It is said that all the laws of physics break down in a black hole. This is said by people whose brain hurts because they cannot see the obvious, and it's their way of trying not to look stupid because they do not know.
In a neutron star, matter collapses into solid neutrons. In a black hole, the matter has collapsed into a smaller state, maybe solid quarks, or particles we don't yet know of. If matter could totally collapse to a point source, it would effectively cease to exist so not have gravity either. Because it is ultra-dense, the core is circular and rotating at a good proportion of the speed of light.
It was once said by someone that if we travelled fast enough we could travel around the Universe in 45 years. Not correct. Since the idea is that we travel at almost light speed, it would take hundreds of billions of years, allowing for a Universe of constant size.
Time is a man made measure to help us cope with our environment. As you approach light speed, by definition you continue travelling at the same speed but "time slows down". Actually time is constant at 1 sec/sec. The rate of change slows down, so that someone going fast enough would only age 45 years on a journey lasting hundreds of billions of years.
So, someone falling into a black hole will be accelerated to almost light speed (since only in illusions does matter travel faster) as he is pulled through the event horizon. His rate of change (allowing for gravity not disintigrating him) will slow to almost a total stop, but within an instant, he will be one with the core of the black hole.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 02:19 PM)
It is said that all the laws of physics break down in a black hole.
The equations of relativity are not valid at the very centre, but everywhere else within the event horizon they work just fine.
The equations of relativity are not valid at the very centre, but everywhere else within the event horizon they work just fine.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 02:19 PM)
the matter has collapsed into a smaller state, maybe solid quarks, or particles we don't yet know of.
The problem is that to remain in that state they'd have to be moving faster than light so as not to be breaking the Exclusion Principle, which isn't possible (unless you want to rewrite pretty much the last 90 years of all high energy physics and counter a lot of experimental evidence) so they keep collapsing until they are a point, effectively becoming a gravitationally bound bosonic state.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 02:19 PM)
If matter could totally collapse to a point source, it would effectively cease to exist so not have gravity either.
All particles in physics are modelled as points, yet they still have things like charge, spin, mass and interact. Being a point is no problem in the sense of retaining their properties, it's just that the point gives some of those properties as physically meaningless.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 02:19 PM)
It was once said by someone that if we travelled fast enough we could travel around the Universe in 45 years. Not correct. Since the idea is that we travel at almost light speed, it would take hundreds of billions of years, allowing for a Universe of constant size.
You failed to understand what they meant. If you got on a rocket (a powerful one) and accelerated quickly to 99.99999999999999999% the speed of light, the length and time contractions involved would mean from your prespective you'd cross the entire universe in a matter of years/month/weeks/seconds (you can make it as short a time you like, you just accelerate closer to light speed). From everyone else's perspective it still takes billions of years.
You need to learn that different perspectives experience and see slightly different things in relativity (sometimes drastically different!).
You need to learn that different perspectives experience and see slightly different things in relativity (sometimes drastically different!).
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 02:19 PM)
Actually time is constant at 1 sec/sec. The rate of change slows down, so that someone going fast enough would only age 45 years on a journey lasting hundreds of billions of years.
Time passes differently for different people. If 'rate of change' changes, then time passes differently, since 'rate of change' is d/dt.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 02:19 PM)
His rate of change (allowing for gravity not disintigrating him) will slow to almost a total stop, but within an instant, he will be one with the core of the black hole.
No, from his own point of view the time taken to get from the event horizon to the singularity isn't 'an instant', it depends on things like how big the black hole is and how fast he's moving. From an observer far away, it'll seem like he never makes it because they see his last image frozen on the event horizon forever.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 04:19 PM)
It is said that all the laws of physics break down in a black hole.
I believe, all these laws will be valid furthermore, the Newton inertia laws in particular and all the others, which can be derived from them. By AWT the BH event horizon is just an another Aether phase interface and the BH is just a dense star, formed by mostly of neutrinos.
So I can suppose, these laws will be valid here by the same way, like inside of lepton particles.
I believe, all these laws will be valid furthermore, the Newton inertia laws in particular and all the others, which can be derived from them. By AWT the BH event horizon is just an another Aether phase interface and the BH is just a dense star, formed by mostly of neutrinos.
