The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Member Map
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. That CAN'T be true!
  4. TheBox on black holes
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16   Go Down

TheBox on black holes

  • 310 Replies
  • 50242 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #40 on: 23/02/2016 15:36:34 »
Quote from: agyejy on 22/02/2016 20:38:51

That is unnecessarily hostile.

When a photon is absorbed it ceases to exist.
False. Following me here from physforum.com to harass me on a daily basis is hostile. Needlessly shoving information down my throat that I already know is also hostile, at both sites.

No, a photon does not cease to exist when it is absorbed. Particles don't just "snuff out" when they are annihilated. They are merely converted to mass. In a universe ruled by mass/energy conservation, nothing ever truly ceases to exist. That photon's energy is still there in the atom, but it is no longer a wave packet moving in a straight line forward motion, just like I said.






Logged
 



Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #41 on: 23/02/2016 18:08:39 »
Quote
False. Following me here from physforum.com to harass me on a daily basis is hostile.

I've already proven that I did not follow you anywhere.

Quote
No, a photon does not cease to exist when it is absorbed. Particles don't just "snuff out" when they are annihilated. They are merely converted to mass. In a universe ruled by mass/energy conservation, nothing ever truly ceases to exist. That photon's energy is still there in the atom, but it is no longer a wave packet moving in a straight line forward motion, just like I said.

This statement is completely illogical. However, we have drifted significantly from the topic of this thread and should not discuss this further.
Logged
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #42 on: 24/02/2016 14:55:55 »
Quote from: agyejy on 23/02/2016 18:08:39
This statement is completely illogical. However, we have drifted significantly from the topic of this thread and should not discuss this further.
Hey, you're the one who brought up earthquakes when I was talking about photons. LOL
Logged
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #43 on: 24/02/2016 17:57:40 »
Quote
Hey, you're the one who brought up earthquakes when I was talking about photons. LOL

I request that you refrain from such attempted provocations in the future.
Logged
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #44 on: 25/02/2016 13:54:20 »
Quote from: agyejy on 24/02/2016 17:57:40
Quote
Hey, you're the one who brought up earthquakes when I was talking about photons. LOL

I request that you refrain from such attempted provocations in the future.
I request that you practice what you preach, earthquake photon.
Logged
 



Offline Ethos_

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1332
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #45 on: 25/02/2016 14:15:04 »
I suggest that you both return to the topic in question and resolve your personal disputes via the private message board.......................Ethos
Logged
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #46 on: 26/02/2016 15:34:14 »
Quote from: Ethos_ on 25/02/2016 14:15:04
I suggest that you both return to the topic in question and resolve your personal disputes via the private message board.......................Ethos
Are you idealistic or just naive? That's not how this works. You're not familiar with this guy. He followed me here from physforum.com. That place was a madhouse. The wolves have been left in charge of the chicken coop. People like him are the reason I joined here in the first place. I WANT a forum with moderators. He's not going to resolve anything with me.

And I don't really care what the topic is, IF somebody makes a misstatement, defies fact, or contradicts what I know about science in a thread, I'm going to try to get a word in. This guy has been acting like the final authority on physics for almost a year now, and I'm not particularly happy to see him here. I truly hate it when people obfuscate the issues just to win an argument, like comparing photons to earthquakes which he just did a few posts back. Ridiculous.

Logged
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1332
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #47 on: 26/02/2016 17:34:45 »
Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 26/02/2016 15:34:14

Are you idealistic or just naive?
I'm not totally familiar with the dispute you two are involved in, I simply suggested that you both try to settle down a little. Has nothing to do with idealism and at my advanced age, I wouldn't consider myself naďve at all. What ever your problems are with each other, everyone has the right to express their views here at TNS.

If you don't care to engage each other, simply apply the ignore feature of our forum. Neither of you has the right to refuse the other's participation here. If you disagree with each other, it's easy enough to state your objections and allow everyone else to consider the merits of those objections. Problem solved!

As I've already suggested, if you can't get along with each other, acquaint each other with our ignore feature. It works for me, should also work for you.

Quote from: Craig W. Thomson

And I don't really care what the topic is,
Well you should sir.............this is the reason we have these discussions, to learn. And it's part of the forum policy to try and keep replies pertinent to the topic in question when ever possible. When you find that objective impossible, simply ignore one another.
« Last Edit: 26/02/2016 17:42:44 by Ethos_ »
Logged
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #48 on: 28/02/2016 15:00:31 »
Quote from: Ethos_ on 26/02/2016 17:34:45
Quote from: Craig W. Thomson

And I don't really care what the topic is,
Well you should sir.............this is the reason we have these discussions, to learn. And it's part of the forum policy to try and keep replies pertinent to the topic in question when ever possible. When you find that objective impossible, simply ignore one another.
That was taken out of context. Of course I care what the topic is, but nobody is going to learn anything if he posts contradictory information and nobody calls him on it or ignores it just because it was off topic.

