[guest39538]

It's not even meaningful to say I'm trying to claim jurisdiction.
I'm saying your posts are nonsense because they are.

Do you understand legalese at all?

You are trying to state that Wiki, the ''machine' has jurisdiction over people in a new theories section.

You are not acting as people, you are acting on behalf of the ''machine''


Do you understand? 

Your defence of the ''machine'' is not being objective.

[Kryptid]

Which are within the boundary of the BH.   BH's within a BH

The orbiting stars are well outside of the event horizon of their black hole companions. You can calculate the radius of a black hole's event horizon using the equation derived by Karl Schwarzschild:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius.  For Cygnus X-1's black hole, that's an event horizon radius of about 44 kilometers, whereas the star orbits it at a distance of about 2.8 million kilometers.

[guest39538]

Which are within the boundary of the BH.   BH's within a BH

The orbiting stars are well outside of the event horizon of their black hole companions. You can calculate the radius of a black hole's event horizon using the equation derived by Karl Schwarzschild:
 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius.  For Cygnus X-1's black hole, that's an event horizon radius of about 44 kilometers, whereas the star orbits it at a distance of about 2.8 million kilometers.

Calculate or measure?  Maybe the equation is broken. 

[guest39538]

You have just said to me,

For Cygnus X-1's black hole, that's an event horizon radius of a calculation approximately  44 kilometres, whereas the star orbits it at a measure of about 2.8 million kilo-meters.
That shows the approximation is a load of garbage and a broken calculation.


Is that what you said?

[guest39538]

I propose that the approximation of an event horizon's radius of a BH, is

Var (x)

At any radius x if F₁=F₂ there is no influence of one body acting on another.

[guest39538]

The star orbits it at a measure of about 2.8 million kilo-meters where F₁= F₂

If there was in imagination a star at 1.4 million kilo-meters, F₁= F₂


The difference is field density. Transversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity.

[Bored chemist]

Do you understand legalese at all?

Yes, thank you. I regularly have to read legislation.

You are trying to state that Wiki, the ''machine' has jurisdiction over people in a new theories section.

No
I am stating that facts have dominion in science, and the R3 that you imagine seeing are not factual, they are imaginary.

You are not acting as people, you are acting on behalf of the ''machine''

It really doesn't matter how I act.
The facts speak for themselves.

Your defence of the ''machine'' is not being objective.

There is no "machine"
There is a self- consistent body of  knowledge based on many interlocking observations and modls which we call science.
And, on the other hand, there's you pretending that you have somehow "beaten" it- even though you accept that you don't even understand it.

[guest39538]

o
I am stating that facts have dominion in science

No, you are stating the jurisdiction of Wiki takes premise over people. You are stating that all of these opinions on wiki are objective facts, when a lot of them are subjective facts. 

There is a self- consistent body of  knowledge

Consistent?  I am forever pointing out inconsistencies. 


You have a belief system Mr C, based on belief and you have been subjected to this belief. Why not try being people Mr C and thinking beyond your belief.

[guest39538]

I  ask you Mr C again , provide objective proof of an independent and distinct existence of time?

But no doubt Mr C, you will just change the conversation like always when faced with the truth, or ignore the thread for a few days.

[Bored chemist]

I  ask you Mr C again , provide objective proof of an independent and distinct existence of time?

Why do you ask me to provide objective evidence of something I never claimed?


Are you trying to just change the conversation like always when faced with the truth.

[guest39538]

Time affects everything.
So what?

Your memory is short Mr C, only several post ago you claimed time affects everything, therefore claiming objectively it has a present and physicality.

I called you out and again you have tried to twist the words back in  your favour, however you have just been proved wrong yet again and you know very well you cannot provide this objective proof I ask for.  A self admittance that you are full of ''beans''.   
Your subjective time dilation is a subjective notion based on your subjective version of space-time.

[Bored chemist]

Ignoring the nonsensical dross for the moment, my idea of time isn't subjective. I use a clock to measure it.
I ave gone out of my way to ensure that my clock will work the same as anyone else's in order to remove subjectvity.

I'm not twisting words; you just don't make sense.

Would you like to list the (material) things time does not affect.

[guest39538]

I use a clock to measure it

I use a tape measure to measure a distance because that distance exists.  I use a set of scales to weight something because the weight exists, you are now claiming you use a clock to measure it. 

So no doubt you can explain in a clear and precise manner what it is ?

