If the whole thing was a conspiracy, the result would have been announced a long time ago!
And science was not under pressure until the last few years , physics is under pressure to produce. The experiment proves nothing.
''That view was reinforced by Professor Stephen Hawking, who is an expert on black holes. Speaking exclusively to BBC News he said he believed that the detection marked a moment in scientific history.'' nobody can be an expert in something we do not observe.
''Einstein himself actually thought a detection might be beyond the reach of technology.'' Einstein is correct on that one.
Good Grief!!!!!!!
-
''Einstein himself actually thought a detection might be beyond the reach of technology.'' Einstein is correct on that one.
I'm sure Einstein would be very pleased to hear that you approve, that is if he were still with us. Truth is, he's probably turning over in his grave as we speak.
-
''Einstein himself actually thought a detection might be beyond the reach of technology.'' Einstein is correct on that one.
I'm sure Einstein would be very pleased to hear that you approve, that is if he were still with us. Truth is, he's probably turning over in his grave as we speak.
Gravity waves do not exist, space does not move, things move through space, a temporal distortion in a laser field does not show a gravitational wave or two blaCK HOLES MERGING, It seem quite timely if you ask me.
-
It seem quite timely if you ask me.
Nobody has, or will.
-
Gravity waves do not exist, space does not move, things move through space, a temporal distortion in a laser field does not show a gravitational wave or two blaCK HOLES MERGING, It seem quite timely if you ask me.
Present us with your evidence Mr. Box or quit trying to highjack this thread.
-
It seem quite timely if you ask me.
Nobody has, or will.
well obviously not, because the higher powers above science care about control, they have to keep the parlour tricks going. Everyone with half a brain knows space behind the light and mass is made of nothing, nothing can not ripple or wave.
-
Gravity waves do not exist, space does not move, things move through space, a temporal distortion in a laser field does not show a gravitational wave or two blaCK HOLES MERGING, It seem quite timely if you ask me.
Present us with your evidence Mr. Box or quit trying to highjack this thread.
there is no aether , space is made of no fabric, nothing can not wave or ripple , only things can ripple through nothing.
A moving hand should affect the laser because of mass gravity.
yet blackholes millions miles away affect it,
-
there is no aether , space is made of no fabric, nothing can not wave or ripple , only things can ripple through nothing.
Those are just your opinions, they present us with absolutely no evidence. And you know what they all say about opinions..........right?
-
there is no aether , space is made of no fabric, nothing can not wave or ripple , only things can ripple through nothing.
Those are just your opinions, they present us with absolutely no evidence. And you know what they all say about opinions..........right?
[/quote]
OK, you science says mass is attracted to mass and has gravity and gravity waves, a mysterious force between objects, if you move your hand above the laser then the gravity from your hand should affect the laser, if two black holes merging miles way can affect the laser, with a gravitational wave, then so must your hand from a closer distance.
Detected two black holes is hilarious.
-
Detected two black holes is hilarious.
Nope...................But what is truly hilarious is your behavior Mr. Box. You actually presume to be in a position to correct giants of science like Einstein, now that's what's incredibly hilarious.
-
Detected two black holes is hilarious.
Nope...................But what is truly hilarious is your behavior Mr. Box. You actually presume to be in a position to correct giants of science like Einstein, now that's what's incredibly hilarious.
My apologies for the over reaction, I watched a video that said this proved all of Einstein stuff to be true, and obviously I am working hard to contest GR and SR and my instant reaction after seen the original post was to react .
I still say it is not true regardless of the results.
-
I still say it is not true regardless of the results.
My friend, and truly I would like for us to be such, how can you possibly grow in knowledge if you ignore "the results"? It's what makes science fun and interesting and the great adventure of confronting the unexpected.
All science "must consider the results", whether we like them or not.
Please,.... honestly consider your motives my friend. Do you really want to know the truth or do you want to make it up as you go? In the end, if you settle for merely something that appeals to your senses but is found to be in error, you will gain nothing. Fact is, you'll lose and have nothing to blame but your preconceived prejudices. Such a waste Mr. Box. You're too smart to allow this to happen, I certainly hope so anyway.
-
I still say it is not true regardless of the results.
My friend, and truly I would like for us to be such, how can you possibly grow in knowledge if you ignore "the results"? It's what makes science fun and interesting and the great adventure of confronting the unexpected.
All science "must consider the results", whether we like them or not.
Please,.... honestly consider your motives my friend. Do you really want to know the truth or do you want to make it up as you go? In the end, if you settle for merely something that appeals to your senses but is found to be in error, you will gain nothing. Fact is, you'll lose and have nothing to blame but your preconceived prejudices. Such a waste Mr. Box. You're too smart to allow this to happen, I certainly hope so anyway.
New results are to be questioned yes?
I instantly discoursed the information and found there is nothing that suggests that they detected a gravitation wave or two black holes merging.
I have no idea why they are trying to use a laser to detect gravity, light is massless and can only be ''changed'' by power differences.
So what is the significance of using a laser?
Why does the gravitation of the tubes or a passing hand not affect the beam but yet from miles away a weak signal altered the beam?
What I have gathered the results are the result of a computer read out?
I have a laser, the force of wind does not affect a laser, so why would a gravitational wave be any different?
To confirm the experiment I observe three things, they would need to show and prove light has mass, then they would need to prove what space is made of and finally they need to show us the observation of a black hole(s) they said caused the anomaly.
Consider this Ethos, they spent years wondering about the double slit experiment and why this happened, I came along and instantly spotted observer effect, the act of putting an obstacle in the way with an angled slit(s) is what caused the effect. The angled slits causing a narrowing passage and causing the light propagation to bottle neck.
Light does not even travel directly in straight lines either, it behaves like a gas and I can prove and show this to be true by simple experiments. (second thoughts maybe not, but shadows are saying something to me about light, especially when the angles do not reflect light but the shadows have light).
Take a cardboard box with no lid on it. Angle the open part towards the sky away from the Sun, there is no angle to reflect light into the box, but there is still light in the box.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
New results are to be questioned yes?
The published paper is here: "Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger"
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102
It is moderately readable, and you can skip over the couple of formulas that they insert. They describe the conclusions in words.
I strongly suggest that you read it, or you will have no relevant questions or comments to make.
I have no idea why they are trying to use a laser to detect gravity
They are using the laser to measure distances very accurately - just like all surveyers use today, but a much better laser, and far more powerful.
The gravitational wave distorts lengths, by a factor of 0.00000000000000000001; you need to measure lengths extremely accurately to detect this!
Why does the gravitation of the tubes or a passing hand not affect the beam but yet from miles away a weak signal altered the beam?
The tubes have a constant effect on the light. This detector ignores constant effects; they focus on oscillations of 20Hz to 2kHz such as would be produced by closely-orbiting black holes or neutron stars.
Your hand might affect one of the beams (but at 1-2Hz, not 20+ Hz). There are two detectors at opposite ends of the USA; your hand might affect one of them, but definitely not both of them. This event was detected at both sites, about 6ms apart, which gives a rough indication of where the event occurred in the sky.
They also surround the gravitational wave detectors with sensitive detectors for earthquakes, cosmic rays, and anything else that they think could affect the results. They saw nothing external that could have produced these results.
Take a cardboard box with no lid on it. Angle the open part towards the sky away from the Sun, there is no angle to reflect light into the box, but there is still light in the box.
The box is illuminated by diffuse light from the sky.
Take the box into space, where shadows are much harsher, and things are more black and white; the inside of TheBox will be seen to be dark.
-
New results are to be questioned yes?
The published paper is here: "Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger"
https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102
It is moderately readable, and you can skip over the couple of formulas that they insert. They describe the conclusions in words.
I strongly suggest that you read it, or you will have no relevant questions or comments to make.
I have no idea why they are trying to use a laser to detect gravity
They are using the laser to measure distances very accurately - just like all surveyers use today, but a much better laser, and far more powerful.
The gravitational wave distorts lengths, by a factor of 0.00000000000000000001; you need to measure lengths extremely accurately to detect this!
Why does the gravitation of the tubes or a passing hand not affect the beam but yet from miles away a weak signal altered the beam?
The tubes have a constant effect on the light. This detector ignores constant effects; they focus on oscillations of 20Hz to 2kHz such as would be produced by closely-orbiting black holes or neutron stars.
Your hand might affect one of the beams (but at 1-2Hz, not 20+ Hz). There are two detectors at opposite ends of the USA; your hand might affect one of them, but definitely not both of them. This event was detected at both sites, about 6ms apart, which gives a rough indication of where the event occurred in the sky.
They also surround the gravitational wave detectors with sensitive detectors for earthquakes, cosmic rays, and anything else that they think could affect the results. They saw nothing external that could have produced these results.
Take a cardboard box with no lid on it. Angle the open part towards the sky away from the Sun, there is no angle to reflect light into the box, but there is still light in the box.
The box is illuminated by diffuse light from the sky.
Take the box into space, where shadows are much harsher, and things are more black and white; the inside of TheBox will be seen to be dark.
Hmmm, what about power fluctuations in the energy input or a surge of the lasers internal components?
-
Hmmm, what about power fluctuations in the energy input or a surge of the lasers internal components?
At two different test facilities, separated by thousands of miles occurring within milliseconds of each other, high unlikely. "There is none so blind as he who will not see."
-
Hmmm, what about power fluctuations in the energy input or a surge of the lasers internal components?
At two different test facilities, separated by thousands of miles occurring within milliseconds of each other, high unlikely. "There is none so blind as he who will not see."
Ok, I do hear you, how do we know it was not some other sort of wave, like a shock wave?
Or even something absurd has someone trying to communicate with you?
-
Hmmm, what about power fluctuations in the energy input or a surge of the lasers internal components?
At two different test facilities, separated by thousands of miles occurring within milliseconds of each other, high unlikely. "There is none so blind as he who will not see."
Ok, I do hear you, how do we know it was not some other sort of wave, like a shock wave?
We know it was traveling at the speed of light, or precisely equidistant from the detectors...
-
Hmmm, what about power fluctuations in the energy input or a surge of the lasers internal components?
At two different test facilities, separated by thousands of miles occurring within milliseconds of each other, high unlikely. "There is none so blind as he who will not see."
Ok, I do hear you, how do we know it was not some other sort of wave, like a shock wave?
We know it was traveling at the speed of light, or precisely equidistant from the detectors...
What do you mean you know it was travelling at the speed of light? How do you conceive that when it is not directly observed but a readout?
And how do we know it was not a solar burst, do they not travel at the speed of light ?
EMP?
A software glitch?
The laser beam is massless, things pass through the beam, things dont disrupt the beam, how can anything disrupt the beam?
added - ohhhh............I just thought of something I said
-
Hmmm, what about power fluctuations in the energy input or a surge of the lasers internal components?
These lasers are managed very closely to prevent unexpected variations in amplitude and frequency. There is actually some intentional variations in power that are used to provide a calibration signal, and also to inject test signals that can verify correct operation of the hardware and software.
One of the changes during the recent sensitivity upgrade was the use of homodyne receivers, which have much less noise than crude detection of the signal amplitude.
I can assure you that an EMP pulse or solar flare would have been noticed by more than just these detectors.
How about you tell us the real reason you don't like black holes? (...instead of just throwing up smokescreens?)
-
Hmmm, what about power fluctuations in the energy input or a surge of the lasers internal components?
These lasers are managed very closely to prevent unexpected variations in amplitude and frequency. There is actually some intentional variations in power that are used to provide a calibration signal, and also to inject test signals that can verify correct operation of the hardware and software.
One of the changes during the recent sensitivity upgrade was the use of homodyne receivers, which have much less noise than crude detection of the signal amplitude.
I can assure you that an EMP pulse or solar flare would have been noticed by more than just these detectors.
How about you tell us the real reason you don't like black holes? (...instead of just throwing up smokescreens?)
Who said I do not like black holes? I just thought it odd people declared that the detection was two black holes merging, I may accept the gravitation wave, I have a laser and experimented myself last night using some Mgyver science,
I managed to curve the beam, create a split laser like the dual slit experiment result, and recorded something that I can only describe as individual photons,even an image that looked like a persons face ,but I could not gravitationally affect the beam.
-
I have a laser and experimented myself last night using some Mgyver science,
I managed to curve the beam, create a split laser like the dual slit experiment result, and recorded something that I can only describe as individual photons,even an image that looked like a persons face ,but I could not gravitationally affect the beam.
Gosh, you're right. What could these hundreds of PhD scientists and their $500 million dollar laser apparatus possibly measure that you couldn't MacGyver with your own laser pointer in your bedroom last night?
-
Gosh, you're right. What could these hundreds of PhD scientists and their $500 million dollar laser apparatus possibly measure that you couldn't MacGyver with your own laser pointer in your bedroom last night?
So true, so true chiral. Where's MacGyver we need him. Of a truth, I think Mr. Box is jiving us about what he was really doing in his bedroom last night. I usually intend on preforming very different kinds of experiments in my personal bedroom, oh-well, what's that old saying about the fly on the wall................?
-
Gosh, you're right. What could these hundreds of PhD scientists and their $500 million dollar laser apparatus possibly measure that you couldn't MacGyver with your own laser pointer in your bedroom last night?
So true, so true chiral. Where's MacGyver we need him. Of a truth, I think Mr. Box is jiving us about what he was really doing in his bedroom last night. I usually intend on preforming very different kinds of experiments in my personal bedroom, oh-well, what's that old saying about the fly on the wall................?
YOU have seen my laser experiments before, I am always messing with light, I do not gest, do you forget the seemingly atoms I observed before by my own type of spectroscopy, but I agree to they detected something,
-
Everyone with half a brain knows space behind the light and mass is made of nothing, nothing can not ripple or wave.
I don't see it that way, but I am not missing 50% of my brain, either. Light is made of electromagnetic energy, specifically, an electric component, and a magnetic component.
I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass. My favorite way to state that principle is, "Energy is unbound mass that travels through space, mass is bound energy that occupies a location in space."
You mentioned light specifically, so think about a massless photon. I'm going to oversimplify here to try to be clear. Everything moves in a 3 dimensional space described by three axes, x, y and z. In the case of a photon, you have a wave in the x plane (electric component) and a wave in the y plane (magnetic component) traveling through space together at speed c. Like this:
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/webproj/212_spring_2014/Amanda_Mcpherson/Amanda_McPherson/em_electric_magnetic_propagating_waves.jpg
What is not possible is to include a third wave along the z plane simultaneously. Simultaneous forward motion along all three axes cannot occur. The z axis in that image I linked to is perpendicular to both the other axes, so any "forward" motion along that axis would take a particle AWAY from the other two axes. Consequently, what was forward motion for the wave along the x and y axes becomes an oscillation back and forth about the z axis. Energy is conserved, so the momentum that was previously dedicated to forward motion through space becomes an oscillation at a location designated by where the z axis intersected the x and y axes.
This is what is meant by the phrase I got from a quote on a Tool album, "Matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration." Forward motion at speed c along the x and y axes becomes an oscillation at a location in space designated by their intersection with a z axis. I like to think of this as a "particle in a box" model. The "box" is the space around the intersection of all three axes about which the waves oscillate. Light has no mass because it is not "in a box." It only has two dimensions, x and y. When it becomes binding energy by being absorbed by an atom at location x,y,z, THEN it is in a box, and contributes a bit of mass to the system.
The more I learn about this stuff, the more my opinions change from those previously held. These days, I am starting to think that everything is actually made of spacetime, including energy. Energy is merely a ripple in spacetime. When you confine those ripples to a location with 3 coordinates, that spacetime gets "tangled up" into a particle. That "snag" pulls a little bit on the surrounding spacetime fabric, which is gravity. That's what gives things "mass." The more particles in a mass, the more "tangling" to pull on the fabric of spacetime, which warps it.
Two black holes colliding is like two giant "snarls" in the fabric of spacetime becoming instantly interwoven, which gives the entire fabric a nice tug momentarily.
-
We've already been over how this statement is very wrong. To review:
There is nothing that in general prevents a wave from having oscillations in all three dimensions. By your theory no way should simultaneously have transverse and longitudinal components. However, it has long been known that earthquakes produce both transverse and longitudinal oscillations simultaneously. These are called s and p waves. Now the dispersion of these two types of oscillation are different so parts of the wave move faster than other parts and the wave has a whole gets (for lack of a better term) torn apart over time. If you don't like earthquakes than there are also water waves which can also support waves with transverse and longitudinal components and here I'm not just talking about wave on the surface of the water. If you don't like water waves then there are phonons in solids. Like photons they can be quantized and treated like particles under certain conditions but a quite clearly waves under most conditions. Yet they too can have longitudinal and transverse components. Heck even photons themselves can have longitudinal components under certain circumstances (like when the propagate in a medium other than free space). So your argument that a wave cannot oscillate in 3 dimensions is strictly counter to observed reality.
Now about energy. Energy isn't a thing. Energy is a property of things just like mass is a property of things. Things that have an invariant mass have a rest frame and have the property we generally call mass while things that don't do not have a rest frame do not have the property of mass. Both have the property of energy. The energy of a photon is just the energy in the electromagnetic fields of the photon. The energy of any particle is just the energy in the excitation of the field that makes up the particle (and at the moment every particle is thought to have its own field). To reiterate energy is a property not a thing.
-
We've already been over how this statement is very wrong. To review:
There is nothing that in general prevents a wave from having oscillations in all three dimensions. By your theory no way should simultaneously have transverse and longitudinal components.
Good, then let's go over how you are very wrong:
1) I NEVER said there can't be an oscillation in three dimensions. I clearly said there can be no FORWARD MOTION ALONG A THIRD AXIS if there's already forward motion in the other two. Forward means forward. Oscillate means back and forth. Learn to read. You just wasted two paragraphs explaining something I did not say.
2) I have not presented a "theory" here, nor did I even use language to suggest it is a theory. Again, learn to read. Similes, analogies, models, opinions, thoughts and musings are NOT theories.
3) You never like my analogies, but here, you have compared a photon to an earthquake. LOL
This is not physforum.com, I see you have followed me from there, and I am not interested in having people lie about me or misrepresent the things I've said. Check my statement. It reads, and I quote, "I'm going to oversimplify here to try to be clear." Now, leave me the hell alone, or I WILL ask a moderator for help. Maybe you can't read, but they can. Stop making false statements.
-
1) I NEVER said there cant be an oscillation in three dimensions. I clearly said there can be no FORWARD MOTION ALONG A THIRD AXIS if theres already forward motion in the other two. Forward means forward. Oscillate means back and forth. Learn to read. You just wasted two paragraphs explaining something I did not say.
Which happens to be the same as saying a traveling wave like that from an earthquake can not have longitudinal and transverse components and still be a traveling wave which is untrue.
I have not presented a "theory" here, nor did I even use language to suggest it is a theory. Again, learn to read. Similes, analogies, models, opinions, thoughts and musings are NOT theories.
I was using theory in the common sense of the word not the scientific sense. Obviously your statements are not developed enough to be a scientific theory (maybe a hypothesis but not a theory). In common parlance any attempt to explain some fact, like the existence of particles, falls under the definition of theory.
You never like my analogies, but here, you have compared a photon to an earthquake. LOL
I never compared anything to anything. I gave examples of traveling waves that had properties that you suggested should not be possible.
This is not physforum.com, I see you have followed me from there, and I am not interested in having people lie about me or misrepresent the things Ive said. Check my statement. It reads, and I quote, "Im going to oversimplify here to try to be clear." Now, leave me the hell alone, or I WILL ask a moderator for help. Maybe you cant read, but they can. Stop making false statements.
For starters there is a difference between oversimplification and just being incorrect. Furthermore, someone that points out that you are incorrect is not automatically misrepresenting what you have said or not telling the truth. I have also not followed you here at all which is completely clear by looking at posting records. I posted here on February 5th in a thread about light which is had nothing to do with you and falls neatly into a period of inactivity by you that started on January 30th and ended on February 14th. So my most recent post before my post to you was not related to you can came a week after your last post and a week before your next post.
You can contact a moderator if you want but I have done nothing but point out where you were incorrect. I did not accuse you of anything and I am still not doing so.
To any moderator that will eventually read this I apologize. I should have anticipated this reaction and perhaps not corrected the errors that I saw.
-
I NEVER said there cant be an oscillation in three dimensions. I clearly said there can be no FORWARD MOTION ALONG A THIRD AXIS if theres already forward motion in the other two. Forward means forward. Oscillate means back and forth. Learn to read. You just wasted two paragraphs explaining something I did not say
Which happens to be the same as saying a traveling wave like that from an earthquake can not have longitudinal and transverse components and still be a traveling wave which is untrue.
You can contact a moderator if you want but I have done nothing but point out where you were incorrect. I did not accuse you of anything and I am still not doing so.
Yes, you did. Here you have accused me of something I didn't say. You are incorrect. I didn't say anything stupid about earthquakes. That was you. Of course, an earthquake is not an analogous motion to what I'm talking about. An earthquake is not three fundamental, indivisible wave components, nor is an earthquake a fundamental mass/energy conversion at the particle level. An earthquake spreads out in 3 dimensions, x, y and z.
Single photons don't spread out, nor do the atoms that absorb them. When an x/y photon begins to oscillate in the third or z dimension at the moment of absorption, it is no longer traveling forward through the x and y planes.
If you say anything other than that, I am afraid you're the one who is mistaken.
-
Firstly you are both missing the point, that XYZ are virtual lines in a n-dimensional space. Secondly you are missing the point that all waves and all waves travel through space.
http://ffden-2.phys.uaf.edu/webproj/212_spring_2014/Amanda_Mcpherson/Amanda_McPherson/em_electric_magnetic_propagating_waves.jpg
Consider the background in the link is a void of n-dimensional space and all matter is in motion relative to this stationary reference frame of 0.
I defined nothing in another thread, nothing has two meanings, 0 and ∞0.
Just consider what I have just said, and consider that nothing is also a negative and then you may understand .
In my own words it is a bit like this, nothing is adjoined to nothing, but something always wants to displace something,
When I mention real-antimatter I am referring to Electromagnetic radiation, and when I mention matter I am referring to negative in this context.
I have a few ideas about the information you gave me about the magnetic component and electrical component, but maybe they are best not mentioned ,
There is a strange liking to magnetic bottling and being inside of a ''box''.
-
Single photons don't spread out, nor do the atoms that absorb them. When an x/y photon begins to oscillate in the third or z dimension at the moment of absorption, it is no longer traveling forward through the x and y planes.
Nothing said in that statement is correct. All of it contradicts observed reality.
-
Single photons don't spread out, nor do the atoms that absorb them. When an x/y photon begins to oscillate in the third or z dimension at the moment of absorption, it is no longer traveling forward through the x and y planes.
Nothing said in that statement is correct. All of it contradicts observed reality.
I agree to a point.
-
WE could discuss Cambridge University and the 5th dimension black hole, that could prove Relativity wrong.
-
Single photons don't spread out, nor do the atoms that absorb them. When an x/y photon begins to oscillate in the third or z dimension at the moment of absorption, it is no longer traveling forward through the x and y planes.
Nothing said in that statement is correct. All of it contradicts observed reality.
Whatever. If I had said photons DO spread out, you would argue that point to. That's all you do. Argue. It's boring.
Photons DON'T spread out in three dimensions indefinitely or they could be described as an expanding sphere; they travel in a straight line, not an expanding sphere.
Long story short, a photon cannot travel in a straight line when it is absorbed by an atom as binding energy. It becomes even more localized than when it was a free photon.
-
Whatever. If I had said photons DO spread out, you would argue that point to. That's all you do. Argue. It's boring.
That is unnecessarily hostile.
Photons DON'T spread out in three dimensions indefinitely or they could be described as an expanding sphere; they travel in a straight line, not an expanding sphere.
