Post by: guest39538 on 09/03/2018 16:04:02
event horizon.jpg (19.38 kB . 731x461 - viewed 3986 times)
Post by: guest39538 on 09/03/2018 16:09:15
Post by: alancalverd on 09/03/2018 16:28:39
Post by: guest39538 on 09/03/2018 16:43:01
Definition of "orbital".I should of just put orbit ?
An object orbiting the Earth has an orbit velocity, a speed and direction that is the fundamental mechanics stopping the orbiting object falling to earth.
However, does this notion apply to beyond an event horizon?
An event horizon is a boundary in space at which point the affects of objects have no affects on other objects.
Thus any objects beyond an event horizon, I propose could have a relative stationary orbit and 0 velocity. Thus showing the linearity of gravity and not the present space time curvature that is thought to be.
The linear of gravity , I propose that is the natural phenomenon, neutral is attracted to neutral.
Coulomb's laws, likewise charges repulse but opposites charges attract, providing the exact nature of the gravitation force.
Both q- and q+ are attracted to N (neutral) , the properties of N are (q-)+(q+)=N
Therefore N→←N
M (mass)=N (neutral)
Post by: Kryptid on 09/03/2018 17:09:31
An event horizon is a boundary in space at which point the affects of objects have no affects on other objects.
That's quite a different definition than the commonly accepted one. Black holes most certainly do influence objects beyond their event horizons.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/03/2018 17:11:37
That would contradict the definition, outside a black holes event horizon there is no affect.An event horizon is a boundary in space at which point the affects of objects have no affects on other objects.
That's quite a different definition than the commonly accepted one. Black holes most certainly do influence objects beyond their event horizons.
p.s it says this in my own words.
In general relativity, an event horizon is a boundary in space time beyond which events cannot affect an outside observer
dx= (F1 = F2)
Post by: Kryptid on 09/03/2018 20:37:40
That would contradict the definition, outside a black holes event horizon there is no affect.
Yes there is. A black hole's gravity most certainly does affect things outside of its event horizon.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/03/2018 21:20:29
Then by definition it is not an event horizon you are talking about.That would contradict the definition, outside a black holes event horizon there is no affect.
Yes there is. A black hole's gravity most certainly does affect things outside of its event horizon.
Post by: chiralSPO on 09/03/2018 21:44:48
1) If you want to use terms that already have widely accepted meanings, like "event horizon," I recommend that you use them with the widely accepted meaning, not one of your own devising. Black holes definitely exert gravitational influence beyond their event horizon. No information can leave the event horizon, but forces definitely can (by all widely accepted definitions).
2) Orbits don't stop object from falling. Orbits are just a special type of falling, where the object in orbit is perpetually falling past the object it is orbiting.
Post by: guest39538 on 09/03/2018 22:54:00
Two points:
1) If you want to use terms that already have widely accepted meanings, like "event horizon," I recommend that you use them with the widely accepted meaning, not one of your own devising. Black holes definitely exert gravitational influence beyond their event horizon. No information can leave the event horizon, but forces definitely can (by all widely accepted definitions).
2) Orbits don't stop object from falling. Orbits are just a special type of falling, where the object in orbit is perpetually falling past the object it is orbiting.
Quote
In layman's terms, it is defined as the shell of "points of no return", i.e., the points at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible, even for light. An event horizon is most commonly associated with black holes
i am outside this shell therefore no affect
Post by: Kryptid on 10/03/2018 00:37:36
i am outside this shell therefore no affect
Good luck convincing any physicists of that.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2018 00:53:31
i am outside this shell therefore no affectThrough what possible mechanism do you contend that the force of gravity does not affect you?
If that mechanism existed then we could use it for other bits of gravity screening.
If that was true then we could use it to make a perpetual energy machine.
But we know Thanks to this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
that such machines are impossible
So, we know that gravity screening is impossible
So we know that the idea of being somehow shielded from the gravity of a black hole is impossible
So we know that you are wrong.