Changing the word to it from time still does not give it meaning.

Would you like to list the (material) things time does not affect.

Let me think, in order

1) All materials

Now would you like a list of things that do affect material things ?

1)Electromagnetic radiation

2) Force

[evan_au]

For Cygnus X-1's black hole, that's an event horizon radius of a calculation approximately  44 kilometres, whereas the star orbits it at a measure of about 2.8 million kilo-meters.
That shows the approximation is a load of garbage and a broken calculation.

We see that small black holes (around 10x the mass of the Sun) are detectable if they have a companion star which is outside the event horizon. The orbital period ranges from hours to days (depending on the orbital radius), and this lets us measure the mass of the black hole.

The gravitational effects of the black hole are felt outside the event horizon, just like the Sun's gravitational force is felt outside the surface of the Sun. If the Sun were crushed down to a black hole, the Earth would feel the same gravitational attraction, since it would be the same mass, at the same distance.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_nearest_black_holes

The mass of the black hole in the center of our galaxy has also been measured, by looking at the motion of bright stars in close orbits. These orbits take 15 years or longer, but because some of these orbits are very elliptical, they provide constraints on the size of the black hole.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagittarius_A*#Central_black_hole

Orbit velocity stops an object falling or does it?

The high velocity gained by these star falling in towards the central black hole provides the momentum for them to return to the farther parts of their elliptical orbits. The speed/distance relationship of stars orbiting a black hole mirror the orbital laws that Kepler deduced for planets orbiting the Sun, eg they sweep out equal areas in equal times.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kepler%27s_laws_of_planetary_motion

If we watch the orbits of these stars for enough years, we should be able to detect the more subtle effects of gravitational time dilation and gravitational waves, as predicted by Einsteins' General Theory of Relativity.

[guest39538]

The gravitational effects of the black hole are felt outside the event horizon,

I am confused how is this not contradiction, if an event horizon is a point of no return, after this point must be a point of no affect?

Are you considering the BH to be just a point ?  so then obviously it has affects outside the point, but the event horizon surely works the same way as the inverse square law, there will be a point where the force of the BH will not act on objects?

[evan_au]

but the event horizon surely works the same way as the inverse square law, there will be a point where the force of the BH will not act on objects?

The Inverse Square Law affects all objects out "to infinity".
Things behaving like the Inverse Square Law include gravity, electric charge and light intensity.

On the other hand, the definition of the event horizon is where the escape velocity of the black hole equals the speed of light. This will occur at a certain distance from a (non-spinning) black hole.

Since the event horizon is at a specific distance, while gravity obeys the Inverse Square Law and will be felt far from the black hole, gravity will be felt outside the event horizon.

There is a theorem in General Relativity which states that there are only 3 things that can be observed outside a black hole: Its mass (from its gravity), its spin (which turns the event horizon into a more elliptical shape), and its electric field (which affects nearby electric charges).
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem

Constraints on the diameter of a black hole event horizon have come from studying the X-Ray emissions from black holes on very short timescales. This shows periodic variations in brightness of the inner edge of the accretion disk, allowing astronomers to measure the diameter and orbital velocity of the matter just before it disappears behind the event horizon.
This technique has been nicknamed "diskoseismology".
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accretion_disk

[Bored chemist]

So no doubt you can explain in a clear and precise manner what it is ?

Not really, no.
I can't do much better that the dictionary.

You say you measure distance with a tape measure. Can you explain what distance is.

I'm also interested in your idea that time doesn't change things.

Obviously, if you believe that you must be doomed to the idea that scientists (who are material things) will not change so they will never accept your idea.
Presumably you recognise that they also never accepted Einstein's  updates to physics nor could they have taken Newton's views- since they must have been stuck in Aristotle's world.

And in much the same way, you can't read this because you are a material thing too, and can't change with time because time doesn't change things.

Or, you may be realising that your claim is nonsense.

[guest39538]

So no doubt you can explain in a clear and precise manner what it is ?

Not really, no.
I can't do much better that the dictionary.

Finally Mr C admits he is human after all.   Of course you can't explain it Mr C because presently it has no meaningful meaning. It is subjective gobbly gook.

[guest39538]

You say you measure distance with a tape measure. Can you explain what distance is.

Distance is a measurement of space , once measured it becomes a length of space.

[guest39538]

Obviously, if you believe that you must be doomed to the idea that scientists (who are material things) will not change so they will never accept your idea.

Out of context and meaningless.