Photons are more accurately described as a wave packet. In general this wave packet has an intensity envelope which peaks at what might be called the center of the photon and decays to infinitesimally near zero at some distance away (the exact shape and thus distance can very and this same argument applies to all quantum things). In a perfect vacuum the length of this packet (distance from the middle to either end in the direction of travel) does not change with time for a photon because the dispersion relation for a photon in a perfect vacuum is linear in the direction of travel. The wave packet still spreads transversely over time. In any non-perfect vacuum case the dispersion in the direction of travel can be such that the wave packet spreads out or under the right circumstances gets shorter in basically any combination of directions relative to the direction of travel. However, your first statement never mentioned anything about three dimensions and your new statement is clearly self contradictory as there is clearly a middle ground between a sphere and a line (namely an arc). That and an increase in a wave packet length in the direction of travel doesn't even correspond to an expanding sphere. In fact it is perfectly possible for the center of wave packet to continue in a straight line (which they do in general unless acted on by a force) while the wave packet itself changes shape getting bigger or smaller. Wave packet shape and trajectory are largely (but not completely) separate things.
Long story short, a photon cannot travel in a straight line when it is absorbed by an atom as binding energy. It becomes even more localized than when it was a free photon.
When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist. The properties that it once had (i.e. at least some of the information it carried) is transferred to whatever absorbed it but the oscillating electric and magnetic fields that were that photon are gone completely. Before the absorption of the photon the electron clouds of the atom are stationary (disregarding thermal vibrations) and after the absorption of the photon they return to being stationary (disregarding identical thermal vibrations with maybe a slightly higher temperature depending on many factors). The excited electronic state has slightly different values of energy and orbital angular momentum which store some of the properties of the photon and the atom as a whole usually recoils a bit absorbing some of the photon's linear momentum and a little energy. After the absorption of the photon is finished there are no oscillations of any part of the atom that can be said to be a bound photon.
-
That is unnecessarily hostile.
When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist.
False. Following me here from physforum.com to harass me on a daily basis is hostile. Needlessly shoving information down my throat that I already know is also hostile, at both sites.
No, a photon does not cease to exist when it is absorbed. Particles don't just "snuff out" when they are annihilated. They are merely converted to mass. In a universe ruled by mass/energy conservation, nothing ever truly ceases to exist. That photon's energy is still there in the atom, but it is no longer a wave packet moving in a straight line forward motion, just like I said.
-
False. Following me here from physforum.com to harass me on a daily basis is hostile.
I've already proven that I did not follow you anywhere.
No, a photon does not cease to exist when it is absorbed. Particles don't just "snuff out" when they are annihilated. They are merely converted to mass. In a universe ruled by mass/energy conservation, nothing ever truly ceases to exist. That photon's energy is still there in the atom, but it is no longer a wave packet moving in a straight line forward motion, just like I said.
This statement is completely illogical. However, we have drifted significantly from the topic of this thread and should not discuss this further.
-
This statement is completely illogical. However, we have drifted significantly from the topic of this thread and should not discuss this further.
Hey, you're the one who brought up earthquakes when I was talking about photons. LOL
-
Hey, you're the one who brought up earthquakes when I was talking about photons. LOL
I request that you refrain from such attempted provocations in the future.
-
Hey, you're the one who brought up earthquakes when I was talking about photons. LOL
I request that you refrain from such attempted provocations in the future.
I request that you practice what you preach, earthquake photon.
-
I suggest that you both return to the topic in question and resolve your personal disputes via the private message board.......................Ethos
-
I suggest that you both return to the topic in question and resolve your personal disputes via the private message board.......................Ethos
Are you idealistic or just naive? That's not how this works. You're not familiar with this guy. He followed me here from physforum.com. That place was a madhouse. The wolves have been left in charge of the chicken coop. People like him are the reason I joined here in the first place. I WANT a forum with moderators. He's not going to resolve anything with me.
And I don't really care what the topic is, IF somebody makes a misstatement, defies fact, or contradicts what I know about science in a thread, I'm going to try to get a word in. This guy has been acting like the final authority on physics for almost a year now, and I'm not particularly happy to see him here. I truly hate it when people obfuscate the issues just to win an argument, like comparing photons to earthquakes which he just did a few posts back. Ridiculous.
-
Are you idealistic or just naive?
I'm not totally familiar with the dispute you two are involved in, I simply suggested that you both try to settle down a little. Has nothing to do with idealism and at my advanced age, I wouldn't consider myself naïve at all. What ever your problems are with each other, everyone has the right to express their views here at TNS.
If you don't care to engage each other, simply apply the ignore feature of our forum. Neither of you has the right to refuse the other's participation here. If you disagree with each other, it's easy enough to state your objections and allow everyone else to consider the merits of those objections. Problem solved!
As I've already suggested, if you can't get along with each other, acquaint each other with our ignore feature. It works for me, should also work for you.
And I don't really care what the topic is,
Well you should sir.............this is the reason we have these discussions, to learn. And it's part of the forum policy to try and keep replies pertinent to the topic in question when ever possible. When you find that objective impossible, simply ignore one another.
-
And I don't really care what the topic is,
Well you should sir.............this is the reason we have these discussions, to learn. And it's part of the forum policy to try and keep replies pertinent to the topic in question when ever possible. When you find that objective impossible, simply ignore one another.
That was taken out of context. Of course I care what the topic is, but nobody is going to learn anything if he posts contradictory information and nobody calls him on it or ignores it just because it was off topic.
Now, would you like to say something about photons or black holes, or are you just here to sit in for my parents? Because I came here to talk about science, not to get scolded.
-
Now, would you like to say something about photons or black holes, or are you just here to sit in for my parents?
Listen my friend, I was only making a suggestion regarding forum behavior. If you feel scolded, that's your problem and not mine.
As I formerly suggested, if you want to disregard another members contributions, simply ignore them. And to be clear, my suggestions were directed at you both and in no way meant to single you out. If you felt I was being unfair, I apologize for that misunderstanding.
-
Now, would you like to say something about photons or black holes, or are you just here to sit in for my parents?
Listen my friend, I was only making a suggestion regarding forum behavior. If you feel scolded, that's your problem and not mine.
As I formerly suggested, if you want to disregard another members contributions, simply ignore them. And to be clear, my suggestions were directed at you both and in no way meant to single you out. If you felt I was being unfair, I apologize for that misunderstanding.
Okay, so that's three posts in a row in this thread from you, and not one word about photons, black holes, or any kind of science. At least agyegy and I were arguing about physics. You're trying to get in that last word, that's all. Boring. Why not let the moderators do their job? You're not helping. Maybe that's why you have only five "thank you's" after more than a thousand posts, my friend. Sheesh.
-
I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".
-
I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".
Matter has mass and energy.
-
I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".
Matter has mass and energy.
Stating that Matter "has" mass and energy is not the same as: saying that (Matter "is" mass and energy). If you read what I posted, you'll notice that was explained there. Now I'm back to ignoring you BOX.
-
I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".
Matter has mass and energy.
Stating that Matter "has" mass and energy is not the same as: saying that (Matter "is" mass and energy). If you read what I posted, you'll notice that was explained there. Now I'm back to ignoring you BOX.
Energy is the property of an object, mass is a property of an object, are you trying to say they are the same thing?
''While mass is equivalent to energy,''
They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same.
Mass is kilos, energy is Jules, two different things.
-
They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same.
I was responding to an earlier post where a member said: "everything is energy" which is completely false. While mass and energy are equivalent, Matter and energy are not. The photon possesses energy but the photon "is not energy". The M in the equation: E=mc^2 is referring to mass and not matter.
Saying that; "the photon is energy" is like saying that "I am a cold" instead of "I have a cold". This mistake is repeated over and over again by people that are frankly ignorant about the difference between Mass and Matter.
-
Energy is the property of an object, mass is a property of an object, are you trying to say they are the same thing?
''While mass is equivalent to energy,''
They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same.
Mass is kilos, energy is Jules, two different things.
One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property. The only reason we ever thought they were different is that some things like light have no rest frame, thus no invariant mass, and some things like electrons do have a rest frame, thus they have an invariant mass. Invariant mass is much easier to measure and define so it came first and then later we learned to measure non-invariant properties that at the time didn't seem to impact the mass of the object and we called those properties energy. The theory of Relativity has shown us these two seemingly different properties are actually the same thing and that if we measure carefully enough (or add enough of that non-invariant property) we will see a change in mass as we change the non-invariant properties like relative velocity.
If you stop and think about it for a bit this actually makes the Universe much simpler on the whole. There is only one property (either mass or energy you can pick) that has invariant and non-invariant components. The invariant component appears to be controlled via interaction with the Higgs field.
-
They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same.
I was responding to an earlier post where a member said: "everything is energy" which is completely false. While mass and energy are equivalent, Matter and energy is not. The photon possesses energy but the photon "is not energy". The M in the equation: E=mc^2 is referring to mass and not matter.
Saying that; "the photon is energy" is like saying that "I am a cold" instead of "I have a cold". This mistake is repeated over and over again by people that are frankly ignorant about the difference between Mass and Matter.
arr, I see now, the common mistake people make is that when looking up a definition they often don't type physics definition, standard definition of mass is like a mass population, a collective where physics mass is kilos, that is why people get confused. Yes M in E=mc² is simply mass and a kilo amount.
-
Energy is the property of an object, mass is a property of an object, are you trying to say they are the same thing?
''While mass is equivalent to energy,''
They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same.
Mass is kilos, energy is Jules, two different things.
One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property. The only reason we ever thought they were different is that some things like light have no rest frame, thus no invariant mass, and some things like electrons do have a rest frame, thus they have an invariant mass. Invariant mass is much easier to measure and define so it came first and then later we learned to measure non-invariant properties that at the time didn't seem to impact the mass of the object and we called those properties energy. The theory of Relativity has shown us these two seemingly different properties are actually the same thing and that if we measure carefully enough (or add enough of that non-invariant property) we will see a change in mass as we change the non-invariant properties like relative velocity.
If you stop and think about it for a bit this actually makes the Universe much simpler on the whole. There is only one property (either mass or energy you can pick) that has invariant and non-invariant components. The invariant component appears to be controlled via interaction with the Higgs field.
Excellent post agyejy................
-
arr, I see now, the common mistake people make is that when looking up a definition they often don't type physics definition, standard definition of mass is like a mass population, a collective where physics mass is kilos, that is why people get confused. Yes M in E=mc² is simply mass and a kilo amount.
Excellent Mr. Box, ..................now that you have become a little more flexible with your views, I may decide to take you off my ignore list.
-
arr, I see now, the common mistake people make is that when looking up a definition they often don't type physics definition, standard definition of mass is like a mass population, a collective where physics mass is kilos, that is why people get confused. Yes M in E=mc² is simply mass and a kilo amount.
Excellent Mr. Box, ..................now that you have become a little more flexible with your views, I may decide to take you off my ignore list.
I am always flexible on my views, believe it or not I always see two sides to a piece of paper. I already know quite a bit about forces and energy, I have got to admit I do not see eye to eye with
''One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property.''
I am in no doubt this works for whatever purpose science uses it for, but I don't quite see the connection, I see mass is the newtons of an object at relative rest in an inertial reference frame, (is always accelerating Fn=9.81m/s2), is the amount of Newtons of force of inertia being equal to the amount of mass.
That is the relationship I see. Energy I see that as a separate process.
-
I am always flexible on my views, believe it or not I always see two sides to a piece of paper. I already know quite a bit about forces and energy, I have got to admit I do not see eye to eye with
''One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property.''
It would be advantageous for you Mr. Box to remember that definitions are very important when considering physics. For example; When people speak different languages, it becomes nearly impossible to share ideas, much less, the facts. This has been mentioned to you before my friend, but I don't think you took it to heart. Being familiar with Physical definitions is extremely important if one is going to be able to understand the points that are being made.
The difference between mass and matter is one example.
1. Matter is not the same as mass.
2. Mass and energy are equivalent; E=mc^2
3. Matter is not energy, however, matter possesses energy.
4. The photon, a particle of "Matter" possesses energy but has no mass.
5. Even though the photon has zero proper mass, what we call "rest mass", it still possesses energy in the form of momentum.
-
I am always flexible on my views, believe it or not I always see two sides to a piece of paper. I already know quite a bit about forces and energy, I have got to admit I do not see eye to eye with
''One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property.''
It would be advantageous for you Mr. Box to remember that definitions are very important when considering physics. For example; When people speak different languages, it becomes nearly impossible to share ideas, much less, the facts. This has been mentioned to you before my friend, but I don't think you took it to heart. Being familiar with Physical definitions is extremely important if one is going to be able to understand the points that are being made.
The difference between mass and matter is one example.
1. Matter is not the same as mass.
2. Mass and energy are equivalent; E=mc^2
3. Matter is not energy, however, matter possesses energy.
4. The photon, a particle of "Matter" possesses energy but has no mass.
5. Even though the photon has zero proper mass, what we call "rest mass", however, matter possesses energy
I am trying dead hard not to argue your views lol,
ok
1. yes
2. I still don't see the connection,
3.however, matter possesses energy ?????? I sort of see that energy is made within the matter by converting photons into energy. (convertual photons)
4. yes
5. yes
-
I consider that energy is something like this A interacts with B =E where (A) is light and (B) is object, photons being a sort of polymorphism ''matter'' that when interacting with any matter reacts.
-
I am trying dead hard not to argue your views lol,
ok
1. yes
2. I still don't see the connection,
3.however, matter possesses energy ?????? I sort of see that energy is made within the matter by converting photons into energy. (convertual photons)
4. yes
5. yes
Excellent Mr. Box, now we're getting some where. Let's take #2 first.
It's been proven through the experimental process that mass can be converted into energy. Case in point; Energy released by thermonuclear explosion.
When u-235 is bombarded by neutrons, a chain reaction occurs releasing vast amounts of energy. I'm sure you are aware of the process so to break it down into simple terms, the "total mass" which remains after the blast occurs is less than the "total mass" before the explosion.
The equation: E=mc^2 tells us that; the energy in any measure of mass is equivalent to that measure of mass times c^2.
In essence, this equation tells us that mass and energy are different manifestations of the same thing. That's why it is often referred to as "mass/energy".
While each manifestation reveals itself different from the other , "mass/energy" can still be thought of in terms of oneness. A simple example of something similar would be "water and ice".
I'll allow you to respond to my comments regarding #2 before we consider the questions you have about #3.
-
I am trying dead hard not to argue your views lol,
ok
1. yes
2. I still don't see the connection,
3.however, matter possesses energy ?????? I sort of see that energy is made within the matter by converting photons into energy. (convertual photons)
4. yes
5. yes
Excellent Mr. Box, now we're getting some where. Let's take #2 first.
It's been proven through the experimental process that mass can be converted into energy. Case in point; Energy released by thermonuclear explosion.
When u-235 is bombarded by neutrons, a chain reaction occurs releasing vast amounts of energy. I'm sure you are aware of the process so to break it down into simple terms, the "total mass" which remains after the blast occurs is less than the "total mass" before the explosion.
The equation: E=mc^2 tells us that; the energy in any measure of mass is equivalent to that measure of mass times c^2.
In essence, this equation tells us that mass and energy are different manifestations of the same thing. That's why it is often referred to as "mass/energy".
While each manifestation reveals itself different from the other , "mass/energy" can still be thought of in terms of oneness. A simple example of something similar would be "water and ice".
I'll allow you to respond to my comments regarding #2 before we consider the questions you have about #3.
Thank you, at this time I won't even pretend i understand E=mc², I will read your post a few more times to try and understand it. Please proceed we can come back to that one .
''u-235 ''' you mean Uranium and heavy water? then yes I understand.
added- to be honest I could not even provide a 1% argument against it, my thing is light and thinking about the things we can't see and relativistic affects.
arrr, you mean a nuke
-
Thank you, at this time I won't even pretend i understand E=mc², I will read your post a few more times to try and understand it. Please proceed we can come back to that one .
''u-235 ''' you mean Uranium and heavy water? then yes I understand.
We'll take your last sentence first............
U-235 is an isotope of uranium which occurs naturally as U-238. This isotope was used in the first A-bombs. Heavy water is an isotope of Hydrogen called "deuterium or the heavier tritium. These are used in the H-bomb.
So now we go on to the issue I have with #3.
Photons do not turn into energy. When a photon is absorbed by a solar cell as an example, it gives up it's mass of momentum to the cell and triggers the flow of electrons. Remember, matter and mass are not the same. The photon is matter which possesses mass as momentum and it's this mass that manifests itself as energy in this process.
I've got some pressing things right now, I'll get back with you tomorrow Box. Give these issues some thought and we'll go over it in greater detail tomorrow.
-
Thank you, at this time I won't even pretend i understand E=mc², I will read your post a few more times to try and understand it. Please proceed we can come back to that one .
''u-235 ''' you mean Uranium and heavy water? then yes I understand.
We'll take your last sentence first............
U-235 is an isotope of uranium which occurs naturally as U-238. This isotope was used in the first A-bombs. Heavy water is an isotope of Hydrogen called "deuterium or the heavier tritium. These are used in the H-bomb.
I clicked on and added to my other post while you were writing, yes I am familiar with the process, think I was having a dim moment sorry , replying to hasty.
So now we go on to the issue I have with #3.
Photons do not turn into energy. When a photon is absorbed by a solar cell as an example, it gives up it's mass of momentum to the cell and triggers the flow of electrons. Remember, matter and mass are not the same. The photon is matter which possesses mass as momentum. Matter doesn't turn into energy, it only changes from one form of matter to another.
Sort of what I put ''photons being a sort of polymorphism ''matter'' that when interacting with any matter reacts.''?
-
I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".
First of all, "matter" is not a technical enough term for physics." If you're going to quibble, I suggest you be precise about it.
Second of all, look up "binding energy." When a photon is absorbed by an atom, its energy becomes mass, plain and simple.
Third of all, mass/energy "equivalence" means exactly that. Mass can be converted to energy, and energy can be converted to mass. They are the same thing in different states.
Those ARE the facts.
-
They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same.
I was responding to an earlier post where a member said: "everything is energy" which is completely false. While mass and energy are equivalent, Matter and energy are not. The photon possesses energy but the photon "is not energy". The M in the equation: E=mc^2 is referring to mass and not matter.
Saying that; "the photon is energy" is like saying that "I am a cold" instead of "I have a cold". This mistake is repeated over and over again by people that are frankly ignorant about the difference between Mass and Matter.
That's a weak analogy. I am not a fundamental particle. I am made of billions of particles. Only if I was a single, fundamental particle could I "be" a unit of energy, despite having a cold.
Did you know that when matter and antimatter annihilate each other, you get energy? Sounds to me like "matter" is probably made of energy ...
-
One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property.The theory of Relativity has shown us these two seemingly different properties are actually the same thing
Excellent post agyejy................
So stop arguing with me for saying the same damned thing.
-
1. Matter is not the same as mass.
3. Matter is not energy, however, matter possesses energy.
I want you to provide a working technical definition for what you keep calling "matter." Is matter mass? Is mass matter? What's the difference? I took a lot of flack a couple of years ago in another forum when I spoke about "matter" being converted to energy. The general consensus of non-laymen was that "matter" is not technical and precise enough for this sort of discussion. This isn't a 1940's elementary school documentary on nuclear power.
-
When a photon is absorbed by a solar cell as an example, it gives up it's mass of momentum to the cell and triggers the flow of electrons.
Electrons don't flow. They oscillate. It's the energy that travels. A good mechanical analogy is dominoes. Stand them up in a row next to each other. Push the first one over, and they all fall down one by one, but it is the energy that travels from domino to domino. No dominoes actually travel from one end of the line to the other. They stay in a row, in order, as the energy travels from one to the next. Another example would be one of those desktop kinetic sculptures with a row of suspended stainless steel balls, bounce one at the end, and the two end balls bounce while the ones in the middle stay in place.
A photon is a carrier of the electromagnetic force. When a photon is absorbed, its electric and magnetic components tell the particle that absorbed it to oscillate faster. There is no "flow" of electrons.
-
]Stating that Matter "has" mass and energy is not the same as: saying that (Matter "is" mass and energy).
Energy is equivalent to mass times the speed of light squared. When a photon is absorbed, it stops travelling at the speed of light and contributes a tiny amount of mass to the system that absorbed it.
According to your own lexically ambiguous terminology, that photon travelling at c "is not" itself the mass, but it "has" the mass. Don't you understand how a photon acts as a carrier of information??
-
Second of all, look up "binding energy." When a photon is absorbed by an atom, its energy becomes mass, plain and simple.
A free traveling photon has a mass given by m=E/c². The mass of an absorbing atom changes by exactly that amount. Energy does not become mass.
Third of all, mass/energy "equivalence" means exactly that. Mass can be converted to energy, and energy can be converted to mass. They are the same thing in different states.
Equivalence means things are the same not that one thing can be converted into another. For starters mass and energy are properties and properties can't be in states. Beyond that we know that photons have a mass associated with their energy content it simply isn't an invariant mass.
Did you know that when matter and antimatter annihilate each other, you get energy? Sounds to me like "matter" is probably made of energy ...
When matter and antimatter annihilate you usually get photons that have the property of energy. The energy of the photons (or whatever comes out) is exactly equal to the energy of the particles that annihilated. It just so happens that some of the energy property of the particles was invariant and is generally known by us as the property mass. The particles that annihilated were not made of photons. There annihilation caused a coupling between their particle field and the electromagnetic field (assuming photons were created) and that coupling lead to the destruction of the particles and the creation of brand new never existed photons.
So stop arguing with me for saying the same damned thing.
Except you are not saying the same thing at all.
Electrons don't flow. They oscillate. It's the energy that travels. A good mechanical analogy is dominoes. Stand them up in a row next to each other. Push the first one over, and they all fall down one by one, but it is the energy that travels from domino to domino. No dominoes actually travel from one end of the line to the other. They stay in a row, in order, as the energy travels from one to the next. Another example would be one of those desktop kinetic sculptures with a row of suspended stainless steel balls, bounce one at the end, and the two end balls bounce while the ones in the middle stay in place.
In a DC current given enough time an electron will travel from one end of a wire to the other. The only thing that keeps this from happening in AC current is the fact that the voltage and thus current switches directions. It has nothing to do with you dominoes analogy. Electrons do scatter in most metals but they scatter off impurities, phonons, grain boundaries, imperfections, etc. Electrons in a metal do not in general scatter off other electrons. I know it sounds weird but basically all of our current scientific understanding of metals relies on single particle approximations that treat the electrons as moving in an average field created by all the other electrons in the metal and hence no electron-electron scattering. They certainly do not oscillate unless driven by an AC current. When you move to superconductors the electrons just don't scatter at all which is why the resistance is zero.
A photon is a carrier of the electromagnetic force. When a photon is absorbed, its electric and magnetic components tell the particle that absorbed it to oscillate faster. There is no "flow" of electrons.
Electrons in atoms do not oscillate in the manner in which you believe they do. The charge distribution around an atom is static before the interaction with the photon and then static again after the interaction with the photon. There is no faster oscillation in the atom after the absorption of the photon. There is no time varying electric or magnetic fields in the atom after the absorption. Further, this is a clear misunderstanding of how solar cells work. In a solar cell an electron in a solid is promoted from what is generally called the valence band to what is generally called the conduction band. Then clever engineering causes that electron in the conduction band to leave the solid and enter a wire where it can do work. Thus there most certainly is a flow of electrons. There is also a flow of things called holes which are basically the absence of an electron that should be in the valence band from the valence band. These holes behave a lot like the antiparticles of electrons. The holes are made to flow the opposite direction. The net effect is a current through the solar cell and an outside circuit. Both the conduction and valence bands are special bands of states that exist only in the solid and are delocalized (that is to say they don't belong to any one atom).
Energy is equivalent to mass times the speed of light squared. When a photon is absorbed, it stops travelling at the speed of light and contributes a tiny amount of mass to the system that absorbed it.
When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist period.
-
I want you to provide a working technical definition for what you keep calling "matter." Is matter mass?
My opinion is that matter should be defined - is a substance existing in physical presence but without solidity such as , light, gravity,
Mass is a resulting measurement property of an object relative to it's acceleration-rest inertial reference frame.
-
So stop arguing with me for saying the same damned thing.
Except you are not saying the same thing at all.
Thank you agyejy, it appears to me that the only one here looking for an argument is Craig...........
