[Craig W. Thomson]

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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[agyejy]

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.

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.

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?

[guest39538]

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 r³

-E=<4/3 pi r³


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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

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.

[jeffreyH]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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?

[guest39538]

 

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

[Craig W. Thomson]

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?

[Craig W. Thomson]

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?

[guest39538]

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?

[guest39538]

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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

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.

[Craig W. Thomson]

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