[Craig W. Thomson]

Also in this very thread you've made arguments that were based on nothing but the meaning of words like equivalent and matter. If you can do it why can't I?

Similarly, you've been acting like you're some sort of authority on physics for the last couple of weeks now, even though you clearly only half understand what you are talking about.

Why can't we do that to you? We're half-authorities on science too, you know. This is a public forum, not the IPCC.

[Colin2B]

Can we all please try to keep this thread polite and, at least outwardly, friendly. Don't want to lock the thread.
Thanks

[jeffreyH]

Thebox consider that the blue-shift, imparting energy as it does, may well link to relativistic mass increase. Then this extra energy will be all kinetic energy which would help to break molecular bonds and so increase entropy. So that increasing tidal forces will inevitably increase entropy and mostly in that region of the black hole between the light-like orbital and the horizon surface. Now there's a thought!

[jeffreyH]

And here is a graph of the function x sin 1/x for anyone even remotely interested.

[agyejy]

Hawking disagrees with Hawking specifically on this topic, you fool:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/stephen-hawking-admits-the-biggest-blunder-of-his-scientific-career-early-belief-that-everything-8568418.html

This is what intelligent knowledgable people do when they discover that there ideas are wrong. Hawking is not disagreeing with himself he has simply corrected a flaw in his understanding.

I still don't believe you about the "quick calculations." Care to show your work?? I say you're full of crap. I'm no Calculus expert, but I know enough about it to know those calculations aren't quick, and they aren't something you could just pull out a pocket calculator like you were balancing a checkbook. Those equations are complex and comprised largely of Greek symbols and such, single characters in the equation represent another whole equation, etc.

I did show my work in a direct reply to one of your posts. For anyone interested here it is again:

That source is atrocious (a website about a deep sea robotics is not a good place to learn about the quantum mechanics of metals). It is trying to use an almost completely classical description for something that is inherently quantum mechanical. I actually tried looking around and most basic explanations of conduction have the same exact problem. The general thing to do is to treat the electrons like they form an ideal gas. In an ideal gas the mean free path is expressed as 1/(π*d²*ρ) where d is the diameter of the particles and ρ is the density of the particles. The density of free electrons in say copper (only the free electrons can conduct) is 8.5*10^28*(1/m^3) the classical radius of an electron (which is definitely too big and generally an electron is thought to not have a radius at all) is about 2.8*10^-15 m giving a diameter of 5.6*10^-15 m. Putting that into the mean free path calculation above says that on average and electron in copper should travel about 12 cm before it hits another electron if we treat the electrons as classical particles. We know that the resistance of a metal wire is directly related to the mean free path of the electrons in the wire. For copper at room temperature we can calculate the actual mean free path of the electrons from actual measured properties with our classical assumptions. When we do this we get a mean free path of electrons in copper of about 40 nm. This number is much much much smaller than 12 cm. Which means that electrons basically always collide with something else (phonons, lattice defects, etc) before they collide with each other or in other words electron-electron collisions cannot explain the conduction of electricity. To put it another way even though the density of the electrons seems high the electrons are actually relatively far apart compared to their size and therefore do not interact. Of course for simplicity we've ignored the uncertainty principle which will change the numbers a bit but will not make up the difference in size between 40 nm and 12 cm.

Similarly, you've been acting like you're some sort of authority on physics for the last couple of weeks now, even though you clearly only half understand what you are talking about.

Why can't we do that to you? We're half-authorities on science too, you know. This is a public forum, not the IPCC.

I am doing nothing but pointing out statements that are false using sources, mathematics, and logic. I have more than sufficiently demonstrated my level of understanding. I could give my qualifications but those are meaningless words. What matters is demonstrated ability and I have done that.

Can we all please try to keep this thread polite and, at least outwardly, friendly. Don't want to lock the thread.
Thanks

I apologize. I am trying me best to keep this discussion focused and polite.

[Craig W. Thomson]

I am doing nothing but pointing out statements that are false using sources, mathematics, and logic. I have more than sufficiently demonstrated my level of understanding. I could give my qualifications but those are meaningless words. What matters is demonstrated ability and I have done that.

As your peer, I respectfully disagree. I still can't get over the fact that you compared the wavelike properties of a photon to an earthquake a few pages back. Now, in the post above, you've "cited your work," but you're talking about electricity and conduction. What does that have to do with black holes? Trying to be "focused and polite" ??You're all over the place. You are obviously somewhat knowledgeable, but your take on physics is piecemeal and incoherent at best. You're like the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. Plus, nobody who is deep into this subject calls the stuff of the universe "matter" anymore. Mass and energy are the terms I use to discuss "matter," and I'm just a layman. In that respect, you are a Rutherford atom in an electron cloud world.

[agyejy]

As your peer, I respectfully disagree.

That doesn't make my statement any less true.

I still can't get over the fact that you compared the wavelike properties of a photon to an earthquake a few pages back.