-
Regarding the motion of electrons:
One should also note that a circuit can be completed by a cathode ray, which is a beam of electrons moving through space (or at least a high vacuum). Cathode rays have been very firmly established as electron beams, and have been used in technologies such as the CRT screen, and more importantly, transmission electron microscopy (TEM), which allows us to visualize matter on nearly atomic scale (limited by the de Broglie wavelength of the electrons).
The motion of electrons through solids is much (MUCH) more complicated, even for simple cases such as monocrystalline metals, so we use approximations (like long-range ballistic motion single electrons or holes), but ultimately it is still electrons that are moving (at least in DC scenarios).
-
agyejy: "A free traveling photon has a mass given by m=E/c². The mass of an absorbing atom changes by exactly that amount. Energy does not become mass."
REPLY: E=mc^2 is actually a "relationship," defining E in terms of m and c. When a photon is absorbed by an atom, that atom gains mass. When a photon is emitted, the atom loses mass. In fact, in a particle accelerator, kinetic energy IS CONVERTED TO NEW MASS. So, you are incorrect. Mass does become energy, and vice versa.
agyejy: "Equivalence means things are the same not that one thing can be converted into another."
REPLY: Again, E=mc^2 is a "relationship," saying that every mass has an energy equivalent, and energy has a mass equivalent. Einstein's equation serves to convert units of mass to units of energy; no matter what system of measurement is used, there is still a relationship between the two. In fact, your statement doesn't make sense in terms of basic mathematics. Of course, 3 = 1 + 2 (three is equivalent to one plus two), and you can convert 1 + 2 to 3, but 3 is not "the same" as a 1 and a 2.
agyejy: "When matter and antimatter annihilate you usually get photons that have the property of energy. The energy of the photons (or whatever comes out) is exactly equal to the energy of the particles that annihilated. It just so happens that some of the energy property of the particles was invariant and is generally known by us as the property mass. The particles that annihilated were not made of photons. There annihilation caused a coupling between their particle field and the electromagnetic field (assuming photons were created) and that coupling lead to the destruction of the particles and the creation of brand new never existed photons."
REPLY: You (and I) often speak of photons being "created." Actually, energy cannot be created, OR destroyed. Neither can mass. They can only be CONVERTED from one form to another. This is the First Law of Thermodynamics. It's technically a "new photon," but the "stuff" that makes it up already existed. It was merely converted from mass to energy.
agyejy: "In a DC current given enough time an electron will travel from one end of a wire to the other. The only thing that keeps this from happening in AC current is the fact that the voltage and thus current switches directions. It has nothing to do with you dominoes analogy."
REPLY: "This is the fundamental difference between something that will carry electricity, and something that wont. It works a lot like dominoes. If you line up 1000 dominoes on end back to back with no space in between (analogous to the plastic) and tap the first domino in line, what will happen? Nothing. The dominoes are not free to move and they just stand there as though nothing happened. Now if you were to line them up again on end, but leave an inch or so between each domino (analogous to the aluminum) and then tap them again, would they just stand there? No, they would obviously fall down, one after another, until the last domino has fallen over at the end of the line.This is exactly how electricity works, and understanding this will make understanding the rest of the topic much easier. Electricity happens when a force moves the first electron on a surface where electrons are free to move, and this moving electron bumps into the next electron, and so on until the last free electron moves, and since the electrons can't fall over, they are instantly ready to repeat this process. If the last electron happens to come in contact with the initial pushing force, the cycle continues until there is no energy left."
SOURCE: http://seaperch.mit.edu/science_electricity.php
agyejy: "When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist period."
REPLY: False. It is converted to mass, it only ceases to exist as energy.
-
]Thank you agyejy, it appears to me that the only one here looking for an argument is Craig...........
False. I came here to talk about science. You still haven't said anything about science, but my name keeps showing up in your posts.
Say something about science, or shut your trap. This is a science forum. If I wanted to be harassed by a know-nothing, I would still be posting at physforum.com.
That's where he followed me from. You don't know anything about that, so maybe you should stay out of it and check your personal biases.
-
When a photon is absorbed by an atom, that atom gains mass. W
I disagree, when the object absorbs a photon it is converted into positive energy ''charging'' the protons making positive ions, these + ions then try to expand and want to annihilate the object by stretching/expanding the negative bond .
added- the object gains mass not because it gained mass but because it gained anti matter that is then attracted to ground.
-
When a photon is absorbed by an atom, that atom gains mass. W
I disagree, when the object absorbs a photon it is converted into positive energy ''charging'' the protons making positive ions, these + ions then try to expand and want to annihilate the object by stretching/expanding the negative bond .
I'm going to let someone else reply for me: "The mass of a hydrogen atom is 1.67353270×10−271.67353270×10−27 kg. If you add the masses of a proton and electron together then they come to 1.67353272×10−271.67353272×10−27 kg. The difference is about 13.6eV, which is the ionisation energy of hydrogen (though note that the experimental error in the masses isn't much less than the difference so this is only approximate).
"This shouldn't surprise you because you have to add energy (in the form of a 13.6eV photon) to dissociate a hydrogen atom into a free proton and electron, and this increases the mass in accordance with Einstein's famous equation E=mc2E=mc2. So this is a direct example of the sort of mass increase you describe.
"However you can't say this is an increase of mass of the electron or the proton. It's an increase in mass of the combined system. The invarient masses of the electron and proton are constants and not affected by whether they're in atoms or roaming freely. The change in mass is coming from a change in the binding energy of the system."
SOURCE: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149744/does-the-mass-of-an-electron-change-with-its-energy-state
REFERENCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy
-
added- the object gains mass not because it gained mass but because it gained anti matter that is then attracted to ground.
I think you missed the added part,
added- the object gains mass not because it gained mass but because it gained anti matter that is then attracted to ground making it have more mass which is not really mass,
Your maths means nothing to me sorry, the rational thinking and logic says negative is attracted to negative.
mass is negative
''anti-mass'' is positive.
-
I drew it you , just a rough scribble,
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Your maths means nothing to me sorry, the rational thinking and logic says negative is attracted to negative.
What maths? You mean the mass/energy equivalence formula? What rational thinking? What logic? Opposites attract, not the other way around. Are you familiar with magnets? LOL
-
Your maths means nothing to me sorry, the rational thinking and logic says negative is attracted to negative.
What maths? What rational thinking? What logic? Opposites attract, not the other way around.
E=mc² I have still not got my head around the relevance.
Yes opposites attract , but negatives attract negatives.
the arrows represent direction
+→-
-→+
+←→+
-→←-
it is the only possible way it can be.
added - I drew you a better diagram.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
E=mc² I have still not got my head around the relevance.
I'll try to explain it in layman's terms. I'm an amateur at Calculus, so I wouldn't be much help in that area anyway. That equation is about a relationship. Basically, when you confine energy, which wants to travel through space at the speed of light, into a tiny space to become part of a composite particle, that energy is "condensed to a slow vibration" to become mass.
Take a look at this model of a photon:
http://etherdais.pbworks.com/w/page/10174686/f/photon%20planes.jpg
That's a "bit" of energy in a sense. It has no mass. There are two energy components, two energy oscillations in two perpendicular planes, and the photon travels along the intersection of those two planes, which is a line (basically, a "geodesic"). But, the intersection of three planes is a point, not a line. As such, when a photon is absorbed by a "point particle," all that energy travelling at light speed becomes confined to a "point." The photon's 2D energy is converted to 3D mass at that point, the oscillation become restricted in space at the intersection of the 3 planes, and the particle that absorbed it becomes a tiny bit more massive. In a sense, mass is really just a property energy has when it is confined to a location in space as opposed to being allowed to travel through space at light speed.
Lately, I have been entertaining the idea that a photon, or energy in general, is really just a "ripple" in spacetime. When you confine those "ripples" to a location in spacetime at the intersection of three planes, I think the ripples get "tangled up" in a sense. Particles are like "tangles" in the fabric of spacetime. When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, at least in my view of late, gravity is like "tension" applied to the fabric of spacetime by "tangled" particles.
-
E=mc² I have still not got my head around the relevance.
I'll try to explain it in layman's terms. I'm an amateur at Calculus, so I wouldn't be much help in that area anyway. That equation is about a relationship. Basically, when you confine energy, which wants to travel through space at the speed of light, into a tiny space to become part of an atom for any length of time, that energy is "condensed to a slow vibration" to become mass.
Take a look at this model of a photon:
http://etherdais.pbworks.com/w/page/10174686/f/photon%20planes.jpg
That's a "bit" of energy in a sense. It has no mass. There are two energy components travelling along two perpendicular planes. But, the intersection of three planes is a point. As such, when a photon is absorbed by a "point particle," all that energy travelling at light speed becomes confined to a "point." The photon's 2D energy is converted to 3D mass at that point, the oscillation become restricted in space at the intersection of the 3 planes, and the particle that absorbed it becomes a tiny bit more massive.
Lately, I have been entertaining the idea that a photon, or energy in general, is really just a "ripple" in spacetime. When you confine those "ripples" to a location in spacetime at the intersection of three planes, I think the ripples get "tangled up" in a sense. Particles are like "tangles" in the fabric of spacetime. When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, at least in my view of late, gravity is like "tension" applied to the fabric of spacetime by "tangled" particles.
In a similar sort of way I consider atoms are like little capacitors that absorb the photons to store them . I consider the vibration is the ''clanging'' of quarks .
50 seconds into this video is a comparative to the ''clanging'' i mean.
''When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, ''
Isn't that string theory?
-
''When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, ''
Isn't that string theory?
I would like very much to believe so. I am literally trying to "tie together" all these various disciplines. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, they don't always play so well together. I don't think I'll come up with a GUT or TOE, but it's fun to try.
I'm no expert on string theory, though I've read a couple of books about it by Brian Greene and talked about it some at another forum. Here's my take, if you are interested.
String theory is more like, there's a single type of fundamental particle that all the other fundamental particles are made out of. I liken it to a string on a guitar or piano; music is definitely a helpful analogy here, at least for me.
A string on an instrument can be stretched loosely or tightly. That affects how it vibrates. It can also be a heavy string or light string, which also affects how it vibrates. Different strings have "pitches" that work well together because they are mathematically and harmonically linked. One string is like a single "note." The simplest atom is like three quarks singing a single proton "chord" in harmony using tenor, alto and soprano voices (though they keep switching identies while they are doing so, but that's another story), while an electron rounds out the chord, singing bass. A molecule is a "song." The world we see around us is "music."
-
''When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, ''
Isn't that string theory?
I would like very much to believe so. I am literally trying to "tie together" all these various disciplines. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, they don't always play so well together. I don't think I'll come up with a GUT or TOE, but it's fun to try.
I'm no expert on string theory, though I've read a couple of books about it by Brian Greene and talked about it some at another forum. Here's my take, if you are interested.
String theory is more like, there's a single type of fundamental particle that all the other fundamental particles are made out of. I liken it to a string on a guitar or piano; music is definitely a helpful analogy here, at least for me.
A string on an instrument can be stretched loosely or tightly. That affects how it vibrates. It can also be a heavy string or light string, which also affects how it vibrates. Different strings have "pitches" that work well together because they are mathematically and harmonically linked. One string is like a single "note." The simplest atom is like three quarks singing a single proton "chord" in harmony using tenor, alto and soprano voices, while an electron rounds out the chord, singing bass. A molecule is a "song." The world we see around us is "music."
Interesting, I have mentioned before about light being the conductor and the orchestra keep in synchronisation with the conductor. I have also in my recent thoughts considered the ''tip'' of light, what I call , The Box singularity affect ''tip'' , to be like ''split ends'' . So I suppose entangled strings ''hidden'' by the box singularity, with visual split ends would make an interesting thought.
-
agyejy: "A free traveling photon has a mass given by m=E/c². The mass of an absorbing atom changes by exactly that amount. Energy does not become mass."
REPLY: E=mc^2 is actually a "relationship," defining E in terms of m and c. When a photon is absorbed by an atom, that atom gains mass. When a photon is emitted, the atom loses mass. In fact, in a particle accelerator, kinetic energy IS CONVERTED TO NEW MASS. So, you are incorrect. Mass does become energy, and vice versa.
This has already been addressed. Mass and energy are two different words for the same property. They also happen to have different units. The equation E = m*c² is nothing but a formula for the conversion of units. Energy does not become mass because energy is mass and mass is energy. The fact that there are two different names for the same property is just a matter of historical ignorance about nature.
agyejy: "Equivalence means things are the same not that one thing can be converted into another."
REPLY: Again, E=mc^2 is a "relationship," saying that every mass has an energy equivalent, and energy has a mass equivalent. Einstein's equation serves to convert units of mass to units of energy; no matter what system of measurement is used, there is still a relationship between the two. In fact, your statement doesn't make sense in terms of basic mathematics. Of course, 3 = 1 + 2 (three is equivalent to one plus two), and you can convert 1 + 2 to 3, but 3 is not "the same" as a 1 and a 2.
Well for starters 3 is the same as 1 + 2 that is what equality means. Beyond that you are now arguing that a length that is expressed in centimeters is not the same thing as an identical length expressed in inches which is clearly absurd. Units of energy and units of mass are just different units to label the same quantity and converting units doesn't change the underlying quantity just like expressing a length in centimeters instead of inches doesn't change the actual length.
agyejy: "When matter and antimatter annihilate you usually get photons that have the property of energy. The energy of the photons (or whatever comes out) is exactly equal to the energy of the particles that annihilated. It just so happens that some of the energy property of the particles was invariant and is generally known by us as the property mass. The particles that annihilated were not made of photons. There annihilation caused a coupling between their particle field and the electromagnetic field (assuming photons were created) and that coupling lead to the destruction of the particles and the creation of brand new never existed photons."
REPLY: You (and I) often speak of photons being "created." Actually, energy cannot be created, OR destroyed. Neither can mass. They can only be CONVERTED from one form to another. This is the First Law of Thermodynamics. It's technically a "new photon," but the "stuff" that makes it up already existed. It was merely converted from mass to energy.
This argument is ridiculous. If took apart of a table and constructed a chair from the pieces I would have created that chair. No sane person would argue that the chair I constructed was not created simply because the pieces existed in another form. There was no photon and then there was a photon hence the photon was created. The fact that the raw material existed beforehand does not change that. Also, as addressed above you cannot convert mass to energy because mass and energy describe the same property.
agyejy: "In a DC current given enough time an electron will travel from one end of a wire to the other. The only thing that keeps this from happening in AC current is the fact that the voltage and thus current switches directions. It has nothing to do with you dominoes analogy."
REPLY: "This is the fundamental difference between something that will carry electricity, and something that wont. It works a lot like dominoes. If you line up 1000 dominoes on end back to back with no space in between (analogous to the plastic) and tap the first domino in line, what will happen? Nothing. The dominoes are not free to move and they just stand there as though nothing happened. Now if you were to line them up again on end, but leave an inch or so between each domino (analogous to the aluminum) and then tap them again, would they just stand there? No, they would obviously fall down, one after another, until the last domino has fallen over at the end of the line.This is exactly how electricity works, and understanding this will make understanding the rest of the topic much easier. Electricity happens when a force moves the first electron on a surface where electrons are free to move, and this moving electron bumps into the next electron, and so on until the last free electron moves, and since the electrons can't fall over, they are instantly ready to repeat this process. If the last electron happens to come in contact with the initial pushing force, the cycle continues until there is no energy left."
SOURCE: http://seaperch.mit.edu/science_electricity.php
That source is atrocious (a website about a deep sea robotics is not a good place to learn about the quantum mechanics of metals). It is trying to use an almost completely classical description for something that is inherently quantum mechanical. I actually tried looking around and most basic explanations of conduction have the same exact problem. The general thing to do is to treat the electrons like they form an ideal gas. In an ideal gas the mean free path is expressed as 1/(π*d²*ρ) where d is the diameter of the particles and ρ is the density of the particles. The density of free electrons in say copper (only the free electrons can conduct) is 8.5*10^28*(1/m^3) the classical radius of an electron (which is definitely too big and generally an electron is thought to not have a radius at all) is about 2.8*10^-15 m giving a diameter of 5.6*10^-15 m. Putting that into the mean free path calculation above says that on average and electron in copper should travel about 12 cm before it hits another electron if we treat the electrons as classical particles. We know that the resistance of a metal wire is directly related to the mean free path of the electrons in the wire. For copper at room temperature we can calculate the actual mean free path of the electrons from actual measured properties with our classical assumptions. When we do this we get a mean free path of electrons in copper of about 40 nm. This number is much much much smaller than 12 cm. Which means that electrons basically always collide with something else (phonons, lattice defects, etc) before they collide with each other or in other words electron-electron collisions cannot explain the conduction of electricity. To put it another way even though the density of the electrons seems high the electrons are actually relatively far apart compared to their size and therefore do not interact. Of course for simplicity we've ignored the uncertainty principle which will change the numbers a bit but will not make up the difference in size between 40 nm and 12 cm.
agyejy: "When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist period."
REPLY: False. It is converted to mass, it only ceases to exist as energy.
The photon always had a mass given by m=E/c^2. It is somewhat difficult (almost impossible) to measure the mass of something moving relative to you. If you try to chase the photon you find that as your speed relative to your initial inertial frame approaches the speed of light the energy of the photon you are chasing approaches zero and therefore so does its mass (assuming you can measure the mass of something moving). This is what is meant when we say a photon has a rest (or invariant) mass or zero. The photon still has a mass it just changes as your velocity changes relative to whatever source created the photon.
I'm going to let someone else reply for me: "The mass of a hydrogen atom is 1.67353270×10−271.67353270×10−27 kg. If you add the masses of a proton and electron together then they come to 1.67353272×10−271.67353272×10−27 kg. The difference is about 13.6eV, which is the ionisation energy of hydrogen (though note that the experimental error in the masses isn't much less than the difference so this is only approximate).
"This shouldn't surprise you because you have to add energy (in the form of a 13.6eV photon) to dissociate a hydrogen atom into a free proton and electron, and this increases the mass in accordance with Einstein's famous equation E=mc2E=mc2. So this is a direct example of the sort of mass increase you describe.
"However you can't say this is an increase of mass of the electron or the proton. It's an increase in mass of the combined system. The invarient masses of the electron and proton are constants and not affected by whether they're in atoms or roaming freely. The change in mass is coming from a change in the binding energy of the system."
SOURCE: http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/149744/does-the-mass-of-an-electron-change-with-its-energy-state [nofollow]
REFERENCE: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_energy [nofollow]
A photon that you see as having 13.6 eV of energy has a mass of 2.42442019*10^-35 kilograms. This holds true as long as you stay in the inertial reference frame where the photon has an energy of 13.6 eV. If you change your inertial reference frame both the energy and mass change because they measure the same physical property.
I'll try to explain it in layman's terms. I'm an amateur at Calculus, so I wouldn't be much help in that area anyway. That equation is about a relationship. Basically, when you confine energy, which wants to travel through space at the speed of light, into a tiny space to become part of a composite particle, that energy is "condensed to a slow vibration" to become mass.
Take a look at this model of a photon:
http://etherdais.pbworks.com/w/page/10174686/f/photon%20planes.jpg [nofollow]
That's a "bit" of energy in a sense. It has no mass. There are two energy components, two energy oscillations in two perpendicular planes, and the photon travels along the intersection of those two planes, which is a line (basically, a "geodesic"). But, the intersection of three planes is a point, not a line. As such, when a photon is absorbed by a "point particle," all that energy travelling at light speed becomes confined to a "point." The photon's 2D energy is converted to 3D mass at that point, the oscillation become restricted in space at the intersection of the 3 planes, and the particle that absorbed it becomes a tiny bit more massive. In a sense, mass is really just a property energy has when it is confined to a location in space as opposed to being allowed to travel through space at light speed.
Lately, I have been entertaining the idea that a photon, or energy in general, is really just a "ripple" in spacetime. When you confine those "ripples" to a location in spacetime at the intersection of three planes, I think the ripples get "tangled up" in a sense. Particles are like "tangles" in the fabric of spacetime. When there is a tangle in your sweater, it pulls on the strings of the fabric. In a sense, at least in my view of late, gravity is like "tension" applied to the fabric of spacetime by "tangled" particles.
I have previously addressed why all of this is wrong and counter to observations of nature.
I would like very much to believe so. I am literally trying to "tie together" all these various disciplines. Relativity, quantum mechanics, string theory, they don't always play so well together. I don't think I'll come up with a GUT or TOE, but it's fun to try.
String theory is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and relativity therefore by definition string theory must play well with both quantum mechanics and relativity. When someone demonstrates that an idea you come up with violates the observed properties of nature that idea needs to be discarded. Refusing to do so is unscientific and does nothing but prevent a proper understanding of nature and science.
-
This has already been addressed. Mass and energy are two different words for the same property.
No they are not,I have already addressed this, ,mass is the same as Newtons of force, energy is a group term for various sub groups.
''mass, in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight, which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a body.''
However it is the same thing at relative rest.
Energy - ''power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines.''
-
To define in my own terms, mass if the rest force of an object relative to an inertial reference frame.
-
No they are not,I have already addressed this, ,mass is the same as Newtons of force, energy is a group term for various sub groups.
These words when arranged in this manner have no meaning and certainly do not trump the established science of relativity which is supported by over 100 years of experimental verification.
''mass, in physics, the quantity of matter in a body regardless of its volume or of any forces acting on it. The term should not be confused with weight, which is the measure of the force of gravity (see gravitation) acting on a body.''
However it is the same thing at relative rest. and also back to front
Energy - ''power derived from the utilization of physical or chemical resources, especially to provide light and heat or to work machines.''
Those definitions are highly unscientific and based on the old understanding of the nature of energy and matter that predated relativity. Relativity showed us that in truth such distinctions are meaningless and that the only reason we do not observe a change in mass when the energy of a system changes is that or measurements of mass are generally to crude and imprecise to notice. I have said all of this previously. It takes a considerable amount of time for changes in understanding at the forefront of scientific study to filter into the pedagogy of university level courses. For example, a lot of the language used when teaching university level thermodynamics contains vestiges of the theory of caloric which was the supposed substance that was responsible for the phenomena of heat that was last used in the 1800s (i.e. we still talk about heat flowing and heat capacities as if heat is a physical substance). It takes even longer for those changes to filter into high school level science course and actually there is no guarantee they ever will. Therefore it isn't particularly surprising that easily searchable definitions contain anachronistic reasoning that is at odds with current scientific understanding.
To define in my own terms, mass if the rest force of an object in an inertial reference frame.
This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.
-
String theory is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and relativity therefore by definition string theory must play well with both quantum mechanics and relativity. When someone demonstrates that an idea you come up with violates the observed properties of nature that idea needs to be discarded. Refusing to do so is unscientific and does nothing but prevent a proper understanding of nature and science.
I commend you sir for being well studied and physically literate, a welcome addition to the science forum here at TNS. A bit belatedly, I must confess, but I'd like to welcome you to the forum agyejy, ................enjoy!
-
String theory is an attempt to unify quantum mechanics and relativity therefore by definition string theory must play well with both quantum mechanics and relativity. When someone demonstrates that an idea you come up with violates the observed properties of nature that idea needs to be discarded. Refusing to do so is unscientific and does nothing but prevent a proper understanding of nature and science.
I commend you sir for being well studied and physically literate, a welcome addition to the science forum here at TNS. A bit belatedly, I must confess, but I'd like to welcome you to the forum agyejy, ................enjoy!
He does seem to know alot.
-
This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.
That's what it means though, mass is the amount of kilos of matter at rest on the scales.
The matter is still under the influence of gravity , the matter is still in a state of acceleration but at rest applying force of Newtons pushing against the ground.
Mass - is the measurement of matters force while at rest in an inertial reference frame.
-
This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.
That's what it means though, mass is the amount of kilos of matter at rest on the scales.
The matter is still under the influence of gravity , the matter is still in a state of acceleration but at rest applying force of Newtons pushing against the ground.
Mass - is the measurement of matters force while at rest in an inertial reference frame.
What you are describing is weight. Weight is well known to be a different concept to that of mass. The measured weight of an object depends on the gravitational field in which it is measured. This is why we say things weigh less on the Moon than on Earth.