So, why do you keep posting sh1t?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 02:05:32
In an infinite space a BH is relatively a dense point, within this point is an entire universe, the BH from the central point of the relative point, expands outwards proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity.i am outside this shell therefore no affectThrough what possible mechanism do you contend that the force of gravity does not affect you?
If that mechanism existed then we could use it for other bits of gravity screening.
If that was true then we could use it to make a perpetual energy machine.
But we know Thanks to this
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem
that such machines are impossible
So, we know that gravity screening is impossible
So we know that the idea of being somehow shielded from the gravity of a black hole is impossible
So we know that you are wrong.
So, why do you keep posting sh1t?
Beyond the event horizon G has no force .
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 02:06:38
Infinite Universe tiny BH.i am outside this shell therefore no affect
Good luck convincing any physicists of that.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/03/2018 06:08:17
In an infinite space a BH is relatively a dense point, within this point is an entire universe, the BH from the central point of the relative point, expands outwards proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity.
Beyond the event horizon G has no force .
Infinite Universe tiny BH.
Are you sure you know what a black hole is? What you are saying does not resonate with what physicists have told us about black holes since... ever. Actually, I'm in the process of reading a book about black holes and the history of their study (called Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip S. Thorne) and there is nothing in there about black holes containing universes, black holes expanding or gravity failing to pass the event horizon.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 11:43:56
My biggest surprise about BH's is they are sphere like and not actually a hole. There is a lot of things made up about BH's, so interpret a BH my own way.In an infinite space a BH is relatively a dense point, within this point is an entire universe, the BH from the central point of the relative point, expands outwards proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity.
Beyond the event horizon G has no force .
Infinite Universe tiny BH.
Are you sure you know what a black hole is? What you are saying does not resonate with what physicists have told us about black holes since... ever. Actually, I'm in the process of reading a book about black holes and the history of their study (called Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip S. Thorne) and there is nothing in there about black holes containing universes, black holes expanding or gravity failing to pass the event horizon.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2018 12:03:04
within this point is an entire universeGot any evidence for that?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2018 12:05:17
My biggest surprise about BH's is they are sphere like and not actually a hole.So, 15 posts in you point out that you don't know much about the subject of the thread.
Why did you start it?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 12:22:26
Perhaps I know more than science , a lot of things about BH's are hypothetical . My subjective opinion is as valid has much as the next persons subjective thoughts.My biggest surprise about BH's is they are sphere like and not actually a hole.So, 15 posts in you point out that you don't know much about the subject of the thread.
Why did you start it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2018 12:26:23
My subjective opinion is has valid has much as the next persons subjective thoughts.No it does not.
The next person may know what they are talking about, but you don't.
You seem to not grasp the difference between reasoned speculation, founded in fact and made up bull.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 12:31:11
Oh you mean like time dilation hey, that I had to put science straight on. You know very little my friend , but subjectively you are the master,My subjective opinion is has valid has much as the next persons subjective thoughts.No it does not.
The next person may know what they are talking about, but you don't.
You seem to not grasp the difference between reasoned speculation, founded in fact and made up bull.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2018 12:34:20
Oh you mean like time dilation hey, that I had to put science straight on.Nobody (except you) believes that you did that.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 12:37:25
You know the good thing about Physics? It does not care about subjective beliefs, it only cares about the facts, so even if you don't believe me about time dilation, that doe snot matter because the facts I have provided over and over again, says science are full of chit when talking about time dilation.Oh you mean like time dilation hey, that I had to put science straight on.Nobody (except you) believes that you did that.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2018 12:43:13
The objective fact is that the GPS system works.
It wouldn't work if we had got time dilation wrong.
So your ideas- fall into one of two categories. Either they give the same answer as GR, or they are wrong.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 12:47:55
You are quite right. Physics cares about objective evidence and rational deduction.Or my answer uses the correct semantics that makes ''your'' answers look stupid.
