0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Density is the mass per unit volume. This means that the density of any solid, liquid or gas can be found by dividing its mass in kilograms by its volume in cubic metres. Density can be found using the equation: The unit for density is kg m.
Let us look at the science ''legalese'' version of the definition of densityQuoteDensity is the mass per unit volume. This means that the density of any solid, liquid or gas can be found by dividing its mass in kilograms by its volume in cubic metres. Density can be found using the equation: The unit for density is kg m.Meaningless , let me translate into realism terms Density is the mass( a word we use that means nothing) per unit volume.Kilogram per unit volume, I think not. Mass is force related and nothing to do with density. Kilogram is the result of acting forces.added- Proof, an electron has no mass to other electrons but it is still has density. A Proton has no mass to other Protons but it still has density. What you are talking about also has a max density and it is a+b which is also absolute logic. a+b =V1(a+b) - (a+b) = V1The same see....
Ok, I already have an objective argument, saying something is infinitely dense is illogical. At some point there is a point where an objects density is at its absolute density. There can be no such thing as an infinite density. This is really poor use of the English language and contradicts the very meaning of infinite. infiniteˈɪnfɪnɪt/Submitadjective1.limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.noun1.a space or quantity that is infinite.There is a limit to all density, once there is no space left between any point of the object is the Dmax. Where D is density. A volume of space is finite , if all points of the volume are occupied, you can't get any denser than that. Dmax = V(k) - k where k is space and V is volumeTake note, we don't actually take away space, we occupy it with something. Maybe in your terms Dmax = 4/3πr³ (k) - 4/3πr³ (k)
Another way to tell the difference would be through gravitational lensing. If you were fortunate enough to be in a position where the binary was passing in front of a source of light, you could see how the invisible partner bends that light (at least in theory). A black hole would bend light much more strongly than a mirror matter star of equal mass.
It was gravitational lensiing that made me think about transparency , the electromagnetic radiation surrounding the BH , ''refracting'' off the BH almost turning but not quite into a visible wavelength.
Quote from: Thebox on 17/03/2018 18:58:09It was gravitational lensiing that made me think about transparency , the electromagnetic radiation surrounding the BH , ''refracting'' off the BH almost turning but not quite into a visible wavelength. Gravitational lensing only changes the trajectory of the radiation. It doesn't change its wavelength.
How do you see it / detect it , if it does not change wave-length?
Quote from: Thebox on 18/03/2018 11:25:37How do you see it / detect it , if it does not change wave-length? It creates visual distortions. You can see some stars that are behind the Sun, for example, because the Sun bends their light around it.
creating an almost visible wave-length.
Quote from: Thebox on 18/03/2018 14:14:06creating an almost visible wave-length.Again, this does not change the wavelength of the light that is being distorted.
You think it doesn't , that does not mean it doesn't. Objectively it does, it is like saying water does not affect the wave-length of light.
You can see water because you can see the light reflected by the molecules of the water.
It is no difference, if a permeating photon encounters a spacial field with a greater permeability, then E=mc² and the frequency you will observe is dependent to the permeability of the field.
Water doesn't affect light's wavelength.
Quote from: Kryptid on 18/03/2018 16:42:07Water doesn't affect light's wavelength.Based on that logic , we should not be able to see water. Evidently though we can, so with all due respect, science needs to consider how we can see water if there is no visible wave-length to see.
Quote from: Thebox on 18/03/2018 17:32:15Quote from: Kryptid on 18/03/2018 16:42:07Water doesn't affect light's wavelength.Based on that logic , we should not be able to see water. Evidently though we can, so with all due respect, science needs to consider how we can see water if there is no visible wave-length to see. @Kryptid didn’t say there was no visible wavelength, he said water doesn’t affect (change) it.
The water must be affected the light to create a visible wave-length, translucent being a sort of visible wave-length?
Like I said, you can't challenge me on time because I am the ''master'' on time and space and if Einstein was here today he would concede to me.
Quote from: Thebox on 18/03/2018 17:40:25The water must be affected the light to create a visible wave-length, translucent being a sort of visible wave-length?No, translucent is not a sort of visible wavelength.Come on, you are a fisherman you must have spent a long time looking at water.Think about the reflections from the surface, the colour of the water, the mud particles suspended in it, and you have why you can see that it is there.
I have thought about muddy muddy water etc, but I have also thought about clear water.
Quote from: Thebox on 18/03/2018 18:48:42I have thought about muddy muddy water etc, but I have also thought about clear water. You can see clear water because it does not allow all light to pass through it. Some of it is reflected back towards your eyes. Surely you've seen the Sun glint off of a lake before? You can also see it because water deflects the light's path. Look at the picture of the straw in the following link: https://www.popsci.com/why-does-this-straw-look-like-its-broken. The straw is just as red in the water as it is out of the water. The wavelength (color) of the light has not changed.
Quote from: Kryptid on 19/03/2018 00:24:23Quote from: Thebox on 18/03/2018 18:48:42I have thought about muddy muddy water etc, but I have also thought about clear water. You can see clear water because it does not allow all light to pass through it. Some of it is reflected back towards your eyes. Surely you've seen the Sun glint off of a lake before? You can also see it because water deflects the light's path. Look at the picture of the straw in the following link: https://www.popsci.com/why-does-this-straw-look-like-its-broken. The straw is just as red in the water as it is out of the water. The wavelength (color) of the light has not changed.You are looking at water with a vagueness, try being underwater in a swimming pool. You can see the entire length of water between you and the side of the pool. You say the surface is reflecting light so you can see the water, what is the reflected visible wave-length?