-
This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.
That's what it means though, mass is the amount of kilos of matter at rest on the scales.
The matter is still under the influence of gravity , the matter is still in a state of acceleration but at rest applying force of Newtons pushing against the ground.
Mass - is the measurement of matters force while at rest in an inertial reference frame.
What you are describing is weight. Weight is well known to be a different concept to that of mass. The measured weight of an object depends on the gravitational field in which it is measured. This is why we say things weigh less on the Moon than on Earth.
I big to differ, weigh a 1 kilo mass on earth
it will weigh less on the moon .
I know F=ma , if the F=ma is less, the object has less mass.
added - sorry that didn't sound right , my apologies for rushing.
if there is less force of gravity, there is less newtons, the object will ''weight'' to have less mass.
Drop an object out of an aeroplane on a set of scales, it will have no mass.
added- imagine your mass is about 45 kilogram, 45 kilogram is a result of the centripetal force pulling you ''into'' the ground while at relative rest mass.
44.145N=45kg
-
I big to differ, weigh a 1 kilo mass on earth
it will weigh less on the moon .
That is the point I just made to you. Weight is the force of gravity that acts on an object. Any attempt to define mass as a force is simply a reference to the potential weight of said object. Force and mass are related by the concepts of inertia and gravity but that is all. You cannot use force to define mass.
I know F=ma , if the F=ma is less, the object has less mass.
Not really. The acceleration could also be less. This is what happens when you measure the weight of an object on the Moon when compared to the Earth. On the Moon the force on the object is less because the acceleration is less because the gravitational attraction is less. The mass stays the same. Now if you stay on the Earth and measure the weight of two different objects the one with the smaller mass will produce a smaller weight. Basically if the only piece of information that you have is that the force due to gravity (e.g. weight) is less in one situation than the other you cannot tell if the difference is due to differences in mass or acceleration due to gravity. You need more information like if someone were to tell you the same exact object was used in both situations then you would know the mass would be the same (due to the accepted definition of mass) and thus the change in force due to gravity (e.g. weight) was due to a change in the gravitational acceleration.
if there is less force of gravity, there is less newtons, the object will ''weight'' to have less mass.
Drop an object out of an aeroplane on a set of scales, it will have no mass.
This is again a confusion of the meaning of weight and the meaning of mass. Weight is proportional to mass and the constant or proportionality is the acceleration of the mass. A scale does not measure mass it measures weight. It does this by measuring the force needed to counteract the force of gravity. If the scale and the object you are trying to weigh are in free-fall the scale will read zero because there are no forces acting between the scale and the object. This does not change the mass of the object.
added- imagine your mass is about 45 kilogram, 45 kilogram is a result of the centripetal force pulling you ''into'' the ground while at relative rest mass.
No it is not. If your mass is 45 kilograms it is 45 kilograms on Earth, on the Moon, and in space far away from any gravitational body. You can measure your mass in space far away from any gravitational body by applying a force to yourself (say via a rocket) and measuring the resulting acceleration. People often become confused because we often quote weight in terms of units of mass. The only reason we can do this is because when on Earth and not accelerating relative to Earth we know the gravitational acceleration is 9.8 m/s² and we built that conversion factor into our scales. These scales cease to give accurate readings when they are removed from Earth or are accelerating with respect to Earth.
44.145N=45kg
For starters you are off by a factor of 10. On Earth where gravitational acceleration is roughly 9.81 m/s² an object with a mass of 45 kg produces a force of 441.45 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Earth's surface. On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s² and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Moon's surface. The object has the same mass on the Earth and on the Moon. The only difference is the gravitational acceleration and thus the weight.
-
For starters you are off by a factor of 10. On Earth where gravitational acceleration is roughly 9.81 m/s² an object with a mass of 45 kg produces a force of 441.45 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Earth's surface. On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s² and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Moon's surface. The object has the same mass on the Earth and on the Moon. The only difference is the gravitational acceleration and thus the weight.
I know most of the explanation you just give. What I am not getting is this, we determine the mass of an object by ''weighing'' it on a set of scales. Mass is defined in kilogram.
The object on the scales presses down on the scales because of the force of Newtons being applied. The object will press down until the scales ''level'' out.
We call the result the mass of the object,
you say - ''The object has the same mass on the Earth and on the Moon''
How is this possible?
You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s² and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''
So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass,
so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?
-
For starters you are off by a factor of 10. On Earth where gravitational acceleration is roughly 9.81 m/s² an object with a mass of 45 kg produces a force of 441.45 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Earth's surface. On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s² and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 Newtons when not accelerating relative to the Moon's surface. The object has the same mass on the Earth and on the Moon. The only difference is the gravitational acceleration and thus the weight.
I know most of the explanation you just give. What I am not getting is this, we determine the mass of an object by ''weighing'' it on a set of scales. Mass is defined in kilogram.
The object on the scales presses down on the scales because of the force of Newtons being applied. The object will press down until the scales ''level'' out.
We call the result the mass of the object,
you say - ''The object has the same mass on the Earth and on the Moon''
How is this possible?
You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s² and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''
So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass,
so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?
As I said previously the scales we have here on Earth have been built to work on Earth. The scale measures the force and then uses the known gravitational acceleration on Earth to convert that force to a mass. The scale ceases to report the correct mass when moved to the Moon where the gravitational acceleration is different. It is a problem with how the scale was built. If you adjust the scale to use the gravitational acceleration of the Moon the scale will display the correct mass on the Moon and an incorrect mass on Earth.
-
As I said previously the scales we have here on Earth have been built to work on Earth. The scale measures the force and then uses the known gravitational acceleration on Earth to convert that force to a mass. The scale ceases to report the correct mass when moved to the Moon where the gravitational acceleration is different. It is a problem with how the scale was built. If you adjust the scale to use the gravitational acceleration of the Moon the scale will display the correct mass on the Moon and an incorrect mass on Earth.
Just no, everything is based and scaled of the Earth and mainly the physics of the earth. Mass is not a real thing, this is how it reads, mass is measured in Kg, all mass is attracted to mass, equivalent - all kg is attracted to kg.
User - what is mass?
science - it's the quantity of matter in a body
user - matter is the body , huh?
science - its measured in kg
user - so its the weight
science - no weight is newtons
user - huh? you are describing the same thing with different names.
Science definition is not great, we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter, and we should say that mass is -
The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.
added - this is the physics definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
With the most contradictory statement .
''Mass is not the same as weight, even though we often calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight with a spring scale ''
So even though we caught a fish and it looks like a fish, it isn't a fish. Makes no sense what so ever....
-
As I said previously the scales we have here on Earth have been built to work on Earth. The scale measures the force and then uses the known gravitational acceleration on Earth to convert that force to a mass. The scale ceases to report the correct mass when moved to the Moon where the gravitational acceleration is different. It is a problem with how the scale was built. If you adjust the scale to use the gravitational acceleration of the Moon the scale will display the correct mass on the Moon and an incorrect mass on Earth.
Just no, everything is based and scaled of the Earth and mainly the physics of the earth. Mass is not a real thing, this is how it reads, mass is measured in Kg, all mass is attracted to mass, equivalent - all kg is attracted to kg.
User - what is mass?
science - it's the quantity of matter in a body
user - matter is the body , huh?
science - its measured in kg
user - so its the weight
science - no weight is newtons
user - huh? you are describing the same thing with different names.
Science definition is not great, we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter, and we should say that mass is -
The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.
This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter and that the magnitude of the attraction of one object to a second object is directly proportional to the mass of the second object and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the objects. The attraction is the force on the first object due to the second object (or weight of the first object as measured on the second object) and changes based on the mass of the second object and distance between the center of the first object and second object. Once again mass and weight are very different concepts. They are related but distinct.
You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn.
added - this is the physics definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
With the most contradictory statement .
''Mass is not the same as weight, even though we often calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight with a spring scale ''
So even though we caught a fish and it looks like a fish, it isn't a fish. Makes no sense what so ever....
This is getting to a point where I'm beginning to question your honesty. This concept is amazingly simple and the logic behind it is completely straightforward and easy to follow. Your inability to understand something so simple is either wilful ignorance (for some unfathomable reason) or an act in order to upset people that do understand it.
-
This is getting to a point where I'm beginning to question your honesty. This concept is amazingly simple and the logic behind it is completely straightforward and easy to follow. Your inability to understand something so simple is either wilful ignorance (for some unfathomable reason) or an act in order to upset people that do understand it.
This is the game Mr. Box plays, and it's a ruse, a stratagem to lure the unsuspecting into arguments he has no intention of ever surrendering to the facts surrounding the issue. I've finally had to simply ignore him out of frustration and intend to stick to my guns with that goal in mind.
I for one, had hoped that he was just confused and tried numerous times to help him understand the error in his judgments. But alas, to no avail. I finally had to surrender to the possibility that he was presenting himself in this fashion to simply further the confusion. After studying many of his posts, I've come to the conclusion that he is not nearly as ignorant as it may first appear. The only conclusion left is that he's doing it on purpose and I've simply had enough of the nonsense.
If you intend to continue communication with him, be prepared to deal with the same thing over and over again. Truly, I hope I'm wrong about him and would be delighted if I'm found in error about his agenda. If that be the case, then I wish him all the luck and success in his pursuit of the truth.
-
As I said previously the scales we have here on Earth have been built to work on Earth. The scale measures the force and then uses the known gravitational acceleration on Earth to convert that force to a mass. The scale ceases to report the correct mass when moved to the Moon where the gravitational acceleration is different. It is a problem with how the scale was built. If you adjust the scale to use the gravitational acceleration of the Moon the scale will display the correct mass on the Moon and an incorrect mass on Earth.
Just no, everything is based and scaled of the Earth and mainly the physics of the earth. Mass is not a real thing, this is how it reads, mass is measured in Kg, all mass is attracted to mass, equivalent - all kg is attracted to kg.
User - what is mass?
science - it's the quantity of matter in a body
user - matter is the body , huh?
science - its measured in kg
user - so its the weight
science - no weight is newtons
user - huh? you are describing the same thing with different names.
Science definition is not great, we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter, and we should say that mass is -
The rest force measurement of a body at rest relative to an inertial accelerating reference frame.
This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter and that the magnitude of the attraction of one object to a second object is directly proportional to the mass of the second object and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the centers of the objects. The attraction is the force on the first object due to the second object (or weight of the first object as measured on the second object) and changes based on the mass of the second object and distance between the center of the first object and second object. Once again mass and weight are very different concepts. They are related but distinct.
You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn.
added - this is the physics definition
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass
With the most contradictory statement .
''Mass is not the same as weight, even though we often calculate an object's mass by measuring its weight with a spring scale ''
So even though we caught a fish and it looks like a fish, it isn't a fish. Makes no sense what so ever....
This is getting to a point where I'm beginning to question your honesty. This concept is amazingly simple and the logic behind it is completely straightforward and easy to follow. Your inability to understand something so simple is either wilful ignorance (for some unfathomable reason) or an act in order to upset people that do understand it.
It is quite clear now to me why you invaded this thread, you are clearly a troll and have come over here to try help your buddies get rid of me, anyone can clearly see you have been dishonest .
I clearly stated - we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter.
You reply - ''This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter.''
Obviously your agenda is not to read.
''You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. ''
I understand more than you do for a certainty. do not come into my threads quoting wiki and pretending you are a scientist, you will be soon shown that your ability to personally think is none existent. ....
-
This is getting to a point where I'm beginning to question your honesty. This concept is amazingly simple and the logic behind it is completely straightforward and easy to follow. Your inability to understand something so simple is either wilful ignorance (for some unfathomable reason) or an act in order to upset people that do understand it.
This is the game Mr. Box plays, and it's a ruse, a stratagem to lure the unsuspecting into arguments he has no intention of ever surrendering to the facts surrounding the issue. I've finally had to simply ignore him out of frustration and intend to stick to my guns with that goal in mind.
I for one, had hoped that he was just confused and tried numerous times to help him understand the error in his judgments. But alas, to no avail. I finally had to surrender to the possibility that he was presenting himself in this fashion to simply further the confusion. After studying many of his posts, I've come to the conclusion that he is not nearly as ignorant as it may first appear. The only conclusion left is that he's doing it on purpose and I've simply had enough of the nonsense.
If you intend to continue communication with him, be prepared to deal with the same thing over and over again. Truly, I hope I'm wrong about him and would be delighted if I'm found in error about his agenda. If that be the case, then I wish him all the luck and success in his pursuit of the truth.
Game? you are the only one playing games around here with your false pretences. I am one of the only few on here who actually does any science on here, most of you only know to quote wiki and have no idea how to do science or make any science of your own with values such as The Box Singularity.
I know what I have created stop trying to take me for a fool. I know I'm good because I always get good at what I want to get good at.
You said was going to ignore me, please do so, I do not wan't troll talking to me, I want a real scientist .
-
This arrangement of words also fails to have any meaning.
Then try a new arrangement until you manage to finally say something sensible.
(shrugs)
-
I've finally had to simply ignore him out of frustration and intend to stick to my guns with that goal in mind.
The only conclusion left is that he's doing it on purpose and I've simply had enough of the nonsense.
You have a bad habit of not talking about science. At least agyejy and TheBox can provoke a thought. Your posts are merely annoying. There are moderators. We don't need you to play our daddy. Say something about science, or be quiet please.
-
This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter.
FALSE, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I'll let an actual scientist speak for me this time:
https://www.physics.rutgers.edu/~strassler/
"The word Matter. “Matter” as a term is terribly ambiguous; there isn’t a universal definition that is context-independent. There are at least three possible definitions that are used in various places:
“Matter” can refer to atoms, the basic building blocks of what we think of as “material”: tables, air, rocks, skin, orange juice — and by extension, to the particles out of which atoms are made, including electrons and the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of an atom.
"OR it can refer to what are sometimes called the elementary “matter particles” of nature: electrons, muons, taus, the three types of neutrinos, the six types of quarks — all of the types of particles which are not the force particles (the photon, gluons, graviton and the W and Z particles.) Read here about the known apparently-elementary particles of nature. [The Higgs particle, by the way, doesn’t neatly fit into the classification of particles as matter particles and force particles, which was somewhat artificial to start with; I have a whole section about this classification below.]
"OR it can refer to classes of particles that are found out there, in the wider universe, and that on average move much more slowly than the speed of light.
"With any of these definitions, electrons are matter (although with the third definition they were not matter very early in the universe’s history, when it was much hotter than it is today.) With the second definition, muons are matter too, and so are neutrinos, even though they aren’t constituents of ordinary material. With the third definition, some neutrinos may or may not be matter, and dark matter is definitely matter, even if it turns out to be made from a new type of force particle. I’m really sorry this is so confusing, but you’ve no choice but to be aware of these different usages if you want to know what “matter” means in different people’s books and articles."
Source: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/
So, practice what you preach: "You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn."
-
This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter.
FALSE, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself.
"The word Matter. “Matter” as a term is terribly ambiguous; there isn’t a universal definition that is context-independent. There are at least three possible definitions that are used in various places:
“Matter” can refer to atoms, the basic building blocks of what we think of as “material”: tables, air, rocks, skin, orange juice — and by extension, to the particles out of which atoms are made, including electrons and the protons and neutrons that make up the nucleus of an atom.
"OR it can refer to what are sometimes called the elementary “matter particles” of nature: electrons, muons, taus, the three types of neutrinos, the six types of quarks — all of the types of particles which are not the force particles (the photon, gluons, graviton and the W and Z particles.) Read here about the known apparently-elementary particles of nature. [The Higgs particle, by the way, doesn’t neatly fit into the classification of particles as matter particles and force particles, which was somewhat artificial to start with; I have a whole section about this classification below.]
"OR it can refer to classes of particles that are found out there, in the wider universe, and that on average move much more slowly than the speed of light.
"With any of these definitions, electrons are matter (although with the third definition they were not matter very early in the universe’s history, when it was much hotter than it is today.) With the second definition, muons are matter too, and so are neutrinos, even though they aren’t constituents of ordinary material. With the third definition, some neutrinos may or may not be matter, and dark matter is definitely matter, even if it turns out to be made from a new type of force particle. I’m really sorry this is so confusing, but you’ve no choice but to be aware of these different usages if you want to know what “matter” means in different people’s books and articles."
Source: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/
So, practice what you preach: "You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn."
I completely agree the definition of matter is terribly ambiguous. At the moment I have it defined in my theory ambiguously
Matter - Solidity or substance that occupies space
I am working on this to try to direct it to an exact point of something rather than an ambiguous point.
I think we can either call photons and like matter or we can call particle solidity matter, at the moment it describes both but they are different so should be distinguishable.
How about matter for particles of solidity and convertual matter for photons etc?
-
You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s² and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''
So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass,
so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?
Let's say you were on a spacewalk outside a spacecraft. Far above the earth, you are weightless, and so is the spacecraft. However, if you get in between that spacecraft and something else, you will get crushed by its mass despite the "weightless" conditions. That's the difference between mass and weight.
-
You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s² and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''
So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass,
so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?
Let's say you were on a spacewalk outside a spacecraft. Far above the earth, you are weightless, and so is the spacecraft. However, if you get in between that spacecraft and something else, you will get crushed by its mass despite the "weightless" conditions. That's the difference between mass and weight.
When you raise an object of the ground, the mass of the object increase relative to the rest mass, an example -the object of 45 kg hits the ground at an equivalent to 90 kg. ?
-
You also said - ''On the Moon the gravitational acceleration is 1.63 m/s² and the same 45 kg object produces a force of 73.35 ''
So if we took our object and scales to the moon, the object will have less ''press'' on the scales, by there being less force on the moon, so the result will be less kilogram, which is less mass,
so how do you account for the seemingly contradiction of what you said quoted in bold?
Let's say you were on a spacewalk outside a spacecraft. Far above the earth, you are weightless, and so is the spacecraft. However, if you get in between that spacecraft and something else, you will get crushed by its mass despite the "weightless" conditions. That's the difference between mass and weight.
it is the speed and pressure that crushes you not the mass in that instant,
If the spaceship was a set of scales the scales will measure a greater mass at the point of contact for an instant before the spaceship is sent hurling through space.
Rest mass is different to potential mass. An object in a lesser acceleration inertial reference frame will have less mass at rest than an object with a greater mass in a greater field of acceleration, in another words if an object was on an event horizon to a black hole , it will have a greater mass than if it wasn't.
There is very simple experiment you can do,
place a 1 kg object on a set of scales, the scales will show 1 kg of mass at rest, raise the object in the air a couple of meters, drop the object, the scales now reads for an instant an increase in mass.
-
place a 1 kg object on a set of scales, the scales will show 1 kg of mass at rest, raise the object in the air a couple of meters, drop the object, the scales now reads for an instant an increase in mass.
That's different. In a way, what you did was demonstrate the potential to turn kinetic energy into mass, LOL
Here's a better experiment. Take your scale with you on an elevator. Step on it and check your weight. Now, press a button to go up. You now weigh more. Press it again to go down, this time you weigh less. At no point did your mass change.
Now, imagine you are on your scale in the elevator, and you don't push a button, but rather, the Earth suddenly increases to double its mass. You will weigh twice as much, even though your mass did not change. You would also feel like the elevator was going up, even though it was standing still.
This is what scientists are talking about when they say "gravity equals acceleration."
Speed has nothing to do with that. Well, maybe not "nothing," but at least in this particular context. If you are spacewalking, something happens, and now you are pinned between two massive spacecraft moving toward one another at a rate of only one centimeter per second, you're just going to get crushed in slow motion, that's all. Again, that's the difference between mass and weight. Weight is a measurement of mass in a SPECIFIC environment, as in, you would weigh less on the Moon, more on Jupiter, less on an elevator going down, more on an elevator going up. Mass is a measure of mass in ANY environment. Trust me, the mass of two weightless spacecraft is more than sufficient to put the squeeze on you and your musings.
-
Here's a better experiment. Take your scale with you on an elevator. Step on it and check your weight. Now, press a button to go up. You now weigh more. Press it again to go down, this time you weigh less. At no point did your mass change.
Now, imagine you are on your scale in the elevator, and you don't push a button, but rather, the Earth suddenly increases to double its mass. You will weigh twice as much, even though your mass did not change. You would also feel like the elevator was going up, even though it was standing still.
The statement you made is contradictory, if something on a set of scales weighs more or less kilograms by relative velocity, it has more or less mass.
Weight is force of Newtons, Mass is kilogram, the mass of an object is relative to the weight of the force.
The potential mass increases the greater the speed and distance away from the inertial reference rest frame.
Imagine we have a platform with a 1 kg object at rest mass on it. Relative to the object on the platform or when the object is on the ground the object has the same rest mass.
If the object was to fall the rest mass instantly increases of the object relative to the ground. Speed increasing the objects rest mass to relativistic mass.
-
it is the speed and pressure that crushes you not the mass in that instant,
Here's a good topic for debate related to what we are talking about, and somewhat related to the thread.
I have noticed that people tend to fall into two camps in these forums. Some people say that "foreshortening" is "real," and some say it is not. That is, if you were travelling in a spacecraft approaching the speed of light, you would appear "compressed" or "foreshortened." Some people say that is a real physical effect, and some say it is an "apparent" effect that we seem to see, but that is an illusion, that the whole of spacetime and everything is compressed relative to everything else, so all you would have is everything equally compressed and functional.
I fall into the former camp. I think it is real. Remember the elevator? Forget the scale. Get a tape measure. Stand up straight, not on your toes, no cheating. Get a measurement of your height. Now lay down. Take the same measurement, and you will find you are something like 3/4 of an inch longer than you are all tall. The reason is simple. Gravity pulls you down, so all those ligaments and cartilage want to spread out. Stand up, and all the cartilage gets compressed between your head and feet. Now, pressing the elevator buttons, you will find that you are also a little shorter than usual on the way up, and a little taller on the way down.
Curiouser and curiouser. Personally, since scientists keep telling me that "gravity equals acceleration," I have come to the opinion that, if I were travelling in an elevator that was going up at some significant fraction of the speed of light, I would most likely be pancake shaped, and that would be my real shape, not an apparent effect an observer would see due to the warping of spacetime. No, I think I would actually be a puddle of soup.
-
The statement you made is contradictory.
Look who's talking ...
You should know this more than anyone, as you hang around forums like these at least as much as I do. No matter what statement you make, no matter how accurate you try to be, someone is going to rip it apart.
Sometimes, that's just because reality is so weird, reality seems to contradict itself. Then, we apply lexically ambiguous languages like English to describe these processes.
A good example: Mass and energy are equivalent. True. Mass is not energy. True. Mass is made of energy. True or false, depending on how you look at it.
I'm not trying to be an authority on this subject, though I do know a few things about it. Nevertheless, I will probably make even more contradictory statements in the future, and so will you, and so will everyone else because that is the nature of the subject matter, so I don't really understand what you are complaining about here.
-
it is the speed and pressure that crushes you not the mass in that instant,
Here's a good topic for debate related to what we are talking about, and somewhat related to the thread.
I have noticed that people tend to fall into two camps in these forums. Some people say that "foreshortening" is "real," and some say it is not. That is, if you were travelling in a spacecraft approaching the speed of light, you would appear "compressed" or "foreshortened." Some people say that is a real physical effect, and some say it is an "apparent" effect that we seem to see, but that is an illusion, that the whole of spacetime and everything is compressed relative to everything else, so all you would have is everything equally compressed and functional.
I fall into the former camp. I think it is real. Remember the elevator? Forget the scale. Get a tape measure. Stand up straight, not on your toes, no cheating. Get a measurement of your height. Now lay down. Take the same measurement, and you will find you are something like 3/4 of an inch longer than you are all tall. The reason is simple. Gravity pulls you down, so all those ligaments and cartilage want to spread out. Stand up, and all the cartilage gets compressed between your head and feet. Now, pressing the elevator buttons, you will find that you are also a little shorter than usual on the way up, and a little taller on the way down.