The objective fact is that the GPS system works.
It wouldn't work if we had got time dilation wrong.
So your ideas- fall into one of two categories. Either they give the same answer as GR, or they are wrong.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2018 13:20:05
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 13:43:59
If you think being objectively correct makes me look bad, you are on the wrong website.I didn't say you Mr C, you are cool in my books, you can only go off what you was taught. I get it, you understand the semantics a certain way and when other ways are put before you, your brain cannot compute them because you have so much history of thinking one way .
''you'' is science, the machine not the man.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 13:48:40
Yes of course. I have a picture of it.within this point is an entire universeGot any evidence for that?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 14:50:00
[ Invalid Attachment ]
You can just make it out in the distance, I could not see it without my conceptual telescope.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 14:56:01
[ Invalid Attachment ]
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2018 15:12:46
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 15:22:04
Made up pictures are not evidence.They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.
Method
1) look between the distant stars
2) take a conceptual picture
3) diagnose that picture
4) develop an objective conclusion as a hard copy.
Added - Unless you want to suggest that the darkness between the stars is a firmament?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/03/2018 15:26:21
There is a lot of things made up about BH's, so interpret a BH my own way.
Your interpretation is inconsistent with both the mathematical and physical evidence. If black holes didn't have a gravitational pull beyond their horizon, then gravitationally-bound pairs of black holes and normal stars wouldn't exist. Yet we have detected them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni).
They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.
Method
1) look between the distant stars
2) take a conceptual picture
3) diagnose that picture
4) develop an objective conclusion as a hard copy.
What in the world does that have to do with the idea of an entire universe somehow existing inside of a singularity?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 15:35:23
There is no singularity in infinite. My interpretation of an infinite universe is has valued as your finite interpretation.There is a lot of things made up about BH's, so interpret a BH my own way.
Your interpretation is inconsistent with both the mathematical and physical evidence. If black holes didn't have a gravitational pull beyond their horizon, then gravitationally-bound pairs of black holes and normal stars wouldn't exist. Yet we have detected them: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cygnus_X-1), https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V404_Cygni).They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.
Method
1) look between the distant stars
2) take a conceptual picture
3) diagnose that picture
4) develop an objective conclusion as a hard copy.
What in the world does that have to do with the idea of an entire universe somehow existing inside of a singularity?
Also it is contradiction to the definition of event horizon, my interpretation is objectively correct of an event horizon.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 15:38:45
Quote
. In layman's terms, it is defined as the shell of "points of no return", i.e., the points at which the gravitational pull becomes so great as to make escape impossible,
A shell is a boundary, a whirl pool cannot suck me in if I am beyond its boundary.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/03/2018 15:42:46
There is no singularity in infinite.
Infinite... what? You already admitted that black holes contain a "point", which is just a non-technical term for a singularity.
Quote
My interpretation of an infinite universe is has valued as your finite interpretation.
I never stated that the Universe is infinite or finite. No one knows. How large the Universe is has nothing to do with how black holes work.
Quote
Also it is contradiction to the definition of event horizon, my interpretation is objectively correct of an event horizon.
Tell that to Cygnus X-1 and V404 Cygni. You can't argue away the observational data.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 15:51:38
Infinite... what?
Infinite nothing, where light and dark does not exist and where time is timeless. Where nothing is n-dimensional space.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 16:05:00
Imagine travelling in a straight line in the direction of outer space, you then encounter a wall , is this wall finite or infinite?
Then of course we being humans get out the shovels and get digging.
So when we dig through the wall , is there space on the other side of the wall or more wall?
Hence space is objectively infinite.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2018 17:24:48
That's the sort of delusion that makes me suggest it's time to get medical help.Made up pictures are not evidence.They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.
Method
1) look between the distant stars
2) take a conceptual picture
3) diagnose that picture
4) develop an objective conclusion as a hard copy.
