[guest39538]

Let us look at the science ''legalese'' version of the definition of density

Density is the mass per unit volume. This means that the density of any solid, liquid or gas can be found by dividing its mass in kilograms by its volume in cubic metres. Density can be found using the equation: The unit for density is kg m.

Meaningless , let me translate into realism terms

Density is the mass( a word we use that means nothing)  per unit volume.


Kilogram per unit volume, I think not. Mass is force related and nothing to do with density. Kilogram is the result of acting forces.

added- Proof, an electron has no mass to other electrons but it is still has density.  A Proton has no mass to other Protons but it still has density. 

What you are talking about also has a max density and it is a+b which is also absolute logic.   


a+b =V₁

(a+b) - (a+b) = V₁

The same see....

[The Spoon]

Let us look at the science ''legalese'' version of the definition of density

Density is the mass per unit volume. This means that the density of any solid, liquid or gas can be found by dividing its mass in kilograms by its volume in cubic metres. Density can be found using the equation: The unit for density is kg m.

Meaningless , let me translate into realism terms

Density is the mass( a word we use that means nothing)  per unit volume.


Kilogram per unit volume, I think not. Mass is force related and nothing to do with density. Kilogram is the result of acting forces.

added- Proof, an electron has no mass to other electrons but it is still has density.  A Proton has no mass to other Protons but it still has density. 

What you are talking about also has a max density and it is a+b which is also absolute logic.   


a+b =V₁

(a+b) - (a+b) = V₁

The same see....

Ah, I see. You accuse me of wanting to discuss density 'in a weird way' then you decide you don't like how density is defined because it doesnt fit in with your daft ideas so decide to redefine it so that it does. If you had ever actually measured the density of something you would realise how ridiculous your above post is. 

[Kryptid]

Ok, I already have an objective argument, saying something is infinitely  dense is illogical.

At some point there is a point where an objects density is at its absolute density.  There can be no such thing as an infinite density.   This is really poor use of the English language and contradicts the very meaning of infinite.

infinite
ˈɪnfɪnɪt/Submit
adjective
1.
limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate.

noun
1.
a space or quantity that is infinite.


There is a limit to all density, once there is no space left  between any point of the object is the D_max.  Where D is density.


A volume of space is finite  , if all points of the volume are occupied, you can't get any denser than that.

D_max =   V(k) - k where k is space and V is volume

Take note, we don't actually take away space, we occupy it with something.


Maybe in your terms


D_max =  4/3πr³ (k) -  4/3πr³ (k)

Points, by definition, are dimensionless and therefore have no volume. Therefore, you can fit an unlimited number of points inside of any finite volume. At least mathematically. In the real world, you may indeed be correct in asserting that an upper limit to density exists. If so, it is probably around the Planck density, which is 5.155 x 10⁹⁶ kilograms per cubic meter.

After reexamining the phrase "infinite density", I'm not sure it would even be appropriate to call it that. Density is a measure of mass per unit volume. If you put volume down as zero, then you end up trying to divide by zero. You can't do that in math. The answer is undefined.

[guest39538]

Another way to tell the difference would be through gravitational lensing. If you were fortunate enough to be in a position where the binary was passing in front of a source of light, you could see how the invisible partner bends that light (at least in theory). A black hole would bend light much more strongly than a mirror matter star of equal mass.

It was gravitational lensiing that made me think about transparency , the electromagnetic radiation surrounding the BH , ''refracting'' off the BH almost turning but not quite into a visible wavelength.

[Kryptid]

It was gravitational lensiing that made me think about transparency , the electromagnetic radiation surrounding the BH , ''refracting'' off the BH almost turning but not quite into a visible wavelength.

Gravitational lensing only changes the trajectory of the radiation. It doesn't change its wavelength.

[guest39538]

It was gravitational lensiing that made me think about transparency , the electromagnetic radiation surrounding the BH , ''refracting'' off the BH almost turning but not quite into a visible wavelength.

Gravitational lensing only changes the trajectory of the radiation. It doesn't change its wavelength.

How do you see it / detect it , if it does not change wave-length?

[Kryptid]

How do you see it / detect it , if it does not change wave-length?

It creates visual distortions. You can see some stars that are behind the Sun, for example, because the Sun bends their light around it.

[guest39538]

How do you see it / detect it , if it does not change wave-length?

It creates visual distortions. You can see some stars that are behind the Sun, for example, because the Sun bends their light around it.

Yes visual distortion, a change in the electromagnetic radiation, the invert creating an almost visible wave-length.  It is similar to but not exact like heat haze off a hot road interacting with air to form an almost visible light and visible air. 

If you can see it distorting, the clarity of transparency is becoming translucent , somewhere close to the infra red range but hardly a wave , more of a ''drip''. (maybe)

added- Like water . The water is visible light.


added- The wave-length of water is your answer to see the BH's better

[Kryptid]

creating an almost visible wave-length.

Again, this does not change the wavelength of the light that is being distorted.

[guest39538]

creating an almost visible wave-length.

Again, this does not change the wavelength of the light that is being distorted.