Curiouser and curiouser. Personally, since scientists keep telling me that "gravity equals acceleration," I have come to the opinion that, if I were travelling in an elevator that was going up at some significant fraction of the speed of light, I would most likely be pancake shaped, and that would be my real shape, not an apparent effect an observer would see due to the warping of spacetime. No, I think I would actually be a puddle of soup.
Interesting , I fall into the neither , I believe the visual Lorentz contraction of a body in motion is just a thing of light perception, however I consider the object in motion, the length expands and is stretched by the force of gravity puling it backwards, like an elastic band stretching rather than a contraction.
-
The statement you made is contradictory.
Look who's talking ...
You should know this more than anyone, as you hang around forums like these at least as much as I do. No matter what statement you make, no matter how accurate you try to be, someone is going to rip it apart.
Sometimes, that's just because reality is so weird, reality seems to contradict itself. Then, we apply lexically ambiguous languages like English to describe these processes.
A good example: Mass and energy are equivalent. True. Mass is not energy. True. Mass is made of energy. True or false, depending on how you look at it.
I'm not trying to be an authority on this subject, though I do know a few things about it. Nevertheless, I will probably make even more contradictory statements in the future, and so will you, and so will everyone else because that is the nature of the subject matter, so I don't really understand what you are complaining about here.
My apologies, you are correct, it does not matter how we word it at times , someone will have ago lol.
-
Interesting , I fall into the neither , I believe the visual Lorentz contraction of a body in motion is just a thing of light perception, however I consider the object in motion, the length expands and is stretched by the force of gravity puling it backwards, like an elastic band stretching rather than a contraction.
What is that, the Bob Clampett explanation of Lorentz animation? I guess that's what I get for suggesting I was pancake-shaped. You're frigging hilarious, TheBox, like, seriously.
:D
-
Interesting , I fall into the neither , I believe the visual Lorentz contraction of a body in motion is just a thing of light perception, however I consider the object in motion, the length expands and is stretched by the force of gravity puling it backwards, like an elastic band stretching rather than a contraction.
What is that, the Bob Clampett explanation of length contraction? I guess that's what I get for suggesting I was pancake-shaped. You're frigging hilarious, TheBox, like, seriously.
:D
Seriously, consider at this time in your location you are stretched between two points, however the nearest point contracts you , if you were to to magically start to hover and mover a vertical path upwards you would stretch the space-time that holds you contracted becoming stretched yourself, as you reached the the other body, your stretched length then contracts again relative to the other bodies gravitational strength.
I understand this relativistic affect is hard to swallow, I am sure you will glance in dismay, but I do not consider one way journey and affect , I consider all the parameters.
-
I clearly stated - we shouldn't say mass is attracted to mass, we should say matter is attracted to matter.
You reply - ''This is absolutely wrong. Anyone that actually understands physics would never say that mass is attracted to mass. They would say that matter attracts matter.''
Obviously your agenda is not to read.
You clearly indicated that you believed that current scientific understanding says that mass attracts mass. You even used a little fictional conversation between a fictional "user" that clearly represented you and "science". I simply pointed out that science never made that argument.
''You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. ''
I understand more than you do for a certainty. do not come into my threads quoting wiki and pretending you are a scientist, you will be soon shown that your ability to personally think is none existent. ....
This is a non-sequitur.
When you raise an object of the ground, the mass of the object increase relative to the rest mass, an example -the object of 45 kg hits the ground at an equivalent to 90 kg. ?
An object might hit the ground with a force equivalent to the weight of a 90kg object but this is only true under very specific circumstances in regards to exactly how long it takes the falling object to decelerate after first contacting the ground and the mass of the object. Raising the object does not increase its mass in the way you describe.
Switching people I am addressing now.
Then try a new arrangement until you manage to finally say something sensible.
(shrugs)
Please refrain from attempts at provocation. It does not in anyway help your cause.
FALSE, and I'm getting tired of repeating myself. I'll let an actual scientist speak for me this time:
...
So, practice what you preach: "You seem to have trouble distinguishing your flawed understanding of current science with the actual current scientific understanding. You are attributing arguments to science that are not in anyway scientific arguments due to your lack of understanding. When someone demonstrates that your understanding of science is flawed in this manner you should really take that as an opportunity to learn."
None of the things you quoted actually disapprove my statement. Clearly definitions of matter can be confused and inexact but that inexactness is never so bad that it is wrong to say that matter is attracted to matter. Further, I point you to several other parts of that very article which you seemed to ignore:
Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway). But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.
(Emphasis mine.)
Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar. All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles. At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.
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.
A good example: Mass and energy are equivalent. True. Mass is not energy. True. Mass is made of energy. True or false, depending on how you look at it.
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. I point you once again to the website you linked:
Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway). But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.
(Emphasis mine.)
If energy isn't stuff but stuff has energy then energy must be a property just like mass is a property. Relativity has taught us that the properties of mass and energy are really describing the same thing.
I'm not trying to be an authority on this subject, though I do know a few things about it. Nevertheless, I will probably make even more contradictory statements in the future, and so will you, and so will everyone else because that is the nature of the subject matter, so I don't really understand what you are complaining about here.
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.
-
Raising the object does not increase its mass in the way you describe.
You clearly give that very little thought. non-sequitur , I am just trying to remember who says that off the other forums.
-
You clearly give that very little thought.
I gave it exactly as much thought as was required to come to the correct conclusion.
-
I gave it exactly as much thought as was required to come to the correct conclusion.
You clearly did not give it enough though, if you had you would realise the relativistic affect of mass increase which I have explained. Clearly you are clued up to present information but that does not mean you are in a position of having the ability to think about new information. If you are not interesting in this discussion with no other purpose but to post present information back, may I suggest you are in the wrong thread.
In a baby example of relativistic mass, hold an house brick in your hand at arms length, I assure you within a short time you will feel the effects of relativistic mass increase.
Try the same experiment with the brick on the ground, you will not experience the relativistic mass increase.
-
You clearly did not give it enough though, if you had you would realise the relativistic affect of mass increase which I have explained. Clearly you are clued up to present information but that does not mean you are in a position of having the ability to think about new information. If you are not interesting in this discussion with no other purpose but to post present information back, may I suggest you are in the wrong thread.
The concept of mass and the theory of relativity do not work the way you think they do. You seem to be incapable of understanding the distinction between the force exerted by something when that something is undergoing an acceleration and the magnitude of its mass. I suspect you are also having trouble understanding the concept of net force and net acceleration.
In a baby example of relativistic mass, hold an house brick in your hand at arms length, I assure you within a short time you will feel the effects of relativistic mass increase.
Try the same experiment with the brick on the ground, you will not experience the relativistic mass increase.
Case in point this has absolutely no connection to the theory of relativity. I assume you are attempting to reference the perceived increase of weight of a held object as your muscles become tired. This is an illusion produced by your brain interpreting signals from your muscles. You muscle fibers cannot stay contracted without a source of chemical energy. The longer you attempt to keep your muscles fibers contracted the more chemical energy they have to be supplied with and the less time the cells in the fiber have to clean out the waste products from using that chemical energy. Two things eventually happen. The first is that if the muscle fibers need more energy than you can naturally produce they eventually run out of energy and send signals to your brain telling you that they are tired which your brain interprets as the object getting heavier. The second is that if the muscle cells are producing more waste than your body can remove from the muscle cells the waste builds up and the muscle cells send pain signals that eventually will cause your brain to tell the muscles to stop contracting so the waste can be removed. If your brain didn't do that the cells would be damaged and die.
-
The concept of mass and the theory of relativity do not work the way you think they do.
Really ? so mass, the theory of relativity, special relativity, all written down, is all written in some ancient language and there is only you that can understand it?
-
The concept of mass and the theory of relativity do not work the way you think they do.
Really ? so mass, the theory of relativity, special relativity, all written down, is all written in some ancient language and there is only you that can understand it?
That would be another non-sequitur. The fact that you do not understand the concept of mass and the theory of relativity does not in anyway indicate anything about either of those things. It certainly does not imply that I think only I can understand them. It only implies things about you, your current level of understanding, and perhaps your ability to reason. Given time and a willingness to listen to/learn from reasoned arguments and observational evidence you could learn to understand these things. The only barrier between you and understanding is your behavior.
-
Say something about science, or shut your trap.
Let's get something straight, I'll offer my opinions and or my understanding when and wherever I choose. You can take your insults and put them where the sun don't shine Mr. T.
And BTW, it's clear to many of us that you haven't taken the time or effort to examine my activity here at TNS, if you had and could get over your touchy and offended act, it would be clear to you that I also come here to discuss science.
So........get over it!
-
That would be another non-sequitur. The fact that you do not understand the concept of mass and the theory of relativity does not in anyway indicate anything about either of those things. It certainly does not imply that I think only I can understand them. It only implies things about you, your current level of understanding, and perhaps your ability to reason. Given time and a willingness to listen to/learn from reasoned arguments and observational evidence you could learn to understand these things. The only barrier between you and understanding is your behavior.
You are seriously arrogant and trying to flame by again being intentionally presumption , you understand but I don't understand, your arrogance is overwhelming.
You are him of the other forum aren't you saying the same thing over and over like you are saying here?
I am beginning to agree with C.W you are coming across like some stalker.
We are in a that can't be true section, me and CW are having an intellectual gibberish conversation, talking hypothetical situations and all sorts of rubbish or not so rubbish, you are welcome to join in talking , just stop telling us we don't know what present information is.
Look I can read
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
I can watch
There is nothing complicated about any of it.
-
You are him of the other forum aren't you saying the same thing over and over like you are saying here?
Remember I warned you about that paranoia?
just stop telling us we don't know what present information is.
Mr. Box,......agyejy has as much right to question your beliefs and presumed facts as you have to question his. Nobody, and I repeat, nobody has the right to command anyone here to stop their objections to your views or anyone else's..............................PERIOD
-
You are him of the other forum aren't you saying the same thing over and over like you are saying here?
Remember I warned you about that paranoia?
just stop telling us we don't know what present information is.
Mr. Box,......agyejy has as much right to question your beliefs and presumed facts as you have to question his. Nobody, and I repeat, nobody has the right to command anyone here to stop their objections to your views or anyone else's..............................PERIOD
It is not a bother if he comes on and says I am wrong for this reason of logic , but to keep repeating that I don't understand is very wrong and that is what is winding me up .
-
You are seriously arrogant and trying to flame by again being intentionally presumption , you understand but I don't understand, your arrogance is overwhelming.
Being correct isn't arrogant and demonstrating that statement someone has made is incorrect is not flaming.
You are him of the other forum aren't you saying the same thing over and over like you are saying here?
I am beginning to agree with C.W you are coming across like some stalker.
You really are starting to sound a bit paranoid.
We are in a that can't be true section, me and CW are having an intellectual gibberish conversation, talking hypothetical situations and all sorts of rubbish or not so rubbish, you are welcome to join in talking , just stop telling us we don't know what present information is.
Why? What obligation do I have not to prove that the statements you are making are incorrect?
Look I can read
http://www.bartleby.com/173/
I can watch
There is nothing complicated about any of it.
The ability to read something or watch something is not the same as the ability to understand something. This is especially true when you refuse to alter your opinions and viewpoints when presented with reasoned arguments and observational evidence. One also has to be careful of the provenance of the sources of information they learn from.
Mr. Box,......agyejy has as much right to question your beliefs and presumed facts as you have to question his. Nobody, and I repeat, nobody has the right to command anyone here to stop their objections to your views or anyone else's..............................PERIOD
Well technically this is a privately owned space and thus the owners of the space and/or their representatives have that right. We generally call that moderation.
-
It is not a bother if he comes on and says I am wrong for this reason of logic , but to keep repeating that I don't understand is very wrong and that is what is winding me up .
So.......he's supposed to agree with you when he feels you are mistaken? Listen Box, there is no shame in being mistaken, we all have been at some time in our lives. What is shameful however is to reject offhand everything someone else has to offer without considering their position. A word to the wise is sufficient.............................
-
Being correct isn't arrogant and demonstrating that statement someone has made is incorrect is not flaming.
Ok, you obviously think you are smart, so obviously it should be really easy for you to use all your knowledge to prove this ''idiot'' wrong.
Time does not exist, anything after 0 measurement is instant history.
Prove that wrong , come back when you can.
-
It is not a bother if he comes on and says I am wrong for this reason of logic , but to keep repeating that I don't understand is very wrong and that is what is winding me up .
So.......he's supposed to agree with you when he feels you are mistaken? Listen Box, there is no shame in being mistaken, we all have been at some time in our lives. What is shameful however is to reject offhand everything someone else has to offer without considering their position. A word to the wise is sufficient.............................
Well I have raised the pirate flag in this thread and put our friend to the test. We will see if he can think for himself or just another book hog.
-
Well technically this is a privately owned space and thus the owners of the space and/or their representatives have that right. We generally call that moderation.
Yes, that is true agyejy but is usually only enforced when someone has become totally rude and insulting. In any case, I think you know the spirit of my remark and why I said it.
-
Well technically this is a privately owned space and thus the owners of the space and/or their representatives have that right. We generally call that moderation.
Yes, that is true agyejy but is usually only enforced when someone has become totally rude and insulting. In any case, I think you know the spirit of my remark and why I said it.
To me it looks like you are trying to infiltrate into this forum like they/you did over at phys forum, that forum is now shut, it is not paranoia, you clearly seem as if you know ag.
-
To me it looks like you are trying to infiltrate into this forum like they/you did over at phys forum, that forum is now shut, it is not paranoia, you clearly seem as if you know ag.
I have never had any correspondence with the fellow Mr. Box. Other than his activity here at TNS. I'm being totally up front with you about this, I have had no affiliation with him whatsoever. Nevertheless, I find his posts intelligent and in agreement with current scientific theory.
I seriously think you would benefit from an honest study of relativity and when I say study, I mean consider the views from the experts before you start making up new theories on your own. Give it an honest try, you may be surprised at how your perception of reality might change.
-
To me it looks like you are trying to infiltrate into this forum like they/you did over at phys forum, that forum is now shut, it is not paranoia, you clearly seem as if you know ag.
I have never had any correspondence with the fellow Mr. Box. Other than his activity here at TNS. I'm being totally up front with you about this, I have had no affiliation with him whatsoever. Nevertheless, I find his posts intelligent and in agreement with current scientific theory.
I seriously think you would benefit from an honest study of relativity and when I say study, I mean consider the views from the experts before you start making up new theories on your own. Give it an honest try, you may be surprised at how your perception of reality might change.
I agree his input is very wise of present knowledge and I hope he takes no offence by my words, BUT, I have been looking at Einstein for about 6 years now, I pretty much understand the guy , to keep presuming I don't understand is arrogant.
Do you think I could have a The theory of realistic if I didn't understand science? A box singularity that I know is quite cool science and not been done before?
How long do you think I have got in life to learn now I am middle aged?
As long as I get somebody to understand the box singularity, job done for me (tired of trying to explain), science over. Something new and realistic to go at for science.
-
I agree his input is very wise of present knowledge and I hope he takes no offence by my words, BUT, I have been looking at Einstein for about 6 years now, I pretty much understand the guy , to keep presuming I don't understand is arrogant.
No Mr. Box, it only means that you and I don't understand it the same way.
Do you think I could have a The theory of realistic if I didn't understand science? A box singularity that I know is quite cool science and not been done before?
How long do you think I have got in life to learn now I am middle aged?
You're still a young man Mr. Box, I'm almost 74 years old and I learn something new every day. If fact, the more I learn, the less intelligent I feel. My ego has had to take a back set many times over the years, so don't think the learning is over just yet. You still have many years to solve many things.
-
Ok, you obviously think you are smart, so obviously it should be really easy for you to use all your knowledge to prove this ''idiot'' wrong.
I would like to make it clear that you called yourself an idiot. I never did.
Time does not exist, anything after 0 measurement is instant history.
Prove that wrong , come back when you can.
Your statement is indecipherable. It does not appear to adhere to the syntax of the english language. Based on your previously expressed views I'm not even sure what definitions you are using for time, exist, measurement, instant, and history. Truthfully modern science hasn't even completely settled on a single consistent concept of time. So even if your statement wasn't indecipherable it probably wouldn't have a scientific answer one way or the other within our current understanding of science.
However, I would point out that the concept of time certainly exists or we wouldn't have the words time, history, past, present, future, instant, etc. So at the very least time exists in the sense that it is a concept that humans think/talk about.
I agree his input is very wise of present knowledge and I hope he takes no offence by my words, BUT, I have been looking at Einstein for about 6 years now, I pretty much understand the guy , to keep presuming I don't understand is arrogant.
Simply spending time does not guarantee or demonstrate understanding.
Do you think I could have a The theory of realistic if I didn't understand science? A box singularity that I know is quite cool science and not been done before?
How long do you think I have got in life to learn now I am middle aged?
As long as I get somebody to understand the box singularity, job done for me, science over. Something new and realistic to go at for science.
If anything that theory proves beyond any doubt you have failed to understand modern science.
-
No Mr. Box, it only means that you and I don't understand it the same way.
That's the point , I understand it the same way and I understand more to it and some things differently. I will give you a prime example, in the relativity video I provided , notice the part when it comes to the beam of the light and the angle of the beam, relatively neither observer or a third observer or 4th observer observes a beam unless it is a laser travelling through a medium such as smoke reflecting of a mirror, a normal surface does not reflect a laser.
All observers observe that which is not opaque, the clarity of space.
So the explanation is null and void and contradictory.
-
Your statement is indecipherable. It does not appear to adhere to the syntax of the english language.
Well let me assure you that other people understood it very well, they agreed .
Let me put it another way for you,
The moments on a clock, the moments on a sundial, the moments of cycle rate of the Caesium atom, all recording history, even 1 cycle on a caesium clock is history .
So when I don't jump for joy when I hear the term time-dilation, do not be surprised.
-
Well let me assure you that other people understood it very well, they agreed .
Truth is not determined via popular vote.
-
Truth is not determined via popular vote.
Interesting, you have told me I am wrong by the opinion of popular vote of Wiki. So are you now saying that the popular vote and ideas on wiki are not the ''truth''?
-
Case in point this has absolutely no connection to the theory of relativity. I assume you are attempting to reference the perceived increase of weight of a held object as your muscles become tired. This is an illusion produced by your brain interpreting signals from your muscles.
Relativity is what two observers agree on, I assure you we would both agree the weight is getting heavier relative to us, relative to the ground, relative to space. Relativistic mass is when the object is not at rest mass in an inertial accelerating reference frame, the greater the speed and/or distance, the greater the mass relative to another body , relative to the ground.
An object at rest on the moons inertial accelerating reference frame, has less mass than the same object on Earth.
courtesy of google pics -
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Looks relativistic massless to me.
''I suspect you are also having trouble understanding the concept of net force and net acceleration. ''
Let me think, can I do subtraction......oh yes I could last time I subtracted.
L=X
At(-ve=c)
Bt(+ve=c)
At-Bt=0t net difference
I get no time dilation between two point using the constant of the speed of light as my ''clock''
While the spaceship travels from A to B with an on-board Caesium clock and an observer is on Earth in an inertial reference frame with another Caesium clock, both Caesium clocks lose their synchronisation , the one on Earth remains at ground state while the one in motion experiences time dilation and length contraction, I am timing them both with my very accurate space-time clock of light between the start and finish points of the not opaque clarity of space, and the light travelling from the finishing point to the start point and the invert journey round trip.
My clock shows NO time dilation and no length contraction, the finishing point did not get nearer to my third person observation.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Velocity does not change, an object travelling 1035 mph will travel 24,901 miles in 24 hours. This does not alter, 86400 seconds is equal to approx 24,901 miles, 1 second is equal to approx 0.288 mile. The whole Universe , we have time equal to a distance travelled equal to a speed, we have the speed of time set equal to the speed of the Earth's rotational spin.
24,901/86400= approx 0.288 mile
Yes you may look with spine chilling glances, you may reply but we use the Caesium atom now, but may I remind you that the cycles of the transition of the Caesium atom were made to equal the old second, changing the ''colour'' of the clock did not change what it was equal to.
In analogy let us imagine we have a camcorder on earth aimed at the moon and a camcorder on the moon aimed at earth, sam on a spaceship on earth had 3 camcorders on-board the spaceship, 1 looking at the moon , one looking at the earth, and 1 recording himself.
The spaceship sets off to the moon that automatically triggers the camcorders synchronised start. When sam reaches the moon sensor pad landing zone, the camcorders instantly pause recording.
All the camcorders record in synchronisation of the time the photon packets arrive, in real time,
Now although we think sam has just experienced a slowing time of time, the hard evidence and data on the hard drives of the camcorders, the amount of data space it used, all shows to be equal and shows Sam experienced nothing different to any observer.
In short we use the real time speed of the recordings to time the journeys using the camcorders as a clock.
''Time is the synchronisation of observation''
If two observers disagree on the synchronisation of observation, they are disagreeing on time and would have to disagree about the speed of light .
I wrote this a while a back I wondered what it meant , now it is clearer to me.
''A separation of time and space, illuminated by the fabric of light, a fabric constant that allows the perception of distance , a fabric that alters the very essence of space, an opaqueness to vision clarified by it's very existence. An existence that synchronises my mind to all of space, a constant that couples my mind to matter, distance a sense of separation of mind over matter,
In my mind time stands still, synchronised to timeless space, all that I observe, a change in time, synchronisations different to my own.
I observe four dimensions through a fifth dimension of synchronised state, a dimension that allows four dimensions to exist but to not out welcome their stay.''
By the 5th dimension I meant the Box singularity. I think this is the reason people fail to understand me, I am thinking 5th dimensional beyond the 4 dimensions you are in, a bit like being inside the ''twilight zone'', a reality you can't see by the entrapment firmament of the 4 dimensions.
-
Craig, Ethos
Whilst it is sometimes amusing to watch others quibble over angels and pinheads, it would be much appreciated if you (a) stuck to the question and (b) retained a gentlemanly decorum. The fact that you are both wrong in this case doesn't add much to the debate.
Please take a deep breath and "think nice".
-
Craig, Ethos
Whilst it is sometimes amusing to watch others quibble over angels and pinheads, it would be much appreciated if you (a) stuck to the question and (b) retained a gentlemanly decorum. The fact that you are both wrong in this case doesn't add much to the debate.
Please take a deep breath and "think nice".
I stand corrected alan..................taking deep breath.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
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).
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
, 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'' .
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
My dad's bigger than your dad!
-
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 ,
-
Infinity is an undefined answer as no non-abstract equation can result in or contain it.
-
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?
-
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:
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.
-
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:
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" ??
-
Where, exactly, has anyone used mathematics in this thread?
-
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.
-
Well to state that someone "sucks at math" presupposes that the author of the statement has the necessary qualifications to make the determination.
-
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.
-
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."
There is a massive difference between those two things. Also in this very thread you've made arguments that were based on nothing but the meaning of words like equivalent and matter. If you can do it why can't I?
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" ??
For starters I already said that scientists are pretty sure literal infinities don't exist. Although if they did exist it is ok as long as the infinite valued part is somewhere you can never observe. The other finite valued parts can still be observable. Also, you can never verify the properties of anything everywhere because that would take much too long. The Universe is very big.
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.
Once again that is not a contradiction mathematical or otherwise.
Where, exactly, has anyone used mathematics in this thread?
I actually did some quick calculations showing that electron-electron scattering in a metal is negligible and that electrons in metals scatter off things like impurities and phonons much much more often.
-
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.
And that relates to mathematical ability how?
-
And that relates to mathematical ability how?
Those are my math tutors. I started reading Peter Fong's book on QM a couple of years ago, and it had way too many complex equations for me to understand. I have a college degree, but never took Calculus. So, I worked my way through a Precalculus book recently, and now I have a used copy of Calculus Early Transcendentals from the US Military Acadamy. I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.
Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL
Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.
-
Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL
I ask you again to please refrain from the insults.
Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.
You really don't want to go there.
-
Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL
I ask you again to please refrain from the insults.
Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.
You really don't want to go there.
Yes agyejy, counting thank yous is another subject isn't it?
-
Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOL
I ask you again to please refrain from the insults.
