TheBox on black holes

  • 310 Replies
  • 16671 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #250 on: 21/03/2016 13:45:34 »
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.
« Last Edit: 21/03/2016 16:50:07 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #251 on: 21/03/2016 18:25:23 »
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.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #252 on: 21/03/2016 20:04:51 »
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #253 on: 22/03/2016 09:06:33 »


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.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #254 on: 22/03/2016 14:55:13 »
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.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #255 on: 22/03/2016 18:00:21 »
And you sitting at your computer typing argumentative nonsense is helping how?

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #256 on: 23/03/2016 11:12:25 »
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.

*

Offline puppypower

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • 573
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #257 on: 23/03/2016 11:36:33 »
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.

Quote
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.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 11:39:45 by puppypower »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #258 on: 23/03/2016 12:48:46 »
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.

Quote
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."
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 12:57:20 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #259 on: 23/03/2016 13:03:16 »
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.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 13:10:11 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #260 on: 23/03/2016 13:19:33 »


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.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #261 on: 23/03/2016 14:33:53 »
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.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 14:36:32 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #262 on: 23/03/2016 14:53:37 »
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.
« Last Edit: 23/03/2016 15:07:46 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #263 on: 23/03/2016 17:51:21 »


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.

*

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #264 on: 23/03/2016 19:51:24 »
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.

Quote
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.

Quote
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?

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #265 on: 24/03/2016 08:20:02 »


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 r

-E=<4/3 pi r


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.





*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #266 on: 24/03/2016 14:23:37 »
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.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #267 on: 24/03/2016 14:30:29 »
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.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #268 on: 24/03/2016 19:40:04 »
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.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #269 on: 25/03/2016 14:35:45 »
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.
« Last Edit: 25/03/2016 14:55:50 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #270 on: 25/03/2016 16:25:49 »
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #271 on: 26/03/2016 10:06:41 »
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.






*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #272 on: 26/03/2016 10:10:34 »

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?

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #273 on: 26/03/2016 10:12:22 »
 


The same applies to you, what do you want to know?



*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #274 on: 26/03/2016 12:15:51 »
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?

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #275 on: 26/03/2016 12:20:53 »
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?

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #276 on: 26/03/2016 12:28:38 »
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?








*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #277 on: 26/03/2016 12:41:00 »
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.







« Last Edit: 26/03/2016 13:03:10 by Thebox »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #278 on: 26/03/2016 13:05:38 »
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.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #279 on: 26/03/2016 13:08:12 »
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

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #280 on: 26/03/2016 13:17:26 »
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.

Quote
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.











*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #281 on: 26/03/2016 13:18:28 »
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
« Last Edit: 26/03/2016 13:20:57 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #282 on: 26/03/2016 13:28:05 »
Let me give you an easy question, what is the wave-length of  the represented by the green  line?

I get 0

[attachment=21295]


*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #283 on: 26/03/2016 13:41:45 »
How about another truthful model

[attachment=21297]





*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #284 on: 26/03/2016 13:52:41 »
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.


*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #285 on: 26/03/2016 14:28:44 »
Let me give you an easy question, what is the wave-length of  the represented by the green  line?

I get 0

[attachment=21295]
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

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #286 on: 26/03/2016 14:52:27 »

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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #287 on: 26/03/2016 15:13:32 »
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.

« Last Edit: 26/03/2016 15:18:33 by Thebox »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #288 on: 26/03/2016 15:31:46 »
del

« Last Edit: 26/03/2016 15:34:50 by Thebox »

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #289 on: 26/03/2016 16:30:12 »
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.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #290 on: 26/03/2016 19:07:50 »
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.

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #291 on: 27/03/2016 00:22:44 »

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.















*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #292 on: 27/03/2016 15:36:12 »
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.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #293 on: 27/03/2016 15:39:39 »
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.

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #294 on: 27/03/2016 16:27:09 »
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?

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #295 on: 27/03/2016 16:49:30 »
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.
« Last Edit: 27/03/2016 16:55:09 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #296 on: 27/03/2016 17:44:14 »
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.

*

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #297 on: 28/03/2016 17:05:57 »
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.
« Last Edit: 28/03/2016 17:15:37 by Craig W. Thomson »

*

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3211
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #298 on: 28/03/2016 17:37:33 »



Again, this is a science forum. Acceptable behavior for a science forum is talking about science, not flaming.


Yes that is correct

Quote
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?




*

Offline jeffreyH

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • 4066
  • The graviton sucks
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #299 on: 28/03/2016 17:42:50 »
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.