Waves are waves are waves are waves. All wave things (and wavelike things) obey the same set of mathematical principles called wave mechanics. The particular property we were discussing (the ability to have both transverse and longitudinal oscillations simultaneously) is a property all waves share. The interaction of a particular wave with a particular medium or lack of a medium may disallow some or all modes of oscillation. However, this disallowing of oscillation modes is a property of the medium not the waves.

Now, in the post above, you've "cited your work," but you're talking about electricity and conduction. What does that have to do with black holes? Trying to be "focused and polite" ??You're all over the place.

I responded to a direct request from you. Although now it appears you somehow forgot the original statement to which I was referring despite the rather unambiguous nature of what you yourself quoted.

You are obviously somewhat knowledgeable, but your take on physics is piecemeal and incoherent at best. You're like the impulse lawn sprinkler of physics. Plus, nobody who is deep into this subject calls the stuff of the universe "matter" anymore. Mass and energy are the terms I use to discuss "matter," and I'm just a layman. In that respect, you are a Rutherford atom in an electron cloud world.

Funny then how you managed to find an entire blog post from a semi-prominent theoretical physicist that specifically spoke about how the term matter is ambiguous even in the realm of science precisely because it is used to mean different things by different people. If so many different people in different disciplines of science are using matter that there is the potential for ambiguity then how can it be that "nobody who is deep into this subject" uses the term? To take a particularly relevant quote from Prof. Matt Strassler:

Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse.  Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons.  Consumer beware!  Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.

(Emphasis mine)

From: http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/mass-energy-matter-etc/matter-and-energy-a-false-dichotomy/

Also, when talking about matter I attempt to make it clear what definition of matter I am using by stating that I consider any single entity with a rest frame (i.e. not traveling at c) is matter. Although I do occasionally slip and forget. I am after all only human.

[Craig W. Thomson]

Waves are waves are waves are waves. All wave things (and wavelike things) obey the same set of mathematical principles called wave mechanics. The particular property we were discussing (the ability to have both transverse and longitudinal oscillations simultaneously) is a property all waves share.

Although I do occasionally slip and forget. I am after all only human.

Tell me something I don't know. Of course waves are waves are waves are waves. But like I said, a photon travels forward in space as two waves along a geodesic described by the intersection of two perpendicular planes. A photon cannot travel forward along those two planes and also travel forward in a third plane perpendicular to both of them. The only movement possible along that plane is in a direction AWAY from the geodesic the photon is travelling on. That is physically impossible. In order to oscillate in a third dimension, a photon's wave energy MUST stop travelling forward in space along a geodesic at speed c. That is physically impossible, no matter how many earthquakes you bring to the table.

You could be a little less condescending, you know. That's why I talk to the way I do. You seem to forget that I am also human when you are belittling me and force feeding me your peculiar brand of physics, and I don't appreciate it.

[jeffreyH]

Now compare the above with f(x) =x sin 1/x^2.

[guest39538]

Now compare the above with f(x) =x sin 1/x^2.

Interesting diagram Jeffrey , I am not even sure if we are discussing the same thing, I am not even sure we are discussing, but your diagram and maths look similar to what I am trying to say about singularity 







 

[agyejy]

Tell me something I don't know.

You say you know and understand and then you go and say things like:

Of course waves are waves are waves are waves. But like I said, a photon travels forward in space as two waves along a geodesic described by the intersection of two perpendicular planes. A photon cannot travel forward along those two planes and also travel forward in a third plane perpendicular to both of them. The only movement possible along that plane is in a direction AWAY from the geodesic the photon is travelling on. That is physically impossible. In order to oscillate in a third dimension, a photon's wave energy MUST stop travelling forward in space along a geodesic at speed c. That is physically impossible, no matter how many earthquakes you bring to the table.

which makes it clear that you don't. For starters a photon traveling in a vacuum is one wave that is oscillating with two transverse modes. The only reason a photon cannot also have a longitudinal mode at the same time is that the vacuum does not support the longitudinal mode of electromagnetic oscillation. It has nothing to do with it being impossible for a wave to have three perpendicular modes of oscillation. All waves have a speed of propagation in whatever medium they travel through and that speed is their maximum speed in that medium. For all intents and purposes a sound wave (or earthquake wave) traveling in a medium is traveling at the speed limit of that medium and if your argument was valid they would be subjected to the same effects as a photon. Thus the fact that there exists traveling waves that possess both transverse and longitudinal modes of oscillation at the same time your reasoning must be flawed. To reiterate what you are describing if it were true should be true of all waves. It clearly is not and therefore cannot be true.

You could be a little less condescending, you know. That's why I talk to the way I do. You seem to forget that I am also human when you are belittling me and force feeding me your peculiar brand of physics, and I don't appreciate it.