So I can suppose, these laws will be valid here by the same way, like inside of lepton particles.
AlphaNumeric. How do you know the equations work? Has someone checked them out?
Wrong. We can accelerate particles to near light speed in cyclotrons then when we add more energy, they just gain more energy. They merely move at the maximum speed possible. They cannot move faster.
Point sources are mathematical models, the same way defunct superstrings are mathematical models. Maths allow for infinites, absolutes, ignores friction, temperatures, other forces, etc. No thanks!
If you had actually read my post, you would have noticed I said that was wrong. You need to learn to read posts.
There is no absolute time for everybody. We all change at different rates for each one second that we live but it evens out.
If the person were indestructible, then it would seem as though he lived forever, though it takes but the smallest instant for him to hit the central mass. For a non-indestructible person, it would all be over almost instantly, regardless of his rate of change, at near light speed.
Wrong. We can accelerate particles to near light speed in cyclotrons then when we add more energy, they just gain more energy. They merely move at the maximum speed possible. They cannot move faster.
Point sources are mathematical models, the same way defunct superstrings are mathematical models. Maths allow for infinites, absolutes, ignores friction, temperatures, other forces, etc. No thanks!
If you had actually read my post, you would have noticed I said that was wrong. You need to learn to read posts.
There is no absolute time for everybody. We all change at different rates for each one second that we live but it evens out.
If the person were indestructible, then it would seem as though he lived forever, though it takes but the smallest instant for him to hit the central mass. For a non-indestructible person, it would all be over almost instantly, regardless of his rate of change, at near light speed.
Zephir. The black hole is formed from the large star's material so could only be formed of neutrinos if that is what matter is made of, and considering their properties, that is unlikely.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 04:22 PM)
AlphaNumeric. How do you know the equations work? Has someone checked them out?
To check the self consistency of the Einstein Equations you compute scalar quantities like R_abcd R^acbd and see if they are singular anywhere. In the case of black holes they involve powers of 1/r, so end up being physically meaningful everywhere but at r=0.
So yes, someone has checked.
To check the self consistency of the Einstein Equations you compute scalar quantities like R_abcd R^acbd and see if they are singular anywhere. In the case of black holes they involve powers of 1/r, so end up being physically meaningful everywhere but at r=0.
So yes, someone has checked.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 04:22 PM)
Point sources are mathematical models, the same way defunct superstrings are mathematical models.
I know they are point models, I was countering your comment that because the singularity is a point it can't possible have mass. Well given both it and particles are almost certainly mathematical abstractions of what reality really is like, simply having a point mass in your mathematical model doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Also, as pointed out to you in another thread, string theory is far from 'defunct'.
Also, as pointed out to you in another thread, string theory is far from 'defunct'.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 04:22 PM)
Maths allow for infinites, absolutes, ignores friction, temperatures, other forces, etc. No thanks!
Yes, thus allowing you to consider approximations to make life easier sometimes. You'll find it also allows you to not ignore those quantities if you're willing to do a bit more work, so just the fact you can ignore some terms in an equation sometimes doesn't mean the equation isn't a good one. If anything, it makes it a good equation! Just look at the Navier Stokes equation.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 04:22 PM)
You need to learn to read posts.
And you need to learn some science rather than just denouncing it without any knowledge of it.
You copied this wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon#Muon_decays
Thus the correct form is:
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 04:22 PM)
If the person were indestructible, then it would seem as though he lived forever, though it takes but the smallest instant for him to hit the central mass. For a non-indestructible person, it would all be over almost instantly, regardless of his rate of change, at near light speed.
Do the equations and you'll find the time period isn't zero (or arbitarily small) from the person who fall's into the black hole's point of view. But I imagine that would be too much like hard work for you so you prefer to just make unfounded statements 
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 06:24 PM)
...The black hole is formed from the large star's material so could only be formed of neutrinos if that is what matter is made of, and considering their properties, that is unlikely...
So what? For example the neutron stars are formed by neutrons.
Which black hole property makes the concept proposed unlikely?
So what? For example the neutron stars are formed by neutrons.