Added - Unless you want to suggest that the darkness between the stars is a firmament?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 17:37:05
Just because you do not know how to think Mr C, that does not mean I need medical help.That's the sort of delusion that makes me suggest it's time to get medical help.Made up pictures are not evidence.They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.
Method
1) look between the distant stars
2) take a conceptual picture
3) diagnose that picture
4) develop an objective conclusion as a hard copy.
Added - Unless you want to suggest that the darkness between the stars is a firmament?
Post by: The Spoon on 10/03/2018 18:19:16
No. It a childlike drawing of a fried egg with scribble on it.
Post by: The Spoon on 10/03/2018 18:20:46
In other words just make stuff up. As you keep doing and presenting it as fact. Like a child playing let's pretend.Made up pictures are not evidence.They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.
Method
1) look between the distant stars
2) take a conceptual picture
3) diagnose that picture
4) develop an objective conclusion as a hard copy.
Added - Unless you want to suggest that the darkness between the stars is a firmament?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 19:26:28
It is the other way around I believe, I am far more objective than your subjective.In other words just make stuff up. As you keep doing and presenting it as fact. Like a child playing let's pretend.Made up pictures are not evidence.They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.
Method
1) look between the distant stars
2) take a conceptual picture
3) diagnose that picture
4) develop an objective conclusion as a hard copy.
Added - Unless you want to suggest that the darkness between the stars is a firmament?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 19:28:21
It may be child like but the diagram has lots of physics . I am not Michael Angelo pfffff.No. It a childlike drawing of a fried egg with scribble on it.
Post by: The Spoon on 10/03/2018 19:37:24
No you are not. You are not a physicist either.It may be child like but the diagram has lots of physics . I am not Michael Angelo pfffff.No. It a childlike drawing of a fried egg with scribble on it.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 19:43:42
So tell me what is a physicist ? Somebody who can remember Wiki?No you are not. You are not a physicist either.It may be child like but the diagram has lots of physics . I am not Michael Angelo pfffff.No. It a childlike drawing of a fried egg with scribble on it.
Education is not a validation of anything.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/03/2018 20:29:14
Infinite nothing, where light and dark does not exist and where time is timeless. Where nothing is n-dimensional space.
"Infinite nothing" doesn't make sense. You can't have a quantity of nothingness. By definition of what nothingness is, there isn't anything to count or measure.
You want to know I know there is an infinite space?
Imagine travelling in a straight line in the direction of outer space, you then encounter a wall , is this wall finite or infinite?
Then of course we being humans get out the shovels and get digging.
So when we dig through the wall , is there space on the other side of the wall or more wall?
Hence space is objectively infinite.
That doesn't prove anything. If, for instance, the Universe was a hypersphere then you could travel forever in any one direction without running into any "walls" but you would still have a finite amount of space that you are travelling through. You'd eventually end up back at your starting point. It's rather like assuming that a NASCAR racetrack is infinitely long because you can keep going around it without running into any barriers.
Quote
So tell me what is a physicist ? Somebody who can remember Wiki?
So you don't even know what a physicist is...
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 20:51:03
"Infinite nothing" doesn't make sense. You can't have a quantity of nothingness. By definition of what nothingness is, there isn't anything to count or measure.Space is a quantity of nothing that can be measured
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 20:53:52
That doesn't prove anything. If, for instance, the Universe was a hypersphere then you could travel forever in any one direction without running into any "walls" but you would still have a finite amount of space that you are travelling through. You'd eventually end up back at your starting point. It's rather like assuming that a NASCAR racetrack is infinitely long because you can keep going around it without running into any barriers.What a load of garbage you would not end up back at the same place.
ƒ:x→∞
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 20:54:41
You're going to need to explain what that "R3" picture you made means. I don't understand what it is supposed to represent.R³ is real coordinate space
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2018 21:21:20
The fact that you think that you believe things like thisJust because you do not know how to think Mr C, that does not mean I need medical help.That's the sort of delusion that makes me suggest it's time to get medical help.Made up pictures are not evidence.They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.