Now, would you like to say something about photons or black holes, or are you just here to sit in for my parents? Because I came here to talk about science, not to get scolded.
Logged
 



Offline Ethos_

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1332
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #49 on: 28/02/2016 17:02:43 »
Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 28/02/2016 15:00:31


Now, would you like to say something about photons or black holes, or are you just here to sit in for my parents?

Listen my friend, I was only making a suggestion regarding forum behavior. If you feel scolded, that's your problem and not mine.

As I formerly suggested, if you want to disregard another members contributions, simply ignore them. And to be clear, my suggestions were directed at you both and in no way meant to single you out. If you felt I was being unfair, I apologize for that misunderstanding.



Logged
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
 

Offline Craig W. Thomson

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 370
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 4 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #50 on: 29/02/2016 15:51:11 »
Quote from: Ethos_ on 28/02/2016 17:02:43
Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 28/02/2016 15:00:31


Now, would you like to say something about photons or black holes, or are you just here to sit in for my parents?

Listen my friend, I was only making a suggestion regarding forum behavior. If you feel scolded, that's your problem and not mine.

As I formerly suggested, if you want to disregard another members contributions, simply ignore them. And to be clear, my suggestions were directed at you both and in no way meant to single you out. If you felt I was being unfair, I apologize for that misunderstanding.
Okay, so that's three posts in a row in this thread from you, and not one word about photons, black holes, or any kind of science. At least agyegy and I were arguing about physics. You're trying to get in that last word, that's all. Boring. Why not let the moderators do their job? You're not helping. Maybe that's why you have only five "thank you's" after more than a thousand posts, my friend. Sheesh.
Logged
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1332
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #51 on: 29/02/2016 16:48:34 »
Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 19/02/2016 13:43:46


I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".
Logged
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #52 on: 29/02/2016 20:14:46 »
Quote from: Ethos_ on 29/02/2016 16:48:34
Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 19/02/2016 13:43:46


I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".

Matter has mass and energy.
Logged
 



Offline Ethos_

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1332
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #53 on: 29/02/2016 21:20:22 »
Quote from: Thebox on 29/02/2016 20:14:46
Quote from: Ethos_ on 29/02/2016 16:48:34
Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 19/02/2016 13:43:46


I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".

Matter has mass and energy.
Stating that Matter "has" mass and energy is not the same as: saying that (Matter "is" mass and energy). If you read what I posted, you'll notice that was explained there. Now I'm back to ignoring you BOX.
Logged
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
 

guest39538

  • Guest
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #54 on: 29/02/2016 21:32:41 »
Quote from: Ethos_ on 29/02/2016 21:20:22
Quote from: Thebox on 29/02/2016 20:14:46
Quote from: Ethos_ on 29/02/2016 16:48:34
Quote from: Craig W. Thomson on 19/02/2016 13:43:46


I would tend to argue that according to the Principle of Mass/Energy Equivalence, everything is made of energy, including mass.
False...............While mass is equivalent to energy, matter is not. So making the statement that "everything is made of energy" is quite false. Matter has energy in association with the mass that the particle of matter has. In the case of the photon, which is BTW, a particle of matter, it's proper mass is zero. But the energy of momentum that light has traveling at c describes the photon as having energy. Fact one: "the photon is not energy", it is matter and only possesses energy. Check your facts, "my friend".

Matter has mass and energy.
Stating that Matter "has" mass and energy is not the same as: saying that (Matter "is" mass and energy). If you read what I posted, you'll notice that was explained there. Now I'm back to ignoring you BOX.

Energy is the property of an object, mass is a property of an object, are you trying to say they are the same thing?


''While mass is equivalent to energy,''

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 

Mass is kilos, energy is Jules,  two different things.

Logged
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1332
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #55 on: 29/02/2016 22:00:32 »
Quote from: Thebox on 29/02/2016 21:32:41

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 


I was responding to an earlier post where a member said: "everything is energy" which is completely false. While mass and energy are equivalent, Matter and energy are not. The photon possesses energy but the photon "is not energy". The M in the equation: E=mc^2 is referring to mass and not matter.

Saying that; "the photon is energy" is like saying that "I am a cold" instead of "I have a cold". This mistake is repeated over and over again by people that are frankly ignorant about the difference between Mass and Matter.

« Last Edit: 01/03/2016 13:10:35 by Ethos_ »
Logged
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
 

Offline agyejy

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 211
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 22 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #56 on: 29/02/2016 22:05:16 »
Quote from: Thebox on 29/02/2016 21:32:41
Energy is the property of an object, mass is a property of an object, are you trying to say they are the same thing?