Here's a mathematical concept for you. If you extrapolate, by the time I have as many posts as you, I'll have more than 50 thank yous, whereas you only have 11.
You really don't want to go there.
I asked you to leave me along several months ago at another site. You relentlessly follow me around spouting nonsense science, all the while telling me I don't know what I am talking about. You're the one who wants to go there. I'm just following your lead. If you don't want to interact with me, I suggest you engage someone else in a conversation and quit your whining.
-
Yes agyejy, counting thank yous is another subject isn't it?
Still nothing to say about science? That's why you only have six. See, when you run your mouth without saying anything, your number of posts goes up, but your number of thank yous stays the same. Would you like me to write you an equation to demonstrate this relationship?
-
I asked you to leave me along several months ago at another site. You relentlessly follow me around spouting nonsense science, all the while telling me I don't know what I am talking about. You're the one who wants to go there. I'm just following your lead. If you don't want to interact with me, I suggest you engage someone else in a conversation and quit your whining.
I have every right to point out when someone says something that is factually incorrect. Doing so is not an insult. You do not have the right to insult me. Correction of factual errors and observations of your demonstrated level of comprehension based on those factual errors are not in anyway an insult. Your continued disparagement of me is beginning to seem rather immature. Also, we drifted far afield of the topic and I suggest we both make an effort to return to it.
-
Yes agyejy, counting thank yous is another subject isn't it?
Still nothing to say about science? That's why you only have six. See, when you run your mouth without saying anything, your number of posts goes up, but your number of thank yous stays the same. Would you like me to write you an equation to demonstrate this relationship?
Yes equations over abrasions any day.
-
I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.
I've had the opportunity to watch a couple of Susskind's videos myself and I rather like his logic regarding black holes. Whereas the former viewpoint regarding the loss of information held by Hawking and Susskind's position that all information is stored at the event horizon I find very appealing myself. Even so, I still have some reservations because theory says that as a black hole grows larger, it's entropy decreases as it's mass increases. When considering Black Hole thermodynamics, how do we reconcile these two opposing positions? The increase of information will also increase the degree of entropy.
-
I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.
I've had the opportunity to watch a couple of Susskind's videos myself and I rather like his logic regarding black holes. Whereas the former viewpoint regarding the loss of information held by Hawking and Susskind's position that all information is stored at the event horizon I find very appealing myself. Even so, I still have some reservations because theory says that as a black hole grows larger, it's entropy decreases as it's mass increases. When considering Black Hole thermodynamics, how do we reconcile these two opposing positions? The increase of information will also increase the degree of entropy.
In the information theories that I am aware of the entropy of information is actually opposite in sign to the standard entropy of disorder. So a growing black hole is expected to decrease its disorder entropy as the information it stores increases.
-
I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.
I've had the opportunity to watch a couple of Susskind's videos myself and I rather like his logic regarding black holes. Whereas the former viewpoint regarding the loss of information held by Hawking and Susskind's position that all information is stored at the event horizon I find very appealing myself. Even so, I still have some reservations because theory says that as a black hole grows larger, it's entropy decreases as it's mass increases. When considering Black Hole thermodynamics, how do we reconcile these two opposing positions? The increase of information will also increase the degree of entropy.
In the information theories that I am aware of the entropy of information is actually opposite in sign to the standard entropy of disorder. So a growing black hole is expected to decrease its disorder entropy as the information it stores increases.
Interesting, do you know the explanation for this assigned negative entropy? I always thought that any added information to a closed system increased it's entropy. If you have a link to this information, I would gladly check it out. Thanks......
-
Interesting, do you know the explanation for this assigned negative entropy? I always thought that any added information to a closed system increased it's entropy. If you have a link to this information, I would gladly check it out. Thanks......
I should be more clear I apologize. Both thermodynamic entropy and information entropy are positive quantities. In general encoding a message into a sub-system requires you change something (flipping a bit on a hard drive for example). The overall entropy of the sub-system remains positive but in general is lower after you've written the information to it than it was at thermal equilibrium. This is ok because it took energy to change the sub-system and encode the information (flipping the bit) and this energy will also cause a corresponding greater increase in entropy somewhere else such that total entropy in the universe increases. So if you just encoded information onto a black hole you'd expect an entropy decrease of the black hole. However, that is not actually what is happening when a black hole grows. When a black hole grows it is more akin to increasing the size of your sub-system rather than simply encoding more information on to what was already there. Thus it is not surprising that the entropy would increase with size.
I just double checked the equations for black hole entropy and confirmed they are directly proportional to surface area. Which means the entropy of a black hole actually increases as it grows. I'm not sure where you got the impression that the entropy of a black hole decreases as it grows. Do you have a link to something that says this?
I apologize for vague incorrectness of my earlier post.
-
Ok, now we are on subject,
Firstly let us consider the only real evidence of a black hole. The observation of ''dust'' circulating a ''black hole'' in a ''disk'' formation.
My first thought would be why doe's the dust have to be circulating anything, why could the circulation not be a product of the dusts own polarities?
If we imagine a ''ball'' of positive energy, this ball will always want to expand by it's own repulsive forces, a bit like a balloon expanding leaving a negative ''void'' in the middle, the skin of the balloon representing the dust.
Now if we was to rotate this ball, because of the extremely low density, the y-axis contracts totally to expand the x-axis forming a disk.
Added - imagine a football, and we kick the football so hard and fast with some spin on the ball , while in travel spinning, it turns into a disk, now imagine we kick several more footballs into space and they all do the same thing, now imagine these football disks, bounce of each other before they even touch unless the football disk is not equal because then they join.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
I watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.
I've had the opportunity to watch a couple of Susskind's videos myself and I rather like his logic regarding black holes. Whereas the former viewpoint regarding the loss of information held by Hawking and Susskind's position that all information is stored at the event horizon I find very appealing myself. Even so, I still have some reservations because theory says that as a black hole grows larger, it's entropy decreases as it's mass increases. When considering Black Hole thermodynamics, how do we reconcile these two opposing positions? The increase of information will also increase the degree of entropy.
I have an hypothesis about that. I am of the opinion that black holes do not conserve entropy. I think they recycle the universe. Entropy is when things go from an ordered state to a disordered state. In my mind, what happens in a black hole is basically the reverse of entropy, the opposite of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis. All the mass and energy that goes into a black hole merges into a sort of plasma, the same sort of plasma the Universe condensed out of after the Big Bang. I think that, like a supernova, a black hole has some sort of limit beyond which it cannot take in any more mass or energy without triggering some sort of "explosive" event. Black holes don't evaporate very fast, so given enough time, lots of black holes in an aging universe could merge. In short, once enough mergers have happened for a black hole to reach one universe in mass, it blows its top in a Big Bang, leading to a new round of nucleosynthesis.
In my mind, this hypothesis neatly resolves the conflict of why entropy supposedly cannot be reversed, and explains the apparently finite "starting point" of the universe and time as merely the beginning of a cycle.
-
I actually did some quick calculations showing that electron-electron scattering in a metal is negligible and that electrons in metals scatter off things like impurities and phonons much much more often.
Yeah, sure you did.
I disagree with your statement about entropy in black holes increasing as they grow larger. Gas in a bottle is "order." Open the lid and let it out, that's disorder. Black holes put the gas back in the bottle. There's nothing more ordered than a bunch of mass and energy that's been merged into a simple plasma soup at a point particle location.
-
An object that is swallowed by a black hole decreases the entropy of the universe since the event horizon is impenetrable from the inside. However, the increase in entropy of the black hole itself more than makes up for the loss. So in general the entropy of the universe increases. The surface area of the event horizon is proportional to the entropy of the black hole as determined by Jacob Beckenstein. This then led on to the development of the holographic principle.
-
An object that is swallowed by a black hole decreases the entropy of the universe since the event horizon is impenetrable from the inside. However, the increase in entropy of the black hole itself more than makes up for the loss. So in general the entropy of the universe increases. The surface area of the event horizon is proportional to the entropy of the black hole as determined by Jacob Beckenstein. This then led on to the development of the holographic principle.
That's nice, but Beckenstein has never actually observed the inside of a black hole to confirm this. I still say, there's nothing more ordered than a bunch of mass and energy that has been confined to a point particle location and turned into a simple plasma soup. Gas in a bottle is order. An open bottle with the gas spilling out to fill a room is disorder. Black holes are bottles. The Big Bang is what happens when the bottle gets too full. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is the reverse of what happens in a black hole.
By the way, the most obvious contradiction that leads me to have faith in what I just said is the apparent "finite" nature of the universe. It's a contradiction that entropy is only one way. It's a contradiction that the universe had a "starting point." Mass and energy don't just appear out of nowhere. The object that became the Big Bang had an origin. The universe didn't just spontaneously appear 13.7 billion years ago. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Entropy seems to imply the ultimate fate of our universe is heat death and dissipation. How can that be? Time started at the Big Bang, ends with heat death? The universe came from nothing, ends as nothing, it is a blip in nothingness, surrounded at both ends by no time? That's a contradiction plain and simple. My "black holes recycle entropy and the universe" hypothesis makes more sense than that, by a huge factor. In this case, I am far more tempted to believe my own logic than Beckenstein's math.
-
I actually did some quick calculations showing that electron-electron scattering in a metal is negligible and that electrons in metals scatter off things like impurities and phonons much much more often.
Yeah, sure you did.
I did and anyone who has read and understood the thread knows that. Are you having trouble understanding what you read?
I disagree with your statement about entropy in black holes increasing as they grow larger. Gas in a bottle is "order." Open the lid and let it out, that's disorder. Black holes put the gas back in the bottle. There's nothing more ordered than a bunch of mass and energy that's been merged into a simple plasma soup at a point particle location.
Then you disagree with Hawking, Susskind, and basically everyone else working on black holes.
That's nice, but Beckenstein has never actually observed the inside of a black hole to confirm this. I still say, there's nothing more ordered than a bunch of mass and energy that has been confined to a point particle location and turned into a simple plasma soup. Gas in a bottle is order. An open bottle with the gas spilling out to fill a room is disorder. Black holes are bottles. The Big Bang is what happens when the bottle gets too full. Big Bang Nucleosynthesis is the reverse of what happens in a black hole.
This is nothing but a misunderstanding of entropy. If the gas in the bottle was allowed to expand in a reversible isothermal process to fill the entire room the entropy of the system would remain unchanged. However, if you just allow the gas to freely expand into the room the entropy of the system increases. For gases the change in entropy when going from one state to another state is always dictated by the process used to go from the initial to final state. Therefore it is in general not possible to make statements about the relative entropies of two states of a gas without knowing how those states came about.
By the way, the most obvious contradiction that leads me to have faith in what I just said is the apparent "finite" nature of the universe. It's a contradiction that entropy is only one way. It's a contradiction that the universe had a "starting point." Mass and energy don't just appear out of nowhere. The object that became the Big Bang had an origin. The universe didn't just spontaneously appear 13.7 billion years ago. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed. Entropy seems to imply the ultimate fate of our universe is heat death and dissipation. How can that be? Time started at the Big Bang, ends with heat death? The universe came from nothing, ends as nothing, it is a blip in nothingness, surrounded at both ends by no time? That's a contradiction plain and simple. My "black holes recycle entropy and the universe" hypothesis makes more sense than that, by a huge factor. In this case, I am far more tempted to believe my own logic than Beckenstein's math.
You are misusing the word contradiction again. You are also confusing your flawed classical intuition for logic (everyone's classical intuition is flawed). Scientists have known for quite awhile that the fact that an idea "makes sense" in their heads is absolutely meaningless without well defined predictions and experimental verifications. These are things Beckenstein, Hawking, Susskind, etc have and until you have the same your ideas cannot supercede theirs.
-
I just double checked the equations for black hole entropy and confirmed they are directly proportional to surface area. Which means the entropy of a black hole actually increases as it grows. I'm not sure where you got the impression that the entropy of a black hole decreases as it grows. Do you have a link to something that says this?
I apologize for vague incorrectness of my earlier post.
I think Jeff just gave the correct description in post #191. It appears I was mistaken.
-
Here is a problem. Take the function f(x) = x sin 1/x and find the limit as x approaches zero. Then consider how to trace the function through the origin.
EDIT: What can this demonstrate to us that may shed light on the problems associated with black holes?
-
Here is a problem. Take the function f(x) = x sin 1/x and find the limit as x approaches zero. Then consider how to trace the function through the origin.
EDIT: What can this demonstrate to us that may shed light on the problems associated with black holes?
That black holes neither emit light or absorb light because they are a relativistic box singularity sin=0 and coss=n?
I used your maths to make this for the box singularity of light propagating through space.
f(x)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n)
f(y)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n)
f(z)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n)
f(t)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n)
The problem you have is that space-time is really my singularity , and t=c , you have not accounted for the constant behind the space time that is an invariant, real space-time.
Light propagating through space is the singularity woven fabric, light is a polymorphism multidimensional singularity that when it ''hits'' something it creates a tangent at the tips of contact, light can contract or stretch , but the space-time behind the light is constant. Length contraction, time-dilation is all light related and has nothing to do with real time which is the synchronisation of observation of 0.
-
If you had researched the equation instead of guessing you would have found that when plotted the function describes a sine wave that changes in magnitude with distance and that it is impossible to trace the function to the origin at 0,0. This is because as the function decreases in magnitude the wavelength shortens in an infinite sequence of steps. This can appear to mimic the time dilation around a black hole. The surprising thing is that as the wave is blue-shifted and the energy increases time slows down. Which when you consider it properly makes sense as things that are vibrating VERY fast will have less chance of interacting on shorter timescales. Therefore time dilation. The fact that gravity blue-shifts waves is then the ultimate reason for time dilation. The most important factor is then not the geometry of space-time but how the stresses affect wavelength.
-
If you had researched the equation instead of guessing you would have found that when plotted the function describes a sine wave that changes in magnitude with distance and that it is impossible to trace the function to the origin at 0,0. This is because as the function decreases in magnitude the wavelength shortens in an infinite sequence of steps. This can appear to mimic the time dilation around a black hole. The surprising thing is that as the wave is blue-shifted and the energy increases time slows down. Which when you consider it properly makes sense as things that are vibrating VERY fast will have less chance of interacting on shorter timescales. Therefore time dilation. The fact that gravity blue-shifts waves is then the ultimate reason for time dilation. The most important factor is then not the geometry of space-time but how the stresses affect wavelength.
I did not guess you read it correctly to the meaning I wanted and looked up, cos, sin and tan explaining a singularity extending away from all observers in the light or dark to an unbounded ''point''
Length is a bounded quality.
Light changes when it makes contact with an obstruction and becomes 3 dimensional.
1,0,0,1
d=f(x)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n) delta (cos=x),(sin=y),(tan=z) = L
d=f(y)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n) delta (cos=x),(sin=y),(tan=z) = L
d=f(z)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n) delta (cos=x),(sin=y),(tan=z) = L
d=f(t)=(cos=n),(sin=0),(tan=n) delta (cos=x),(sin=y),(tan=z) = L
''The most important factor is then not the geometry of space-time but how the stresses affect wavelength.''
Yes the stresses affect wavelength not ''time''.
-
I actually did some quick calculations showing that electron-electron scattering in a metal is negligible and that electrons in metals scatter off things like impurities and phonons much much more often.
Yeah, sure you did.
Then you disagree with Hawking, Susskind, and basically everyone else working on black holes.
Hawking disagrees with Hawking specifically on this topic, you fool:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-admits-the-biggest-blunder-of-his-scientific-career-early-belief-that-everything-8568418.html
I still don't believe you about the "quick calculations." Care to show your work?? I say you're full of crap. I'm no Calculus expert, but I know enough about it to know those calculations aren't quick, and they aren't something you could just pull out a pocket calculator like you were balancing a checkbook. Those equations are complex and comprised largely of Greek symbols and such, single characters in the equation represent another whole equation, etc.
-
Also in this very thread you've made arguments that were based on nothing but the meaning of words like equivalent and matter. If you can do it why can't I?
Similarly, you've been acting like you're some sort of authority on physics for the last couple of weeks now, even though you clearly only half understand what you are talking about.
Why can't we do that to you? We're half-authorities on science too, you know. This is a public forum, not the IPCC.
-
Can we all please try to keep this thread polite and, at least outwardly, friendly. Don't want to lock the thread.
Thanks
-
Thebox consider that the blue-shift, imparting energy as it does, may well link to relativistic mass increase. Then this extra energy will be all kinetic energy which would help to break molecular bonds and so increase entropy. So that increasing tidal forces will inevitably increase entropy and mostly in that region of the black hole between the light-like orbital and the horizon surface. Now there's a thought!
-
And here is a graph of the function x sin 1/x for anyone even remotely interested.
-
Hawking disagrees with Hawking specifically on this topic, you fool:
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-admits-the-biggest-blunder-of-his-scientific-career-early-belief-that-everything-8568418.html
This is what intelligent knowledgable people do when they discover that there ideas are wrong. Hawking is not disagreeing with himself he has simply corrected a flaw in his understanding.
I still don't believe you about the "quick calculations." Care to show your work?? I say you're full of crap. I'm no Calculus expert, but I know enough about it to know those calculations aren't quick, and they aren't something you could just pull out a pocket calculator like you were balancing a checkbook. Those equations are complex and comprised largely of Greek symbols and such, single characters in the equation represent another whole equation, etc.
I did show my work in a direct reply to one of your posts. For anyone interested here it is again:
That source is atrocious (a website about a deep sea robotics is not a good place to learn about the quantum mechanics of metals). It is trying to use an almost completely classical description for something that is inherently quantum mechanical. I actually tried looking around and most basic explanations of conduction have the same exact problem. The general thing to do is to treat the electrons like they form an ideal gas. In an ideal gas the mean free path is expressed as 1/(π*d²*ρ) where d is the diameter of the particles and ρ is the density of the particles. The density of free electrons in say copper (only the free electrons can conduct) is 8.5*10^28*(1/m^3) the classical radius of an electron (which is definitely too big and generally an electron is thought to not have a radius at all) is about 2.8*10^-15 m giving a diameter of 5.6*10^-15 m. Putting that into the mean free path calculation above says that on average and electron in copper should travel about 12 cm before it hits another electron if we treat the electrons as classical particles. We know that the resistance of a metal wire is directly related to the mean free path of the electrons in the wire. For copper at room temperature we can calculate the actual mean free path of the electrons from actual measured properties with our classical assumptions. When we do this we get a mean free path of electrons in copper of about 40 nm. This number is much much much smaller than 12 cm. Which means that electrons basically always collide with something else (phonons, lattice defects, etc) before they collide with each other or in other words electron-electron collisions cannot explain the conduction of electricity. To put it another way even though the density of the electrons seems high the electrons are actually relatively far apart compared to their size and therefore do not interact. Of course for simplicity we've ignored the uncertainty principle which will change the numbers a bit but will not make up the difference in size between 40 nm and 12 cm.
Similarly, you've been acting like you're some sort of authority on physics for the last couple of weeks now, even though you clearly only half understand what you are talking about.
Why can't we do that to you? We're half-authorities on science too, you know. This is a public forum, not the IPCC.
I am doing nothing but pointing out statements that are false using sources, mathematics, and logic. I have more than sufficiently demonstrated my level of understanding. I could give my qualifications but those are meaningless words. What matters is demonstrated ability and I have done that.
Can we all please try to keep this thread polite and, at least outwardly, friendly. Don't want to lock the thread.
Thanks
I apologize. I am trying me best to keep this discussion focused and polite.
-
I am doing nothing but pointing out statements that are false using sources, mathematics, and logic. I have more than sufficiently demonstrated my level of understanding. I could give my qualifications but those are meaningless words. What matters is demonstrated ability and I have done that.
As your peer, I respectfully disagree. I still can't get over the fact that you compared the wavelike properties of a photon to an earthquake a few pages back. Now, in the post above, you've "cited your work," but you're talking about electricity and conduction. What does that have to do with black holes? Trying to be "focused and polite" ??You're all over the place. You are obviously somewhat knowledgeable, but your take on physics is piecemeal and incoherent at best. You're like the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. Plus, nobody who is deep into this subject calls the stuff of the universe "matter" anymore. Mass and energy are the terms I use to discuss "matter," and I'm just a layman. In that respect, you are a Rutherford atom in an electron cloud world.
-
As your peer, I respectfully disagree.
That doesn't make my statement any less true.
I still can't get over the fact that you compared the wavelike properties of a photon to an earthquake a few pages back.
Waves are waves are waves are waves. All wave things (and wavelike things) obey the same set of mathematical principles called wave mechanics. The particular property we were discussing (the ability to have both transverse and longitudinal oscillations simultaneously) is a property all waves share. The interaction of a particular wave with a particular medium or lack of a medium may disallow some or all modes of oscillation. However, this disallowing of oscillation modes is a property of the medium not the waves.
Now, in the post above, you've "cited your work," but you're talking about electricity and conduction. What does that have to do with black holes? Trying to be "focused and polite" ??You're all over the place.
I responded to a direct request from you. Although now it appears you somehow forgot the original statement to which I was referring despite the rather unambiguous nature of what you yourself quoted.
You are obviously somewhat knowledgeable, but your take on physics is piecemeal and incoherent at best. You're like the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. Plus, nobody who is deep into this subject calls the stuff of the universe "matter" anymore. Mass and energy are the terms I use to discuss "matter," and I'm just a layman. In that respect, you are a Rutherford atom in an electron cloud world.
Funny then how you managed to find an entire blog post from a semi-prominent theoretical physicist that specifically spoke about how the term matter is ambiguous even in the realm of science precisely because it is used to mean different things by different people. If so many different people in different disciplines of science are using matter that there is the potential for ambiguity then how can it be that "nobody who is deep into this subject" uses the term? To take a particularly relevant quote from Prof. Matt Strassler:
Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse. Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons. Consumer beware! Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
(Emphasis mine)
From: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/
Also, when talking about matter I attempt to make it clear what definition of matter I am using by stating that I consider any single entity with a rest frame (i.e. not traveling at c) is matter. Although I do occasionally slip and forget. I am after all only human.
-
Waves are waves are waves are waves. All wave things (and wavelike things) obey the same set of mathematical principles called wave mechanics. The particular property we were discussing (the ability to have both transverse and longitudinal oscillations simultaneously) is a property all waves share.
Although I do occasionally slip and forget. I am after all only human.
Tell me something I don't know. Of course waves are waves are waves are waves. But like I said, a photon travels forward in space as two waves along a geodesic described by the intersection of two perpendicular planes. A photon cannot travel forward along those two planes and also travel forward in a third plane perpendicular to both of them. The only movement possible along that plane is in a direction AWAY from the geodesic the photon is travelling on. That is physically impossible. In order to oscillate in a third dimension, a photon's wave energy MUST stop travelling forward in space along a geodesic at speed c. That is physically impossible, no matter how many earthquakes you bring to the table.
You could be a little less condescending, you know. That's why I talk to the way I do. You seem to forget that I am also human when you are belittling me and force feeding me your peculiar brand of physics, and I don't appreciate it.
-
Now compare the above with f(x) =x sin 1/x^2.
-
Now compare the above with f(x) =x sin 1/x^2.
Interesting diagram Jeffrey , I am not even sure if we are discussing the same thing, I am not even sure we are discussing, but your diagram and maths look similar to what I am trying to say about singularity
-
Tell me something I don't know.
You say you know and understand and then you go and say things like:
Of course waves are waves are waves are waves. But like I said, a photon travels forward in space as two waves along a geodesic described by the intersection of two perpendicular planes. A photon cannot travel forward along those two planes and also travel forward in a third plane perpendicular to both of them. The only movement possible along that plane is in a direction AWAY from the geodesic the photon is travelling on. That is physically impossible. In order to oscillate in a third dimension, a photon's wave energy MUST stop travelling forward in space along a geodesic at speed c. That is physically impossible, no matter how many earthquakes you bring to the table.
which makes it clear that you don't. For starters a photon traveling in a vacuum is one wave that is oscillating with two transverse modes. The only reason a photon cannot also have a longitudinal mode at the same time is that the vacuum does not support the longitudinal mode of electromagnetic oscillation. It has nothing to do with it being impossible for a wave to have three perpendicular modes of oscillation. All waves have a speed of propagation in whatever medium they travel through and that speed is their maximum speed in that medium. For all intents and purposes a sound wave (or earthquake wave) traveling in a medium is traveling at the speed limit of that medium and if your argument was valid they would be subjected to the same effects as a photon. Thus the fact that there exists traveling waves that possess both transverse and longitudinal modes of oscillation at the same time your reasoning must be flawed. To reiterate what you are describing if it were true should be true of all waves. It clearly is not and therefore cannot be true.