Method
1) look between the distant stars
2) take a conceptual picture
3) diagnose that picture
4) develop an objective conclusion as a hard copy.
Added - Unless you want to suggest that the darkness between the stars is a firmament?
"Oh you mean like time dilation hey, that I had to put science straight on." suggests that you need medical help.
Why not go and ask your doctor for their opinion about it?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 21:24:35
Ahahah you are funny, you just don't like the fact that a nobody with no education can come on a science forum and rip science to shreds using objective facts and objective reality. Einstein was an idiot learn to deal with that.The fact that you think that you believe things like thisJust because you do not know how to think Mr C, that does not mean I need medical help.That's the sort of delusion that makes me suggest it's time to get medical help.Made up pictures are not evidence.They are not made up pictures, I took them this morning with my conceptual camera.
Method
1) look between the distant stars
2) take a conceptual picture
3) diagnose that picture
4) develop an objective conclusion as a hard copy.
Added - Unless you want to suggest that the darkness between the stars is a firmament?
"Oh you mean like time dilation hey, that I had to put science straight on." suggests that you need medical help.
Why not go and ask your doctor for their opinion about it?
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2018 21:42:09
Ahahah you are funny, you just don't like the fact that a nobody with no education can come on a science forum and rip science to shreds using objective facts and objective reality.No
I just worry that someone thinks they have ripped science up, when they haven't.
I wonder if you may be making other, similar mistakes that will harm you.
I suggest that you check with a medical practitioner.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 21:51:13
Your subjective opinion is not needed or welcome, I know what is objective and what is garbage, you are not going to convince me of some subjective garbage is true. Neither are you going to convince me I need medical help, I am a better scientist than you putty cat, have a bowl of milk and go to bed..Ahahah you are funny, you just don't like the fact that a nobody with no education can come on a science forum and rip science to shreds using objective facts and objective reality.No
I just worry that someone thinks they have ripped science up, when they haven't.
I wonder if you may be making other, similar mistakes that will harm you.
I suggest that you check with a medical practitioner.
Post by: Bored chemist on 10/03/2018 21:56:29
That's objective fact.
It proves time dilation is real and the extent is what GR predicts.
Your hallucinations of r3 between stars is subjective and, frankly worrying.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 22:07:29
And yet GPS systems still work.Do you not understand the difference between timing and time?
That's objective fact.
It proves time dilation is real and the extent is what GR predicts.
Your hallucinations of r3 between stars is subjective and, frankly worrying.
You either admit my definition of time is correct and time is a quantifiable duration of existence or admit time dilation is a crock of rubbish. Space has no time and cannot age and you are insane if you think space affects the caesium clock.
Post by: Kryptid on 10/03/2018 22:57:46
Space is a quantity of nothing that can be measured
That's a contradiction. Nothingness cannot have properties like length or volume. If it does, then that makes it something. Empty space isn't even empty: it's filled with quantum vacuum fluctuations. Their existence can be demonstrated by the Casimir effect.
What a load of garbage you would not end up back at the same place.
ƒ:x→∞
You would if the Universe was a hypersphere (take note that I said if. We don't know what its true shape is). It's for the same reason that you can fly at a constant latitude around the Earth and end up back at your starting point. Although it looks to a pilot like they are flying in a straight line, their flight path is actually gently curved (because the Earth is round). It's the same case for a hypothetical hyperspherical universe. It looks to you like you are travelling in a straight line, but your trajectory in hyperspace is curved. That's why you can end up back where you began.
Even if the Universe is not a hypersphere, that wouldn't mean that it is infinitely large. If the Universe has an edge of some kind beyond which space and time do not exist, then you cannot travel past that edge. You cannot travel where there is no space, since travelling requires space.