''While mass is equivalent to energy,''

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 

Mass is kilos, energy is Jules,  two different things.

One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property. The only reason we ever thought they were different is that some things like light have no rest frame, thus no invariant mass, and some things like electrons do have a rest frame, thus they have an invariant mass. Invariant mass is much easier to measure and define so it came first and then later we learned to measure non-invariant properties that at the time didn't seem to impact the mass of the object and we called those properties energy. The theory of Relativity has shown us these two seemingly different properties are actually the same thing and that if we measure carefully enough (or add enough of that non-invariant property) we will see a change in mass as we change the non-invariant properties like relative velocity.

If you stop and think about it for a bit this actually makes the Universe much simpler on the whole. There is only one property (either mass or energy you can pick) that has invariant and non-invariant components. The invariant component appears to be controlled via interaction with the Higgs field.
Logged
 



guest39538

  • Guest
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #57 on: 29/02/2016 22:07:53 »
Quote from: Ethos_ on 29/02/2016 22:00:32
Quote from: Thebox on 29/02/2016 21:32:41

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 


I was responding to an earlier post where a member said: "everything is energy" which is completely false. While mass and energy are equivalent, Matter and energy is not. The photon possesses energy but the photon "is not energy". The M in the equation: E=mc^2 is referring to mass and not matter.

Saying that; "the photon is energy" is like saying that "I am a cold" instead of "I have a cold". This mistake is repeated over and over again by people that are frankly ignorant about the difference between Mass and Matter.

arr, I see now, the common mistake people make is that when looking up a definition they often don't type physics definition,  standard definition of mass is like a mass population, a collective where physics mass is kilos, that is why people get confused.  Yes  M in E=mc˛  is simply mass and a kilo amount.
Logged
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1332
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #58 on: 29/02/2016 22:09:27 »
Quote from: agyejy on 29/02/2016 22:05:16
Quote from: Thebox on 29/02/2016 21:32:41
Energy is the property of an object, mass is a property of an object, are you trying to say they are the same thing?


''While mass is equivalent to energy,''

They are two different words so the can't be the equivalent, that would mean they were the same. 

Mass is kilos, energy is Jules,  two different things.

One of the most important results that came from the theory of Relativity is that mass and energy are just different ways of measuring the same property. The only reason we ever thought they were different is that some things like light have no rest frame, thus no invariant mass, and some things like electrons do have a rest frame, thus they have an invariant mass. Invariant mass is much easier to measure and define so it came first and then later we learned to measure non-invariant properties that at the time didn't seem to impact the mass of the object and we called those properties energy. The theory of Relativity has shown us these two seemingly different properties are actually the same thing and that if we measure carefully enough (or add enough of that non-invariant property) we will see a change in mass as we change the non-invariant properties like relative velocity.

If you stop and think about it for a bit this actually makes the Universe much simpler on the whole. There is only one property (either mass or energy you can pick) that has invariant and non-invariant components. The invariant component appears to be controlled via interaction with the Higgs field.
Excellent post agyejy................
Logged
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
 

Offline Ethos_

  • Naked Science Forum King!
  • ******
  • 1332
  • Activity:
    0%
  • Thanked: 17 times
    • View Profile
Re: TheBox on black holes
« Reply #59 on: 29/02/2016 22:12:30 »
Quote from: Thebox on 29/02/2016 22:07:53


arr, I see now, the common mistake people make is that when looking up a definition they often don't type physics definition,  standard definition of mass is like a mass population, a collective where physics mass is kilos, that is why people get confused.  Yes  M in E=mc˛  is simply mass and a kilo amount.
Excellent Mr. Box, ..................now that you have become a little more flexible with your views, I may decide to take you off my ignore list.
Logged
"The more things change, the more they remain the same."
 



  • Print
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 16   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 

Similar topics (5)

What Math/Magic do YOU practice: Black Math/Magic or White Math/Magic?

Started by Tinker-BellBoard That CAN'T be true!

Replies: 0
Views: 4036
Last post 15/12/2016 20:47:13
by Tinker-Bell
Do white sheep eat more than black sheep?

Started by ning1101Board General Science

Replies: 9
Views: 14036
Last post 19/03/2020 14:04:42
by Paul25
What is spinning in a spinning black hole?

Started by Eric A. TaylorBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 31
Views: 16659
Last post 19/10/2018 22:23:48
by evan_au
Is White Pepper A Different Plant From Black Pepper?

Started by neilepBoard Plant Sciences, Zoology & Evolution

Replies: 1
Views: 5939
Last post 17/03/2009 17:59:08
by Don_1
How do a worm hole and black hole differ?

Started by harcarmenBoard Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology

Replies: 12
Views: 9977
Last post 15/05/2019 21:59:16
by jeffreyH
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.123 seconds with 79 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.