0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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.

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.

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 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.

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''?

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.

False. I don't have to admit anything, especially to some bloviated blowhard with zero credentials.

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.

That's great. Maybe you can help me understand this:List of unsolved problems in physicsFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.

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.

no one wants to talk to an unreasonable person

There was no need to quote all that. Also, it has absolutely no relevance to the current discussion.

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

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.

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, ...

An unsolved problem or an unexplained observation is not a contradiction. Nothing on that list is a contradiction.

Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 04/03/2016 18:24:42Yes, 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.

1) Non-locality2) Wave-particle duality4) There's no reason the universe should have started from a point of zero entropy.

3) Infinity as a result of combining the equations of Relativity and QM to describe singularities

, he argued against the idea that mass is a measurement of inertia,

the appearance of an infinity while calculating an observable property isn't a contradiction it is just a unphysical answer.

Your common sense feelings about how the universe should behave based on daily subjective observations are not a part of science.

False. Infinity is a nonsense answer.

Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 05/03/2016 14:33:49False. 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.

Infinity is an undefined answer as no non-abstract equation can result in or contain it.

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.

contradiction[kon-truh-dik-shuh n] noun1.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.

Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 05/03/2016 14:33:49False. 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:Quotecontradiction[kon-truh-dik-shuh n] noun1.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.

Where, exactly, has anyone used mathematics in this thread?

Well to state that someone "sucks at math" presupposes that the author of the statement has the necessary qualifications to make the determination.

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" ??

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.

Quote from: jeffreyH on 06/03/2016 17:25:37Well 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?

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.

Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 07/03/2016 15:39:32Do you have anything to contribute? Because agyejy sure doesn't; I use the Oxford Dictionary, not Webster's, LOLI ask you again to please refrain from the insults.QuoteHere'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?

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.

Quote from: Ethos_ on 07/03/2016 21:53:02Yes 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 watch Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind videos on YouTube as a supplement because I want to understand this subject better.

Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 07/03/2016 15:39:32 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.

Quote from: Ethos_ on 08/03/2016 23:11:40Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 07/03/2016 15:39:32 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......

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.

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.

Quote from: agyejy on 06/03/2016 17:52:51I 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.

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 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.

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?

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.

Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 09/03/2016 13:47:05Quote from: agyejy on 06/03/2016 17:52:51I 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.