Quote
R³ is real coordinate space
That doesn't help me any. What is the picture supposed to prove?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 23:19:53
That's a contradiction. Nothingness cannot have properties like length or volume. If it does, then that makes it something. Empty space isn't even empty: it's filled with quantum vacuum fluctuations. Their existence can be demonstrated by the Casimir effect.Something of nothing that is correct.
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 23:21:23
It shows a BH in an infinite space,Space is a quantity of nothing that can be measured
That's a contradiction. Nothingness cannot have properties like length or volume. If it does, then that makes it something. Empty space isn't even empty: it's filled with quantum vacuum fluctuations. Their existence can be demonstrated by the Casimir effect.What a load of garbage you would not end up back at the same place.
ƒ:x→∞
You would if the Universe was a hypersphere (take note that I said if. We don't know what its true shape is). It's for the same reason that you can fly at a constant latitude around the Earth and end up back at your starting point. Although it looks to a pilot like they are flying in a straight line, their flight path is actually gently curved (because the Earth is round). It's the same case for a hypothetical hyperspherical universe. It looks to you like you are travelling in a straight line, but your trajectory in hyperspace is curved. That's why you can end up back where you began.
Even if the Universe is not a hypersphere, that wouldn't mean that it is infinitely large. If the Universe has an edge of some kind beyond which space and time do not exist, then you cannot travel past that edge. You cannot travel where there is no space, since travelling requires space.QuoteR³ is real coordinate space
That doesn't help me any. What is the picture supposed to prove?
Post by: Kryptid on 10/03/2018 23:31:55
Something of nothing that is correct.
I don't understand this sentence.
It shows a BH in an infinite space,
Again, what is that supposed to prove?
Post by: guest39538 on 10/03/2018 23:38:30
It proves that a BH can be a point but also be huge at the same time.Something of nothing that is correct.
I don't understand this sentence.It shows a BH in an infinite space,
Again, what is that supposed to prove?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/03/2018 00:42:43
It proves that a BH can be a point but also be huge at the same time.
That is true in a sense. The singularity at the center is a point but the event horizon has a finite diameter. I don't know what your R3 diagram has to do with that, though.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2018 09:25:11
you are insane if you think space affects the caesium clock.Where did you think anyone said it did?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 13:19:51
They don' t in those exact words, they do when they say space-time affects the Caesium,you are insane if you think space affects the caesium clock.Where did you think anyone said it did?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 13:21:46
ou would if the Universe was a hypersphere (take note that I said if. We don't know what its true shape is). It's for the same reason that you can fly at a constant lScience has a big problem with looking out, they never seem to see within from outside.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2018 13:30:51
they do when they say space-time affects the Caesium,Where?
Post by: Kryptid on 11/03/2018 13:44:44
Science has a big problem with looking out, they never seem to see within from outside.
I don't know what that means.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 14:12:42
It means science looks out into space and never puts themselves in the perspective of looking back from outer space, I am a ''trillion'' light years in the non-observable universe looking back at our observable Universe.Science has a big problem with looking out, they never seem to see within from outside.
I don't know what that means.
I zoomed out some more for you .
kryt.jpg (12.52 kB . 740x464 - viewed 3220 times)Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 14:13:54
Oh come on, you know what I am getting it, you say time affects the Caesium ,they do when they say space-time affects the Caesium,Where?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 14:19:23
kryt upgraded version.jpg (16.93 kB . 740x464 - viewed 3088 times)Each dot is an observable Universe, or a BH if you like.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 14:31:30
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2018 15:21:59
My objective conceptual observable universe is a lot bigger than your subjective observable universe.Your scribblings are not objective- you are the only one who sees them which makes then very subjective.
Time affects everything.Oh come on, you know what I am getting it, you say time affects the Caesium ,they do when they say space-time affects the Caesium,Where?
So what?