You could be a little less condescending, you know. That's why I talk to the way I do. You seem to forget that I am also human when you are belittling me and force feeding me your peculiar brand of physics, and I don't appreciate it.
Correcting the errors you make in factual knowledge and logical reasoning is not inherently condescending and no one else has commented that my word choice is suggestive of condescension. The only thing I am attempting to do is to help you learn actual real physics. True physics is so much more amazing than the ridiculous stuff that you think up. Pointing out your errors and attempting to share my knowledge is not an act of belittling.
-
Now compare the above with f(x) =x sin 1/x^2.
Interesting diagram Jeffrey , I am not even sure if we are discussing the same thing, I am not even sure we are discussing, but your diagram and maths look similar to what I am trying to say about singularity
Ah but can singularities be observed?
-
Ah but can singularities be observed?
They can if they are within the range limit of observation be detected by sight or possibly other means.
-
Ah but can singularities be observed?
They can if they are within the range limit of observation be detected by sight or possibly other means.
You say that with conviction. What is your evidence?
-
You say that with conviction. What is your evidence?
I can shine a laser and observe the dust I could not otherwise ''see'' in the space between my eyes and object. Because I am changing the ''colour'' of the constant the singularities stand out more, to see something that is dark but not really dark, against a dark background that is not really dark, we simply have to change the colour of the foreground to submerge the singularity into something different from the constant same.
So something like if we could see in green dust would look like tiny little stars.
-
Or you could start here.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_curvature (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_curvature)
"In general relativity, the scalar curvature is the Lagrangian density for the Einstein–Hilbert action. The Euler–Lagrange equations for this Lagrangian under variations in the metric constitute the vacuum Einstein field equations, and the stationary metrics are known as Einstein metrics. The scalar curvature is defined as the trace of the Ricci tensor, and it can be characterized as a multiple of the average of the sectional curvatures at a point. Unlike the Ricci tensor and sectional curvature, however, global results involving only the scalar curvature are extremely subtle and difficult. One of the few is the positive mass theorem of Richard Schoen, Shing-Tung Yau and Edward Witten. Another is the Yamabe problem, which seeks extremal metrics in a given conformal class for which the scalar curvature is constant."
-
Suggestive of negative mass/dark energy expanding the metric?
-
It has nothing to do with it being impossible for a wave to have three perpendicular modes of oscillation.
Pointing out your errors and attempting to share my knowledge is not an act of belittling.
I never said it did. That's your error, not mine.
What I actually said, for those of you who can actually read, is that there cannot be FORWARD MOTION along three planes at the same time. In fact, I specifically said the forward motion of a photon becomes confined to an oscillation when that photon interacts with a particle at a point location."
"Forward motion" is not the same thing as an "oscillation," I just wanted to share my knowledge with you.
-
I never said it did. That's your error, not mine.
What I actually said, for those of you who can actually read, is that there cannot be FORWARD MOTION along three planes at the same time. In fact, I specifically said the forward motion of a photon becomes confined to an oscillation when that photon interacts with a particle at a point location."
"Forward motion" is not the same thing as an "oscillation," I just wanted to share my knowledge with you.
If you weren't talking about oscillations than you are even more wrong than I gave you credit for. You seem to be very confused about terminology and the nature of waves and wave motion in general. If we're simply talking about the propagation of waves then spherical waves are three dimensional in that they have forward motion in all three dimensions. Now spherical waves are generated by point sources but are by no means confined in any sense of the word. 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. The key point to all of this is that for any spherical wave if you draw three mutually perpendicular planes through the wave front the wave will have motion along all three of the plains. Don't be confused by drawings of electromagnetic waves like the one in the link below:
http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/remote/images/emwave.gif
Only one of the axes (the plural of axis not axe) in that picture represents a direction in space (the one labeled direction). The other two axes represent the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields and are in units of electric and magnetic field strength not distance. At best that diagram represents an idealized plane wave not a true physical wave. Diagrams of wave propagation are simplified like this because there really is no way to draw what is really going on in three spatial dimensions while also representing the changes in field strength that wouldn't be an indecipherable mess. This point should always be made very clear when these diagrams are used (and in courses on electromagnetism that is usually the case) but often it is not when communicating to a lay audience. Higher sciences routinely make use of axes that represent things other than space and sometimes spatial and non-spatial axes are mixed together in the same graph which can be very confusing to the uninitiated.
-
Suggestive of negative mass/dark energy expanding the metric?
The invert of that . ONLY pos expands pos, it is polarity difference, we do not know there was not a ring formation and we ''drifted'' inwards.
Neg IS attracted to Neg ,
I think orbiting bodies are some sort of Magnus affect and solar winds?
-
"Forward motion" is not the same thing as an "oscillation."
The key point to all of this is that for any spherical wave if you draw three mutually perpendicular planes through the wave front the wave will have motion along all three of the plains.
Maybe that's YOUR key point, but what's that got to do with my original point? This is why I say you are the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. You're always spewing out physics knowledge that has nothing to do with what I am talking about, going off on tangents. I have been trying to talk about photons this whole time. Photons don't travel as plane waves (you said "plain" waves). Motion along three planes is possible as an oscillation, but an oscillation does NOT constitute "forward propagation through space at c along a geodesic."
In short, a photon travels along two perpendicular planes at c when alone, its energy oscillates at a location in space when it is part of an atom. If you're saying something other than that, you are wrong, and I don't care how many tangents you go off on, how many links you post, or how much you want to win this debate. A photon cannot travel forward through space at c when its energy has been absorbed by another particle located at the intersection of the photon's geodesic and a plane perpendicular to it.
-
Ah but can singularities be observed?
"Observation" generally means some sort of particle exchange has occurred. When you look at things with your eyes, you are seeing photons that "bounced" off stuff, then were absorbed by electrons in your retina. When we "observe" particles, we basically "bounce" or "crash" other particles off them and see what happens to them, or observe how different particles scatter after the collision. You can't observe a black hole because any particle you accelerate toward it in order to make an observation simply gets absorbed and dissappears; it won't bounce off the singularity, nor will scattered particles come out of the singularity to be observed after such a collision. It simply merges with the singularity. I suppose you could make the observation that the black hole pulls a little harder on you after it absorbed the particle you tried to observe it with if you had an unbelievably accurate scale.
I think a better questions is, "Can a singularity even exist?" I think there is a point beyond which mass and energy cannot be compressed any farther because there needs to be enough room for particles to oscillate a bit. I think a true "point" singularity is impossible. A point, by definition, has no length, width or depth, so it can contain nothing. A "true" point is in fact imaginary. As such, I am a firm believer in the idea that before they reach a "point," black holes rather reach a "critical point" of mass/energy density similar to the Chandrasekhar limit for a type 1a supernova. I think that when a supermassive black hole consumes enough supermassive black holes, eventually that mass and energy reaches "a point" where it cannot be constrained any farther into an actual "point," and when mass/energy content for a super-supermassive black hole reaches approximately 1 Universe, it all gets released in an explosive Big Bang event, a sort of "mega-supernova."
This idea solves two problems.
First, entropy is seen as a one-way process. My idea is that when particles merge with a black hole's contents, that's the reverse of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis taking place in there where we can't see it. A Big Bang as such amounts to an "entropic reversal." Whatever mathematicians may say about black holes and entropy, to me, logically, there's nothing more "ordered" than a miniscule space containing billions of galaxies worth of condensed mass/energy plasma soup that wants to expand, fill space and decay to less volatile forms. I often compare this to a bottle of compressed gas. Taking the lid off the bottle is the Big Bang. Black holes "put the gas back in the bottle." One-way entropy contradiction solved.
Second, a finite universe with a Big Bang starting point and a heat death ending point doesn't make much sense according to mass/energy conservation. There should be something before and after the Big Bang. I don't think everything was "created" at the Big Bang. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, that's basic Thermodynamics. My idea makes the universe cyclical, with something existing both before and after our present Universe.
I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical? There are multiple examples of everything in the universe, from quarks to atoms to molecules to planets to stars to galaxies to galaxy clusters to superclusters, supernovae, black holes, etc. 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. To me, it makes more sense to think of our present universe as a particle of sorts, which can be "created" and "annihilated," but that doesn't mean the stuff it's made of ever actually ceases to exist. It just exists as some particular entity for an arbitrary period of time before undergoing some other transformation to its mass and energy.
-
Maybe that's YOUR key point, but what's that got to do with my original point? This is why I say you are the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. You're always spewing out physics knowledge that has nothing to do with what I am talking about, going off on tangents. I have been trying to talk about photons this whole time. Photons don't travel as plane waves (you said "plain" waves). Motion along three planes is possible as an oscillation, but an oscillation does NOT constitute "forward propagation through space at c along a geodesic."
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. Also, I just linked to a pdf about the propagation of waves that made it clear in no uncertain terms that spherical waves propagate along all three spatial dimensions.
In short, a photon travels along two perpendicular planes at c when alone, its energy oscillates at a location in space when it is part of an atom. If you're saying something other than that, you are wrong, and I don't care how many tangents you go off on, how many links you post, or how much you want to win this debate. A photon cannot travel forward through space at c when its energy has been absorbed by another particle located at the intersection of the photon's geodesic and a plane perpendicular to it.
The number of planes along which a single photon travels is always three. The wave function of a photon always spreads in the x and y directions as it moves in the z direction. This must happen in order for the intensity of light to fall of at a rate proportional to 1/r as observation has confirmed. Groups of photons may interfere constructively and destructively to make a wave front that appears one or two dimension over a selected area but that is close as it ever gets. A photon is never part of an atom. As I have said before a photon that is absorbed by an atom is said to be annihilated. It ceases to exist. Scientists would not use the word annihilated if the photon didn't cease to exist. Further, there are no electrostatic oscillations of an atom after the absorption of a photon and no electrostatic oscillations means no photon.
Now if you want to talk scattering over absorption that is a whole different story. In scattering a photon that is not the right energy to be absorbed sets up a forced oscillation in the electrons of the atom. That forced oscillation starts creating another photon while the atom is still interacting with the first photon and the two photons interfere with each other. The result is an otherwise identical outgoing photon usually traveling in a slightly different direction. Now in general the radius of a single atom is never larger than about 0.5 nm and the most energy it could ever take to strip an electron from a neutral atom is ~24.584 eV which corresponds to a wavelength of ~50 nm. Typical visible light photons are in the 100s to almost 1000s of nm range in terms of wavelengths. This means that in most interactions between atoms and photons that photon is going to be interacting with several atoms along its direction of travel at once. Additionally the photon spreads out perpendicularly to its direction of travel meaning it interacts with even more atoms simultaneously. The end result is that is makes almost no sense to talk about a single atom and a single photon interacting as a real occurrence when discussing the propagation of light through a medium. The collective action of many atoms undergoing forced oscillations and producing many electromagnetic waves that all interfere with each other result in the observed speed of light through any medium. It is never as simple as one photon and one atom in any real scenario.
I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical?
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.
-
Ah but can singularities be observed?
"Observation" generally means some sort of particle exchange has occurred. When you look at things with your eyes, you are seeing photons that "bounced" off stuff, then were absorbed by electrons in your retina. When we "observe" particles, we basically "bounce" or "crash" other particles off them and see what happens to them, or observe how different particles scatter after the collision. You can't observe a black hole because any particle you accelerate toward it in order to make an observation simply gets absorbed and dissappears; it won't bounce off the singularity, nor will scattered particles come out of the singularity to be observed after such a collision. It simply merges with the singularity. I suppose you could make the observation that the black hole pulls a little harder on you after it absorbed the particle you tried to observe it with if you had an unbelievably accurate scale.
I think a better questions is, "Can a singularity even exist?" I think there is a point beyond which mass and energy cannot be compressed any farther because there needs to be enough room for particles to oscillate a bit. I think a true "point" singularity is impossible. A point, by definition, has no length, width or depth, so it can contain nothing. A "true" point is in fact imaginary. As such, I am a firm believer in the idea that before they reach a "point," black holes rather reach a "critical point" of mass/energy density similar to the Chandrasekhar limit for a type 1a supernova. I think that when a supermassive black hole consumes enough supermassive black holes, eventually that mass and energy reaches "a point" where it cannot be constrained any farther into an actual "point," and when mass/energy content for a super-supermassive black hole reaches approximately 1 Universe, it all gets released in an explosive Big Bang event, a sort of "mega-supernova."
This idea solves two problems.
First, entropy is seen as a one-way process. My idea is that when particles merge with a black hole's contents, that's the reverse of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis taking place in there where we can't see it. A Big Bang as such amounts to an "entropic reversal." Whatever mathematicians may say about black holes and entropy, to me, logically, there's nothing more "ordered" than a miniscule space containing billions of galaxies worth of condensed mass/energy plasma soup that wants to expand, fill space and decay to less volatile forms. I often compare this to a bottle of compressed gas. Taking the lid off the bottle is the Big Bang. Black holes "put the gas back in the bottle." One-way entropy contradiction solved.
Second, a finite universe with a Big Bang starting point and a heat death ending point doesn't make much sense according to mass/energy conservation. There should be something before and after the Big Bang. I don't think everything was "created" at the Big Bang. Mass and energy cannot be created or destroyed, that's basic Thermodynamics. My idea makes the universe cyclical, with something existing both before and after our present Universe.
I would also point out that if everything IN the universe is cyclical, why would the Universe itself not also be cyclical? There are multiple examples of everything in the universe, from quarks to atoms to molecules to planets to stars to galaxies to galaxy clusters to superclusters, supernovae, black holes, etc. 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. To me, it makes more sense to think of our present universe as a particle of sorts, which can be "created" and "annihilated," but that doesn't mean the stuff it's made of ever actually ceases to exist. It just exists as some particular entity for an arbitrary period of time before undergoing some other transformation to its mass and energy.
While that is all interesting in its own way you assume to know the level of my knowledge. Of course I know that you can't observe a singularity. I was posing a question to Thebox.
-
While that is all interesting in its own way you assume to know the level of my knowledge. Of course I know that you can't observe a singularity. I was posing a question to Thebox.
I'm not the type to assume things, unless they are something that generally falls under the category of "common sense." I merely feel that, in a physics forum, I should explain myself fully in a post. I'm certainly not trying be patronizing about your knowledge. If there's an assumption being made on my part, it's that someone might be reading my post who knows either more or less than either you or I do, or might even reply to my post, as this IS a public forum. To me, that's a "common sense" observation.
-
So what is your view on gauge gravitation theory?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
-
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.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
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''
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
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.
-
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.
-
there is no point in idle speculation.
Then please leave this thread immediately.
-
"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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
. 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
And you sitting at your computer typing argumentative nonsense is helping how?
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
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.
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?
-
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 r³
-E=<4/3 pi r³
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
The same applies to you, what do you want to know?
-
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?
-
Your modesty is inspirational.
Your flaming is not. Would you like to say something about black holes? Or are you just going to keep talking about me?
-
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?
Well firstly I am not ''ripping'' you apart, and may I suggest to take a deep breath and stop letting words wind you up. They are trolling you because you bite, if you know you are smart then there is no need to bite, why not ignore them as if they never existed?
If you are truly some sort of science educated person, then I am not the one who can say that is not true, and neither is anyone else. I think you mistake alternative scientific views and are getting offended by this.
Now moving on to what you have said about my ideas, nobody has ever disproved them , therefore they must be true, repeating present information does not resolve or destroy my ideas, only valued logic can do this.
So ok, you say and think you are smart, then I challenge you to destroy my logic with logic, if you fail then will you listen to me and hear out the rest of my ''story''?
Or will you just run away like everyone else does when they feel in-superior? not that I think i am smart, I always know nothing.
So here is my challenge,
prove that any value of measurement after 0 time is not instantaneous history?
-
Like I said run away, logged out and scampered off, when you call somebody else and say they are full of BS, you better be ready to be have your mouth closed when they are well clued up but pretend to know nothing, I don't know everything but I have a far better idea of relativity than you do.
Arrogance is truly the naivety of a person...
added- I always use axiom's with the highest value of logic, in simple terms I tell the blinking truth of relativity and do not lie to myself about what we do or do not observe.
-
So here is my challenge,
prove that any value of measurement after 0 time is not instantaneous history?
I don't believe in zero. There is no such thing as "nothing." I believe in mass/energy conservation. I believe there was a Big Bang, but I don't think it emerged from a "point" singularity. A point has no length, width, or depth, and can contain nothing.
Logical or not, if I am to believe mass/energy conservation is absolute, there can be no such thing as "nothing" or "zero." It is a mathematical abstraction. It's useful for things like, "If I have 3 apples, and take away 3 apples, that leaves zero apples," but obviously, if you just move them across the table to perform the operation, they still exist. If you eat them, their mass and energy become part of you. They still exist that way, too. There is no such thing as zero, so I don't think there's an "after zero" either.
My hypothesis is that the universe is cyclical. Black holes to me are not an example of entropy. What a black hole is is a huge amount of mass and energy in a small space. That's "order," not "disorder." If a black hole blew up and released those contents, dissipating them throughout space, THAT would be disorder. That's what logic suggests to me, anyway. A bottle of gas is order, pop the lid off and let the gas spread throughout the room, that's disorder. I think that's what the Big Bang was: a black hole that reached a critical mass, at which point it released its contents. This version of the Big Bang has no need for an actual "zero time" measurement, just something more like a "reset button" for a stopwatch that never actually stops. Mass and energy are conserved forever, while the Big Bang is just a large scale mass/energy conversion. The universe has always existed, always will, and there will be other Big Bangs eventually.
-
Like I said run away, logged out and scampered off, when you call somebody else and say they are full of BS, you better be ready to be have your mouth closed when they are well clued up but pretend to know nothing, I don't know everything but I have a far better idea of relativity than you do.
Still here, just visiting Google news. You called me arrogant, but you expect me to drop whatever I'm doing to have a debate with you?
Tell me what you know about Relativity. This ought to be good. Open your mouth wide and clue me right up, LOL
-
There is no such thing as zero, so I don't think there's an "after zero" either.
The evidence suggests absolute n-dimensional space with a value of k=0 or k=n , 0 being equal to n in that nothing can be a 0 point or a visual whole finite point interior inside an n-dimensional exterior.
My hypothesis is that the universe is cyclical. Black holes to me are not an example of entropy. What a black hole is is a huge amount of mass and energy in a small space. That's "order," not "disorder." If a black hole blew up and released those contents, dissipating them throughout space, THAT would be disorder. That's what logic suggests to me, anyway. A bottle of gas is order, pop the lid off and let the gas spread throughout the room, that's disorder. I think that's what the Big Bang was: a black hole that reached a critical mass, at which point it released its contents. This version of the Big Bang has no need for an actual "zero time" measurement, just something more like a "reset button" for a stopwatch that never actually stops. Mass and energy are conserved forever, while the Big Bang is just a large scale mass/energy conversion. The universe has always existed, always will, and there will be other Big Bangs eventually.
I would have to pull you up on the first line , where on Earth do you perceive cyclical from? The motion of bodies is just the motion of bodies relatively travelling through absolute space.
Space does not have to be moving for the bodies to move or does the shape of cyclical, in comparison with the star saucepan formation, have relativity to absolute - space. The formation is relative to the bodies.
Shapes are of the imagination of space, only objects have shape, XYZ space is really n .
The Big bang theory can not be correct, all the matter in the visual universe would not fit into a 0 point if we rewound the big bang.
-
Like I said run away, logged out and scampered off, when you call somebody else and say they are full of BS, you better be ready to be have your mouth closed when they are well clued up but pretend to know nothing, I don't know everything but I have a far better idea of relativity than you do.
Still here, just visiting Google news. You called me arrogant, but you expect me to drop whatever I'm doing to have a debate with you?
Tell me what you know about Relativity. This ought to be good. Open your mouth wide and clue me right up, LOL
Relativity is simply what two or more observers agree upon,
''noun
14.
something that is not dependent upon external conditions for existence or for its specific nature, size, etc. (opposed to relative ).''
Relative matter occupies absolute-space
-
Let me give you an easy question, what is the wave-length of the represented by the green line?
I get 0
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
How about another truthful model
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
You asked what is relative, expect new, my perspective is relative.
Black holes do emit light and reflect light, but you can not see this because they are relatively too small for the inverse square law to work. Imagine a small dense mass that was 1000 yrds away from you, you would not observe it to be there but it would be affected its surroundings.
-
Let me give you an easy question, what is the wave-length of the represented by the green line?
I get 0
[ Invalid Attachment ]
There is no such thing as zero. It is a mathematical abstraction. From the Calculus book I'm tutoring myself with:
"A mathematical model is never a completely accurate representation of a physical situation--it is an idealization. A good model simplifies reality enough to permit mathematical calculations but is accurate enough to provide valuable conclusions. It is important to realize the limitations of the model. In the end, Mother Nature has the final say." [Calculus Early Transcendentals, Stewart]
Looks like Mr. Thomson absorbed that green photon:
http://www.houzz.com/photos/798010/Everybody-Wanna-Hit-of-Your-Pipe-Dream-modern-artwork-other-metro
-
There is no such thing as zero. It is a mathematical abstraction. From the Calculus book I'm tutoring myself with:
I thought you said you was smart?
There is no such thing as zero are you mad? there is no such thing as numbers they are abstract, you clearly are confused and are naive in believing what you are reading.
Every single 0 point of ''empty'' space is zero, nothing, then one is any xyzt.
You are not smart at all.
-
Look its really simple, take two equal length sticks ,
0.........................0
1.........................1
Do you in some way think that labelling the length 1 something , it changes the length any or affects the length any? That is because numbers are abstract, even the numbers of time are abstract, 1 second is a length of history from 0-1, number one is a variate and not absolute like 0 and space.
A frequency that changes in rate measured over an absolute length does not change the length of measurement.
0→A
A→0
The absolute length of space is an invariant.
-
del
-
del
Yeah, that was pretty smart. LOL.
Here's one of my favorite quotes: "... and just as only the very rich understand the difference between themselves and the poor, only the truly brilliant comprehend the difference between themselves and men of moderate intelligence."
https://books.google.com/books?id=p0yWHm0Qw14C&pg=PA234&lpg=PA234&dq=lawrence+g+mcdonald+just+as+only+the+rich+only+the+brilliant&source=bl&ots=tg-1S7RaQI&sig=wnGI8jBN5QHGFfVMYB2BPnnFbfU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwib4K_z4d7LAhVQymMKHU8WBlkQ6AEIHDAA#v=onepage&q=lawrence%20g%20mcdonald%20just%20as%20only%20the%20rich%20only%20the%20brilliant&f=false
Have fun with your play science, thinking outside TheBox. I'm having a real debate on anthropogenic climate change with a boring pharmacologist in another thread.
-
Et
Your modesty is inspirational.
Your flaming is not. Would you like to say something about black holes? Or are you just going to keep talking about me?
I see little point since none of us mere mortals here could hope to approach the level of your superior intellect. Maybe you should teach us, oh great one.
-
Have fun with your play science,
Says what authority?
Play science?
Yet I use axioms and present knowledge,
are you suggesting science is wrong?
Clearly you are not as clever as you thought you was and could not even comprehend my level of understanding.
Why do I even bother replying to clowns like you, why do I even bother with science, all my ideas will be stole and used by the predators, I don't normally drink, but tonight I am a bit drunk , so you know what, stuff all of science, I am not going to spill any more beans, you truly will never understand because the entire world is deluded and quite thick, including you.
I may just get insulting and push for ban, or I may just ignore everyone all together, or maybe I should resort to stupid stuff which you find more interesting than the truth.
-
Says what authority?
Play science?