You think it doesn't ,  that does not mean it doesn't.   Objectively it does, it is like saying water does not affect the wave-length of light.  You can see water because you can see the light reflected by the molecules of the water.   

It is no difference, if a permeating photon encounters a spacial field with a greater permeability, then E=mc² and the frequency you will observe is dependent to the permeability of the field.

[Kryptid]

You think it doesn't ,  that does not mean it doesn't.   Objectively it does, it is like saying water does not affect the wave-length of light.

Water doesn't affect light's wavelength.

You can see water because you can see the light reflected by the molecules of the water.

Yes, but that doesn't mean that the wavelength has changed at all.

It is no difference, if a permeating photon encounters a spacial field with a greater permeability, then E=mc² and the frequency you will observe is dependent to the permeability of the field.

Gravitational lensing can't affect the wavelength of light. That would violate conservation of energy. A change in wavelength indicates a change of energy. There's nowhere for the energy that the light once had to go.

[guest39538]

Water doesn't affect light's wavelength.

Based on that logic , we should not be able to see water.   Evidently though we can, so with all due respect, science needs to consider how we can see water if there is no visible wave-length to see. 


Tip:  The rain is translucent compared to air.

[Colin2B]

Water doesn't affect light's wavelength.

Based on that logic , we should not be able to see water.   Evidently though we can, so with all due respect, science needs to consider how we can see water if there is no visible wave-length to see. 

@Kryptid didn’t say there was no visible wavelength, he said water doesn’t affect (change) it.

[guest39538]

Water doesn't affect light's wavelength.

Based on that logic , we should not be able to see water.   Evidently though we can, so with all due respect, science needs to consider how we can see water if there is no visible wave-length to see. 

@Kryptid didn’t say there was no visible wavelength, he said water doesn’t affect (change) it.

I see, sorry.   The water affects light compared to air, I can not see air or any sort of light in/off air, the difference being we can see water, so the water must be affected the light to create a visible wave-length, translucent being a sort of visible wave-length?

[Colin2B]

The water must be affected the light to create a visible wave-length, translucent being a sort of visible wave-length?

No, translucent is not a sort of visible wavelength.
Come on, you are a fisherman you must have spent a long time looking at water.
Think about the reflections from the surface, the colour of the water, the mud particles suspended in it, and you have why you can see that it is there.

[PmbPhy]

Like I said, you can't challenge me on time because I am the ''master'' on time and space and if Einstein was here today he would concede to me.

Dear God,

I thought I heard it all until today when I read the above statement. I have now heard it all. As a result I am more highly disappointed with people than ever before, in general. I am therefore ready to assume room temperature. Please take me when you find the time.

Your friend, the atheist,
Pete

[guest39538]

The water must be affected the light to create a visible wave-length, translucent being a sort of visible wave-length?

No, translucent is not a sort of visible wavelength.
Come on, you are a fisherman you must have spent a long time looking at water.
Think about the reflections from the surface, the colour of the water, the mud particles suspended in it, and you have why you can see that it is there.

I have thought about muddy muddy water etc, but I have also thought about clear water.

[Kryptid]

I have thought about muddy muddy water etc, but I have also thought about clear water.

You can see clear water because it does not allow all light to pass through it. Some of it is reflected back towards your eyes. Surely you've seen the Sun glint off of a lake before? You can also see it because water deflects the light's path. Look at the picture of the straw in the following link: https://www.popsci.com/why-does-this-straw-look-like-its-broken. The straw is just as red in the water as it is out of the water. The wavelength (color) of the light has not changed.

[guest39538]

I have thought about muddy muddy water etc, but I have also thought about clear water.

You can see clear water because it does not allow all light to pass through it. Some of it is reflected back towards your eyes. Surely you've seen the Sun glint off of a lake before? You can also see it because water deflects the light's path. Look at the picture of the straw in the following link: https://www.popsci.com/why-does-this-straw-look-like-its-broken. The straw is just as red in the water as it is out of the water. The wavelength (color) of the light has not changed.

You are looking at water with a vagueness, try being underwater in a swimming pool.   You can see the entire length of water between you and the side of the pool. 


You say the surface is reflecting light so you can see the water, what is the reflected  visible wave-length?

[The Spoon]

I have thought about muddy muddy water etc, but I have also thought about clear water.

You can see clear water because it does not allow all light to pass through it. Some of it is reflected back towards your eyes. Surely you've seen the Sun glint off of a lake before? You can also see it because water deflects the light's path. Look at the picture of the straw in the following link: https://www.popsci.com/why-does-this-straw-look-like-its-broken. The straw is just as red in the water as it is out of the water. The wavelength (color) of the light has not changed.

You are looking at water with a vagueness, try being underwater in a swimming pool.   You can see the entire length of water between you and the side of the pool. 


You say the surface is reflecting light so you can see the water, what is the reflected  visible wave-length?

Try reading all of his answer.

'You say the surface is reflecting light so you can see the water, what is the reflected  visible wave-length?'
Given that he has stated light is reflected so that you can see the surface, why do you not think it would be visible wavelngth light?