Pleas answer the question.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 15:29:10
Time affects everything, you are so funny and deluded for sure. Time can not affect anything, time is objectively not a thing of distinct and independent existence, try again.My objective conceptual observable universe is a lot bigger than your subjective observable universe.Your scribblings are not objective- you are the only one who sees them which makes then very subjectiveTime affects everything.Oh come on, you know what I am getting it, you say time affects the Caesium ,they do when they say space-time affects the Caesium,Where?
So what?
Pleas answer the question.
added- Please provide evidence of the independent and distinct existence of this subjective version of time you keep mentioning . .What do you call it ? space-time. :o :o :o
What science tries to do is use a sort of Legalese, they have invented their own language, this is to try and make them look smart.
I understand now, ''you'' are using your ''jurisdiction'' to create this ''legalese'' fake subjective reality. Quite clever but not that clever.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/03/2018 16:35:47
It means science looks out into space and never puts themselves in the perspective of looking back from outer space, I am a ''trillion'' light years in the non-observable universe looking back at our observable Universe.
I zoomed out some more for you .
This is nothing new, honestly. Max Tegmark called such a thing the "level I multiverse": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Max_Tegmark's_four_levels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Max_Tegmark's_four_levels)
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 16:47:21
Then why did you not understand beyond the event Horizon of a BH , that there is no acting forces?It means science looks out into space and never puts themselves in the perspective of looking back from outer space, I am a ''trillion'' light years in the non-observable universe looking back at our observable Universe.
I zoomed out some more for you .
This is nothing new, honestly. Max Tegmark called such a thing the "level I multiverse": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Max_Tegmark's_four_levels (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Max_Tegmark's_four_levels)
Thanks for the link, I had not come across that one before.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/03/2018 16:51:41
Then why did you not understand beyond the event Horizon of a BH , that there is no acting forces?
Because there are. Again, Cynus X-1 and V404 Cygni.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 16:55:35
Which are within the boundary of the BH. BH's within a BHThen why did you not understand beyond the event Horizon of a BH , that there is no acting forces?
Because there are. Again, Cynus X-1 and V404 Cygni.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2018 16:58:50
What science tries to do is use a sort of Legalese, they have invented their own language, this is to try and make them look smart.
I understand now, ''you'' are using your ''jurisdiction'' to create this ''legalese'' fake subjective reality
Nonsense.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 17:00:30
Then why do you try to claim jurisdiction in this thread by keep saying my interpretation is nonsense?What science tries to do is use a sort of Legalese, they have invented their own language, this is to try and make them look smart.
I understand now, ''you'' are using your ''jurisdiction'' to create this ''legalese'' fake subjective reality
Nonsense.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2018 17:08:30
I'm saying your posts are nonsense because they are.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 17:11:41
It's not even meaningful to say I'm trying to claim jurisdiction.Do you understand legalese at all?
I'm saying your posts are nonsense because they are.
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.
Post by: Kryptid on 11/03/2018 17:12:09
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 (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.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 17:14:40
Calculate or measure? Maybe the equation is broken.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 (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.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 17:19:07
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?
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 17:21:31
Var (x)
At any radius x if F1=F2 there is no influence of one body acting on another.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 17:50:04
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2018 18:05:53
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 18:12:01
oNo, 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.
I am stating that facts have dominion in science
Quote
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 18:13:50
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2018 18:21:30
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 18:41:38
Time affects everything.Your memory is short Mr C, only several post ago you claimed time affects everything, therefore claiming objectively it has a present and physicality.
So what?
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2018 19:36:32
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 19:46:43
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.
Quote
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
Post by: evan_au on 11/03/2018 19:51:59
Quote from: TheBox
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.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.
That shows the approximation is a load of garbage and a broken calculation.
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
Quote from: OP
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 19:57:50
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?
Post by: evan_au on 11/03/2018 20:23:58
Quote
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
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2018 20:47:24
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 20:57:52
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 20:59:23
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.
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 21:00:43
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.
Post by: Bored chemist on 11/03/2018 21:08:58
Post by: guest39538 on 11/03/2018 22:25:24
What do you think "subjective" means?What do you want it to mean?