Correcting the errors you make in factual knowledge and logical reasoning is not inherently condescending and no one else has commented that my word choice is suggestive of condescension. The only thing I am attempting to do is to help you learn actual real physics. True physics is so much more amazing than the ridiculous stuff that you think up. Pointing out your errors and attempting to share my knowledge is not an act of belittling.

[jeffreyH]

Now compare the above with f(x) =x sin 1/x^2.

Interesting diagram Jeffrey , I am not even sure if we are discussing the same thing, I am not even sure we are discussing, but your diagram and maths look similar to what I am trying to say about singularity

Ah but can singularities be observed?

[guest39538]

Ah but can singularities be observed?

They can if they are within the range limit of observation  be detected by sight or possibly  other means.   

[jeffreyH]

Ah but can singularities be observed?

They can if they are within the range limit of observation  be detected by sight or possibly  other means.

You say that with conviction. What is your evidence?

[guest39538]

You say that with conviction. What is your evidence?

I can shine a laser and observe the dust I could not otherwise ''see'' in the space between my eyes and object.  Because I am changing the ''colour'' of the constant the singularities stand out more, to see something that is  dark but not really dark, against a dark background that is not really dark, we simply have to change the colour of the foreground to submerge the singularity into something different from the constant same.


So something like if we could see in green dust would look like tiny little stars.

[jeffreyH]

Or you could start here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalar_curvature

"In general relativity, the scalar curvature is the Lagrangian density for the Einstein–Hilbert action. The Euler–Lagrange equations for this Lagrangian under variations in the metric constitute the vacuum Einstein field equations, and the stationary metrics are known as Einstein metrics. The scalar curvature is defined as the trace of the Ricci tensor, and it can be characterized as a multiple of the average of the sectional curvatures at a point. Unlike the Ricci tensor and sectional curvature, however, global results involving only the scalar curvature are extremely subtle and difficult. One of the few is the positive mass theorem of Richard Schoen, Shing-Tung Yau and Edward Witten. Another is the Yamabe problem, which seeks extremal metrics in a given conformal class for which the scalar curvature is constant."

[jeffreyH]

Suggestive of negative mass/dark energy expanding the metric?

[Craig W. Thomson]

It has nothing to do with it being impossible for a wave to have three perpendicular modes of oscillation.

Pointing out your errors and attempting to share my knowledge is not an act of belittling.

I never said it did. That's your error, not mine.

What I actually said, for those of you who can actually read, is that there cannot be FORWARD MOTION along three planes at the same time. In fact, I specifically said the forward motion of a photon becomes confined to an oscillation when that photon interacts with a particle at a point location."

"Forward motion" is not the same thing as an "oscillation," I just wanted to share my knowledge with you.

[agyejy]

I never said it did. That's your error, not mine.

What I actually said, for those of you who can actually read, is that there cannot be FORWARD MOTION along three planes at the same time. In fact, I specifically said the forward motion of a photon becomes confined to an oscillation when that photon interacts with a particle at a point location."

"Forward motion" is not the same thing as an "oscillation," I just wanted to share my knowledge with you.

If you weren't talking about oscillations than you are even more wrong than I gave you credit for. You seem to be very confused about terminology and the nature of waves and wave motion in general. If we're simply talking about the propagation of waves then spherical waves are three dimensional in that they have forward motion in all three dimensions. Now spherical waves are generated by point sources but are by no means confined in any sense of the word. Here is a little bit about wave propagation:

https://www.cis.rit.edu/class/simg712-01/notes/basicprinciples-07.pdf

Generally speaking there is no such thing as a perfect plane or cylindrical wave because they require an infinite plane or line to generate them. All waves propagating through space have some spherical nature to them because their sources are all finite in extent. The key point to all of this is that for any spherical wave if you draw three mutually perpendicular planes through the wave front the wave will have motion along all three of the plains. Don't be confused by drawings of electromagnetic waves like the one in the link below:

http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/remote/images/emwave.gif

Only one of the axes (the plural of axis not axe) in that picture represents a direction in space (the one labeled direction). The other two axes represent the intensity of the electric and magnetic fields and are in units of electric and magnetic field strength not distance. At best that diagram represents an idealized plane wave not a true physical wave. Diagrams of wave propagation are simplified like this because there really is no way to draw what is really going on in three spatial dimensions while also representing the changes in field strength that wouldn't be an indecipherable mess. This point should always be made very clear when these diagrams are used (and in courses on electromagnetism that is usually the case) but often it is not when communicating to a lay audience. Higher sciences routinely make use of axes that represent things other than space and sometimes spatial and non-spatial axes are mixed together in the same graph which can be very confusing to the uninitiated.

[guest39538]

Suggestive of negative mass/dark energy expanding the metric?

The invert of that . ONLY pos expands pos, it is polarity difference, we do not know there was not a ring formation and we ''drifted'' inwards.


Neg IS attracted to Neg ,

 I think orbiting bodies are some sort of Magnus affect and solar winds?