Yet I use axioms and present knowledge,
are you suggesting science is wrong?
Clearly you are not as clever as you thought you was and could not even comprehend my level of understanding.
Why do I even bother replying to clowns like you, why do I even bother with science, all my ideas will be stole and used by the predators, I don't normally drink, but tonight I am a bit drunk , so you know what, stuff all of science, I am not going to spill any more beans, you truly will never understand because the entire world is deluded and quite thick, including you.
I may just get insulting and push for ban, or I may just ignore everyone all together, or maybe I should resort to stupid stuff which you find more interesting than the truth.
I'm not suggesting science is wrong, that's for sure. The science is right.
It's all the people here talking about it that are wrong, especially you.
Science actually makes sense to me ... until I log on and read what everyone is posting. That's what doesn't make sense. Between you, Bored Chemist, alancalverd, Tim the Plumber, waitedavid137, Krash661, Sea Bass, Nacho and the rest, you guys could write an antithesis or alternative explanation for not just everything I know, but everything we know as a species.
I used to like you, when you stood up to waitedavid. But that's typical, actually. He says, I'm wrong, you say I'm wrong, but neither of you agree either. That's how it goes at physics forums, in the best of my experience. It's like talking about physics in a courtroom full of lawyers that all have their own peculiar twist on the facts. Nobody cares about the facts. Everybody is more worried about their own interpretation of the facts.
I'm here seeking clarity. These jokers obfuscate, you dilly-dally with silly ideas. Sorry, but if you were more serious about this stuff, you would try to learn it, not piece it together from a couple of facts and a lot of outside the box thinking.
You shouldn't post when you are drinking. I quit drinking over a year ago, but only a couple of years ago, I got banned from a forum posting drunk.
-
I see little point since none of us mere mortals here could hope to approach the level of your superior intellect. Maybe you should teach us, oh great one.
I can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.
You can lead a horse to a glacier melted by anthropogenic climate change, but you cannot make him drink.
-
I see little point since none of us mere mortals here could hope to approach the level of your superior intellect. Maybe you should teach us, oh great one.
I can't teach someone who doesn't want to learn.
You can lead a horse to a glacier melted by anthropogenic climate change, but you cannot make him drink.
The reason you don't get a positive reaction is that you are rude, insulting and have an overblown opinion of yourself. That is very ego-centric and excludes most sensible debate. No one is right all the time and yet you are ready to state that every member of this forum is wrong. And you wonder why you don't get a positive response?
-
The reason you don't get a positive reaction is that you are rude, insulting and have an overblown opinion of yourself. That is very ego-centric and excludes most sensible debate. No one is right all the time and yet you are ready to state that every member of this forum is wrong. And you wonder why you don't get a positive response?
False. There are people who don't feel that way. They are the ones who treat me with respect, and engage in a discussion about science.
Sorry, but I can't really be wrong about anything here, for several reasons.
First of all, I qualify my statements regularly by noting that I am only a layman, and science is my hobby, not my occupation.
Secondly, I generally qualify my statements with words like, "it would seem," or "I think," or "this suggests," or "in my opinion,"
making it clear I am not making a statement of fact. If I state something like it's a fact, it probably is. So, if you're
countering what I see as facts, you had better take it up with the guy who worked at NASA for 30 years who taught
the Stellar Physics course I took in college, or the PhD who wrote a textbook on Quantum Physics I have on my shelf,
for example. Those are the sorts of people I get my information from, not internet forum crackpots who say they are wrong.
Thirdly, I post links to information supporting my comments at times, especially if they have a ".org" or ".gov" designation.
Finally, there are two types of non-trolls in public forums. There are people who ignore them, and there are people who engage them.
I am simply one of the latter type. I don't think people should have to be submissive to jerkfaces. I think you ought to get a handful
of feces thrown back at you like the ape you are.
Again, there's a reason you have such a low percentage of "thank yous" after that many comments. Just like you said,
"The reason you don't get a positive reaction is that you are rude, insulting and have an overblown opinion of yourself."
I started out with 3 thanks you's after only about 50 comments. It's only going down because I beat my head against brick walls like you.
Who cares? I didn't come here to kiss anybody's butt. I came here to talk about science. This is a physics forum. Say something
about physics, or please stop posting. You're not just wasting my time flaming. Everybody has to scroll through your unedifying rubbish.
-
Yet more insults. I suppose you have read the forum acceptable usage policy. So the next time you call me an ape and I deserve to have feces thrown at me please go back and read that policy. Whilst I am only pointing out your obnoxious behavior you respond by ramping up the insults. Yet you can see nothing wrong with that behavior.
-
Yet more insults. I suppose you have read the forum acceptable usage policy. So the next time you call me an ape and I deserve to have feces thrown at me please go back and read that policy. Whilst I am only pointing out your obnoxious behavior you respond by ramping up the insults. Yet you can see nothing wrong with that behavior.
Last time I checked, homo sapiens was a species of primate. That includes you.
Again, this is a science forum. Acceptable behavior for a science forum is talking about science, not flaming.
So, stop flaming me and say something about science, or shut your ape mouth before I shove a banana in it.
-
Again, this is a science forum. Acceptable behavior for a science forum is talking about science, not flaming.
Yes that is correct
So, stop flaming me and say something about science, or shut your ape mouth before I shove a banana in it.
Then contradictory to your first statement reply with flaming and an insult, so by this self evident admittance of the second quote showing evidentially a contradiction to the first post and admitting knowing forum etiquette, I postulate a dismissal of you from this forum for clearly trolling and ignoring your admittance of knowing forum etiquette.
How do you plead?
-
Your very first contribution to this thread when replying to Thebox began "I don't see it that way, but I am not missing 50% of my brain, either." So you in fact started your contribution with an unwarranted attack on a forum member. That was in reply #29. From that point on your contribution was a continuing flame war with agyejy. Since then you have continued in the same vein when being corrected by anyone that you feel is inferior to you. I didn't start the BS. You did.
-
I'm not suggesting science is wrong, that's for sure. The science is right.
It's all the people here talking about it that are wrong, especially you.
I like how you add the ''especially you'' part, trying to in some way personally attack me and specify a significance in my direction, quite hilarious, you claim you want to discuss science and are the all knowing ''eye'', so bless me please with your ability, tell me how we can measure time?
Anything after 0 is instantaneous history, in ''ten minutes'' time it will still be 0, so please tell us oh wise one?
p.s You are clearly a professional troll, but I could out troll you any day of the week, go find some forum that gives a ..........
Keep up the good work , one day you may move on become a crackpot like me,instead of a troll, then eventually you might move on and become normal... YOU are stuck in the first stage of your delusions of grandeur. YOU are becoming irate because you are in a narcissi relationship and need to escape reality by trying to control who you talk to in the virtual world.
Get well soon.
-
I like how you add the ''especially you'' part, trying to in some way personally attack me and specify a significance in my direction, quite hilarious, you claim you want to discuss science and are the all knowing ''eye'', so bless me please with your ability, tell me how we can measure time?
p.s You are clearly a professional troll, but I could out troll you any day of the week, go find some forum that gives a ..........
Keep up the good work , one day you may move on become a crackpot like me,instead of a troll, then eventually you might move on and become normal... YOU are stuck in the first stage of your delusions of grandeur. YOU are becoming irate because you are in a narcissi relationship and need to escape reality by trying to control who you talk to in the virtual world.
Get well soon.
Piss poor diagnosis, doctor. I am a professional artist and a science hobbyist that stands up for himself when literally 100% of you jokers
tell me I am wrong no matter what I say.
And yes, that's irritating.
-
I didn't start the BS. You did.
False. I just showed up recently. You've been pulling this crap for at least a few thousand comments.
The only black hole in this thread is the apparent gap in scientific knowledge between your ears.
-
Piss poor diagnosis, doctor.
Then contradictory:
I am a professional artist and a science hobbyist that stands up for himself
Science is your hobby, so obviously you do not know everything about science, you are presently attempting to learn calculus, yet you think in some way you have any sort of authority to tell any one they are wrong?
How can you say you do not have issues with your mental health when you are not an expert but are trying proclaim to be?
when literally 100% of you jokers
tell me I am wrong no matter what I say.
Tell you , you are wrong on what exactly?
What exactly are you claiming is your own work? don't you mean some people do not agree with some present theories , so when you defend this as if a religion they tell you to shut up and don't listen to you because of that reason of sounding like a preacher?
Do you not think other people have access to Wiki?
Accept you are ill my friend and you will soon get better, I did.
Here is some links to help you understand your illness.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions
http://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/a-z-mental-health/
-
Science is your hobby, so obviously you do not know everything about science, you are presently attempting to learn calculus, yet you think in some way you have any sort of authority to tell any one they are wrong?
How can you say you do not have issues with your mental health when you are not an expert but are trying proclaim to be?
Tell you , you are wrong on what exactly?
What exactly are you claiming is your own work? don't you mean some people do not agree with some present theories , so when you defend this as if a religion they tell you to shut up and don't listen to you because of that reason of sounding like a preacher?
Do you not think other people have access to Wiki?
Accept you are ill my friend and you will soon get better, I did.
Here is some links to help you understand your illness.
That's weird, the mental illness thing. People at physforum.com were fond of calling me schizophrenic for some reason. I don't have mental illness. I am a reasonably well adjusted human, I have had the same job for almost 9 years straight, I've lived at the same address for almost as long, my last relationship lasted almost 4 1/2 years, I made it all the way through an accredited university degree program, I have managed three businesses, owned two others, and I donate money to buy disadvantaged kids art supplies. None of this is indicative of a person who is mentally unstable.
I don't know how to be any more plain than this. Last time I checked, I had a 155 IQ. Last time I checked, I got good grades in science in college. Last time I checked, I tutored Algebra briefly in college. Last time I checked, I did all these things as Craig W. Thomson, and it can all be verified, "TheBox."
So, when I learn stuff correctly, and graduate with honors, then come to a forum, and some anonymous guy tells me I don't understand physics or math, that I am ignorant and hard-headed for not listening when he's contradicting what I already learned from someone who was actually qualified to teach me, that gets on my nerves. I'm not an authority on everything, but I AM an authority on the bits I have actually learned.
You want a specific example? Let's start here. You came to physforum.com specifically to troll waitedavid137 with pmb (that sounds like professional trolling to me, hypocrite), so I'm pretty sure you remember him. Waite says there is no such thing as centrifugal force. That contradicts what one of my Stellar Physics professor in college said, and he worked for NASA for almost three decades. I agree with him, and with Peter Fong, who has a doctorate, and wrote this excerpt from a college textbook for quantum mechanics students:
Okay, that's annoying, Flickr is a "blacklisted" term, I can't post the link because of a forum robot. I can't change my Flickr profile because I got locked out by more "smart" technology, ugh. Sorry, all I can do is ask you to do a Google key word search for " craig w thomson flickr ", click on the result "Craig Thomson | Flickr - Photo Sharing!". When you get to my photostream, near the top, one of the last things I posted before they changed hands and I got locked out were two pages from a textbook with a lot of equations on it with the words "Central Force Problems" at the top of the page. Be so kind as to take a look at those two pages.
Do you agree with Fong, or with waitedavid? I have a Bachelor of Arts. Waite is a Master of Physics. Fong has a PhD. I know enough to trust Fong, or even a retired NASA guy from the 60's, over some crackpot in a public forum.
Do you even know what those pages are saying?
If you do, you have room to talk.
If you don't, you're the one who needs help, and like almost everyone else in forums like these, you could show a little bit more respect for my scholarship. I'm not your typical forum pretender. I actually have some scholarship.
Yes, you post a lot of nonsense. I know you have been told that by far more people than just me.
-
That's weird, the mental illness thing. People at physforum.com were fond of calling me schizophrenic for some reason. I don't have mental illness. I am a reasonably well adjusted human, I have had the same job for almost 9 years straight, I've lived at the same address for almost as long, my last relationship lasted almost 4 1/2 years, I made it all the way through an accredited university degree program, I have managed three businesses, owned two others, and I donate money to buy disadvantaged kids art supplies. None of this is indicative of a person who is mentally unstable.
I don't know how to be any more plain than this. Last time I checked, I had a 155 IQ. Last time I checked, I got good grades in science in college. Last time I checked, I tutored Algebra briefly in college. Last time I checked, I did all these things as Craig W. Thomson, and it can all be verified, "TheBox."
So, when I learn stuff correctly, and graduate with honors, then come to a forum, and some anonymous guy tells me I don't understand physics or math, that I am ignorant and hard-headed for not listening when he's contradicting what I already learned from someone who was actually qualified to teach me, that gets on my nerves. I'm not an authority on everything, but I AM an authority on the bits I have actually learned.
You want a specific example? Let's start here. You came to physforum.com specifically to troll waitedavid137 with pmb (that sounds like professional trolling to me, hypocrite), so I'm pretty sure you remember him. Waite says there is no such thing as centrifugal force. That contradicts what one of my Stellar Physics professor in college said, and he worked for NASA for almost three decades. I agree with him, and with Peter Fong, who has a doctorate, and wrote this excerpt from a college textbook for quantum mechanics students:
Okay, that's annoying, Flickr is a "blacklisted" term, I can't post the link because of a forum robot. I can't change my Flickr profile because I got locked out by more "smart" technology, ugh. Sorry, all I can do is ask you to do a Google key word search for "craig w thomson flickr". When you get to my photostream, one of the last things I posted before they changed hands and I got locked out were two pages from a textbook with a lot of equations on it with the words "Central Force Problems" at the top of the page. Be so kind as to take a look at those two pages.
Do you agree with Fong, or with waitedavid? I have a Bachelor of Arts. Waite is a Master of Physics. Fong has a PhD. I know enough to trust Fong, or even a retired NASA guy from the 60's, over some crackpot in a public forum.
Do you even know what those pages are saying?
If you do, you have room to talk.
If you don't, you're the one who needs help, and like almost everyone else in forums like these, you could show a little bit more respect for my scholarship. I'm not your typical forum pretender. I actually have some scholarship.
Yes, you post a lot of nonsense. I know you have been told that by far more people than just me.
I am not questioning whether you are smart or not, there is no need to defend yourself, if you say you have this , that and the other, I believe you. However you have problems about trust and it is obvious to anyone your 4 and half year relationship that ended has affected your life in some way unknowing to you perhaps on the sub conscious level. You would have not mentioned it otherwise revealing your personal life.
There is all sort of mental illness, some so mild they would not be called a mental illness but they still affect the mind and thinking.
I think you just need a good friend, a good talk and a laugh.
So centrifugal force, it cant be measured but it exists according to Wiki, people may have opinions it does not exist and is not actually a force, but I consider even gas expansion is centrifugal , gas contraction is centripetal,
p.s dont be so uptight and you will get on , on this forum fine , they are quite a cool forum to be honest and do let us get on with it in new theories. Ignore the haters and watch a film called cyber bully, you have the choice to close the lid on the laptop.
-
However you have problems about trust and it is obvious to anyone your 4 and half year relationship that ended has affected your life in some way unknowing to you perhaps on the sub conscious level. You would have not mentioned it otherwise revealing your personal life.
There is all sort of mental illness, some so mild they would not be called a mental illness but they still affect the mind and thinking.
I think you just need a good friend, a good talk and a laugh.
So centrifugal force, it cant be measured but it exists according to Wiki, people may have opinions it does not exist and is not actually a force, but I consider even gas expansion is centrifugal , gas contraction is centripetal,
p.s dont be so uptight and you will get on , on this forum fine , they are quite a cool forum to be honest and do let us get on with it in new theories. Ignore the haters and watch a film called cyber bully, you have the choice to close the lid on the laptop.
My trust issues go way farther back than that, and are way deeper than the wounds inflicted by any adult relationship I've had. All those have done is reinforce my trust issues. Yes, I DO need a good friend, a laugh and a talk. I'm pretty hard on people. I let bad apples spoil the bunch, that's my problem. I have a stereotype: people are pretty crappy in general, they lie about what they've done, what they can do, what they will do, and just when you think you can trust somebody, they do something to betray it. So, I generally keep to myself and try to stay out of everybody's way.
That's about as close to a mental illness as I get. One thing I've discovered as I've gotten older is that there is no such thing as a 100% sane person anyway. Everybody labors with some kind of dysfunction, even reasonably well-adjusted people. Anyone who claims to be sane is only partially correct in my estimation.
Getting back to science, you've already done again what I said you do. Expanding gas has nothing to do with centrifugal force. If you open a bottle full of pressurized gas, it expands whether or not the bottle is rotating. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.
Centrifugal force, as explained by my Stellar Physics professor, and which makes sense to me, is sort of a manifestation of Newton's idea that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In this case, when you accelerate something toward a center (centripetal force), you are going to get an equal and opposite reaction to that (centrifugal force). You can't have one without the other. These two "opposing" forces are a bit like yin and yang (that's my analogy, not the professor's) because they are like two faces of the same coin. To me, this an example of gauge symmetry, like the positive/negative symmetry of an electromagnetic field.
If you push something, you get a reaction, so if you spin something, there should be a reaction to that as well. Basically, waitedavid says that's not true because he has an equation where he imagined that he was the only thing in the universe not in motion, and used that frame of reference for his observations. That's more Ptolemaic than Ptolemy's point of view. Using a fictitious frame of reference doesn't turn a real force into a fictitious one, whether or not some guy on the internet has a Master of Physics degree and a bunch of videos full of still equations with no operations being performed on them.
And I'm not "uptight." I smoke weed. I hug trees. I am an artist by profession, and I play guitar like Eddie Van Halen for a hobby. I came to a physics forum armed with a college degree seeking friendly conversation and a learning experience, and got told by about a bazillion people that I am stupid and ignorant. What you are seeing is merely a reaction to that action. Me in this forum doesn't tell the whole story. You've heard the expression "don't judge a book by its cover," right? How about, "don't jump to conclusions"?
Or the "scientific method"? LOL
-
However you have problems about trust and it is obvious to anyone your 4 and half year relationship that ended has affected your life in some way unknowing to you perhaps on the sub conscious level. You would have not mentioned it otherwise revealing your personal life.
There is all sort of mental illness, some so mild they would not be called a mental illness but they still affect the mind and thinking.
I think you just need a good friend, a good talk and a laugh.
So centrifugal force, it cant be measured but it exists according to Wiki, people may have opinions it does not exist and is not actually a force, but I consider even gas expansion is centrifugal , gas contraction is centripetal,
p.s dont be so uptight and you will get on , on this forum fine , they are quite a cool forum to be honest and do let us get on with it in new theories. Ignore the haters and watch a film called cyber bully, you have the choice to close the lid on the laptop.
My trust issues go way farther back than that, and are way deeper than the wounds inflicted by any adult relationship I've had. All those have done is reinforce my trust issues. Yes, I DO need a good friend, a laugh and a talk. I'm pretty hard on people. I let bad apples spoil the bunch, that's my problem. I have a stereotype: people are pretty crappy in general, they lie about what they've done, what they can do, what they will do, and just when you think you can trust somebody, they do something to betray it. So, I generally keep to myself and try to stay out of everybody's way.
That's about as close to a mental illness as I get. One thing I've discovered as I've gotten older is that there is no such thing as a 100% sane person anyway. Everybody labors with some kind of dysfunction, even reasonably well-adjusted people. Anyone who claims to be sane is only partially correct in my estimation.
Getting back to science, you've already done again what I said you do. Expanding gas has nothing to do with centrifugal force. If you open a bottle full of pressurized gas, it expands whether or not the bottle is rotating. To suggest otherwise is nonsense.
Centrifugal force, as explained by my Stellar Physics professor, and which makes sense to me, is sort of a manifestation of Newton's idea that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. In this case, when you accelerate something toward a center (centripetal force), you are going to get an equal and opposite reaction to that (centrifugal force). You can't have one without the other. These two "opposing" forces are a bit like yin and yang (that's my analogy, not the professor's) because they are like two faces of the same coin. To me, this an example of gauge symmetry, like the positive/negative symmetry of an electromagnetic field.
If you push something, you get a reaction, so if you spin something, there should be a reaction to that as well. Basically, waitedavid says that's not true because he has an equation where he imagined that he was the only thing in the universe not in motion, and used that frame of reference for his observations. That's more Ptolemaic than Ptolemy's point of view. Using a fictitious frame of reference doesn't turn a real force into a fictitious one, whether or not some guy on the internet has a Master of Physics degree and a bunch of videos full of still equations with no operations being performed on them.
And I'm not "uptight." I smoke weed. I hug trees. I am an artist by profession, and I play guitar like Eddie Van Halen for a hobby. I came to a physics forum armed with a college degree seeking friendly conversation and a learning experience, and got told by about a bazillion people that I am stupid and ignorant. What you are seeing is merely a reaction to that action. Me in this forum doesn't tell the whole story. You've heard the expression "don't judge a book by its cover," right? How about, "don't jump to conclusions"?
Or the "scientific method"? LOL
Well you certainly are honest, we are lucky in life if we can count our true friends with five fingers, most friends are really only acquaintances . You consider you have had a hard time on science forums, you want try being me and trying to have new ideas.
You instantly dismissed me when I said about gases, why? did you not realise the relationship and comparison to directive force and the force being outwards? i.e ''centrifugal''
You even explained it yourself as ''in and out''.
Now if you like the idea of a centrifugal force, how would you suggest we measure it?
I would suggest there is rather a centrifugal flow and a centripetal flow like a Maelstrom. (maybe)
Maybe the spin one way creates a positive expanding field and the opposite spin creates a negative contracting field.
-
You consider you have had a hard time on science forums, you want try being me and trying to have new ideas.
Hilarious. I can't even have a discussion about anthropogenic climate change without being told I'm wrong about pretty much everything I say, and that's something I've gone out of my way to study and understand correctly. I'm probably as close to being an "expert" on that subject as anyone after almost 30 years, dozens of books and a handful of college science credits.
The only "new ideas" I am interested in are ones that simplify what I already know. Some Relativity and QM processes seem pretty confusing, but I think we have pretty much all the information we need to understand these processes and how they work, if we can only come up with better, more accurate models that fit all the facts. I think QM and Relativity can be unified, we just need the right particle models and such. That's what I'm looking for. Not new theories, not new explanations, just new models that fit our present knowledge and clarify what we already know.
I like that you use your brain and think outside the box. That's good. But I don't agree with you. I think you are TOO original in your way of thinking, and deviate from true science.
-
You consider you have had a hard time on science forums, you want try being me and trying to have new ideas.
Hilarious. I can't even have a discussion about anthropogenic climate change without being told I'm wrong about pretty much everything I say, and that's something I've gone out of my way to study and understand correctly. I'm probably as close to being an "expert" on that subject as anyone after almost 30 years, dozens of books and a handful of college science credits.
The only "new ideas" I am interested in are ones that simplify what I already know. Some Relativity and QM processes seem pretty confusing, but I think we have pretty much all the information we need to understand these processes and how they work, if we can only come up with better, more accurate models that fit all the facts. I think QM and Relativity can be unified, we just need the right particle models and such. That's what I'm looking for. Not new theories, not new explanations, just new models that fit our present knowledge and clarify what we already know.
I like that you use your brain and think outside the box. That's good. But I don't agree with you. I think you are TOO original in your way of thinking, and deviate from true science.
I don't deviate from present knowledge, I expand this knowledge to what it is telling us. In my singularity theory I use the inverse square law, how is that not using present knowledge exactly?
In my idea of negative is attracted to negative , I use the present model to define this model and the facts we know about like positive charges repel each other. If you took an handful of positive in one hand and an handful of positive in your other hand, you could not possibly squeeze the two together.
A quark not possibly adjoin a quark if they was positive. They will discover in time that only a single particle exists, and this particle is negative that absorbs light and then emits light . Not an attached electron an emitted photon electrical field.
-
I didn't start the BS. You did.
False. I just showed up recently. You've been pulling this crap for at least a few thousand comments.
The only black hole in this thread is the apparent gap in scientific knowledge between your ears.
I laughed out loud with that! I couldn't agree with you more... I'm astounded by just how warped, distorted and flat out wrong some's perception here have been, and to see how strongly they believe in their nonsense... just... wow...