Post by: Kryptid on 12/03/2018 01:21:07
That shows the approximation is a load of garbage and a broken calculation.
You can verify the calculation for yourself. The event horizon is simply the location where the black hole's escape velocity equals the speed of light. The equation used to calculate the escape velocity of an object is:
ve = √((2GM)/r)
Where ve is the escape velocity in meters per second, G is the gravitational constant (6.67 x 10-11 m3•kg-1•s-2), M is the mass in kilograms and r is the radius from the center of the object in meters.
Plugging in the numbers for the Earth, we get:
ve = √((2 x (6.67 x 10-11 m3•kg-1•s-2) x (5.972 x 1024 kg))/(6,371,000 meters))
ve = 11,182 meters per second (11.182 kilometers per second)
Given how many times we've sent spacecraft into orbit, we've have plenty of occasion to thoroughly test the validity of this equation.
Now let's rearrange the equation so that what we are looking to find is not the escape velocity, but the radius at which the escape velocity takes on a particular value:
r = √((2GM)/(ve2))
Put in the relevant data for the Earth and you can verify that this rearranged equation accurately predicts the radius of the Earth based on its mass and escape velocity.
Now we can enter the speed of light as the escape velocity (299,792,458 meters per second) in order to find the distance from the center of a black hole at which the event horizon must exist for a given mass. We’ll enter the measured mass of the Cygnus X-1 black hole of 14.8 solar masses:
r = (2 x (6.67 x 10-11 m3•kg-1•s-2) x (2.943 x 1031 kg))/(299,792,458 meters per second)2
r = 43,682 meters (43.682 kilometers)
So there you have it, a step-by-step explanation on how to calculate the radius of a black hole’s event horizon based on an experimentally-verified equation.
Calculations aside, it should be pretty obvious that the orbiting star is outside of the black hole's event horizon because we can see it.
Post by: guest39538 on 12/03/2018 10:05:38
Interesting thanks, that will take me some time get my head around, in my conceptual version of a BH, light can escape the BH, but you can only see it if you are within range because of size and intensity.That shows the approximation is a load of garbage and a broken calculation.
You can verify the calculation for yourself. The event horizon is simply the location where the black hole's escape velocity equals the speed of light. The equation used to calculate the escape velocity of an object is:
ve = √((2GM)/r)
Where ve is the escape velocity in meters per second, G is the gravitational constant (6.67 x 10-11 m3•kg-1•s-2), M is the mass in kilograms and r is the radius from the center of the object in meters.
Plugging in the numbers for the Earth, we get:
ve = √((2 x (6.67 x 10-11 m3•kg-1•s-2) x (5.972 x 1024 kg))/(6,371,000 meters))
ve = 11,182 meters per second (11.182 kilometers per second)
Given how many times we've sent spacecraft into orbit, we've have plenty of occasion to thoroughly test the validity of this equation.
Now let's rearrange the equation so that what we are looking to find is not the escape velocity, but the radius at which the escape velocity takes on a particular value:
r = √((2GM)/(ve2))
Put in the relevant data for the Earth and you can verify that this rearranged equation accurately predicts the radius of the Earth based on its mass and escape velocity.
Now we can enter the speed of light as the escape velocity (299,792,458 meters per second) in order to find the distance from the center of a black hole at which the event horizon must exist for a given mass. We’ll enter the measured mass of the Cygnus X-1 black hole of 14.8 solar masses:
r = (2 x (6.67 x 10-11 m3•kg-1•s-2) x (2.943 x 1031 kg))/(299,792,458 meters per second)2
r = 43,682 meters (43.682 kilometers)
So there you have it, a step-by-step explanation on how to calculate the radius of a black hole’s event horizon based on an experimentally-verified equation.
Calculations aside, it should be pretty obvious that the orbiting star is outside of the black hole's event horizon because we can see it.
Post by: evan_au on 13/03/2018 09:31:56
It is now locked - mod