Which black hole property makes the concept proposed unlikely?
The fact neutrons and neutrinos are both fermions and so both exhibit the same Fermi degeneracy. Once the neutrons can't hold themselves up by degeneracy, it's unlikely that neutrinos could, plus you'd have to find a mechanism which turns ALL the neutrons into neutrinos. The mechanism which turns proton + electron -> neutron is well known, but the one which turns neutron -> neutrino isn't infact possible because it violates lepton conservation.
So there's a number of hurdles to be overcome before it's reasonable to assume it's a 'neutrino star' and not something else.
So there's a number of hurdles to be overcome before it's reasonable to assume it's a 'neutrino star' and not something else.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 29 2006, 09:32 PM)
Neutrino isn't infact possible because it violates lepton conservation...
In the Standard Model, lepton number would be preserved if neutrinos were massless. Since neutrinos do have a tiny nonzero mass, neutrino oscillation has been observed, and conservation laws for lepton conservation are therefore only approximate. This means the conservation laws are violated, and it is possible to see muon decays such as:
Because the lepton number conservation law is violated by chiral anomalies in fact , there are problems applying this symmetry universally over all energy scales..
In the Standard Model, lepton number would be preserved if neutrinos were massless. Since neutrinos do have a tiny nonzero mass, neutrino oscillation has been observed, and conservation laws for lepton conservation are therefore only approximate. This means the conservation laws are violated, and it is possible to see muon decays such as:
Because the lepton number conservation law is violated by chiral anomalies in fact , there are problems applying this symmetry universally over all energy scales..
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 29 2006, 07:39 PM)
You copied this wrong.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muon#Muon_decays
QUOTE
Nearly all of the time, they decay into an electron, an electron-antineutrino, and a muon-neutrino.
Thus the correct form is:
CODE
+---------------------------------+
| μ -> e- + anti-ν_e + ν_μ |
| L : 1 = 1 + -1 + 1 |
| L_e : 0 = 1 + -1 + 0 |
| L_μ : 1 = 0 + 0 + 1 |
+---------------------------------+
| μ -> e- + anti-ν_e + ν_μ |
| L : 1 = 1 + -1 + 1 |
| L_e : 0 = 1 + -1 + 0 |
| L_μ : 1 = 0 + 0 + 1 |
+---------------------------------+
Obviously the more stringent 'conservations' of electron, muon and tau leptons is broken if neutrinos have mass, but the over all lepton total remains conserved because one lepton always goes to 2 of the same kind and one which is the antimatter of the starting lepton.
You're saying that a mass of neutrons, lepton number of zero, turns into a mass of neutrinos, all lepton number 1. Irrelevent of what particular neutrino they are, that's still an overall violation of total lepton number. That is what I was getting at.
As Rpenner has noted, you copied that from Wiki and it was pretty obviously. Your usually posts are nowhere near that coherent or informative. Plus you've no idea exactly what a chiral anomaly is, other than what Google gives you.
You're saying that a mass of neutrons, lepton number of zero, turns into a mass of neutrinos, all lepton number 1. Irrelevent of what particular neutrino they are, that's still an overall violation of total lepton number. That is what I was getting at.
As Rpenner has noted, you copied that from Wiki and it was pretty obviously. Your usually posts are nowhere near that coherent or informative. Plus you've no idea exactly what a chiral anomaly is, other than what Google gives you.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 29 2006, 01:19 PM)
It is said that all the laws of physics break down in a black hole. This is said by people whose brain hurts because they cannot see the obvious, and it's their way of trying not to look stupid because they do not know.
What about Stephen Hawking? "General Relativity predicts its own downfall by predicting singularities."
Black holes don't exist.
Mitch Raemsch
What about Stephen Hawking? "General Relativity predicts its own downfall by predicting singularities."
Black holes don't exist.
Mitch Raemsch
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 29 2006, 10:47 PM)
Plus you've no idea exactly what a chiral anomaly is, other than what Google gives you.
The Google keyword search gives more then 740.000 listings relevant to this topic. I doubt, you can supply more deeper explanation, then what Google supplies.
The Google keyword search gives more then 740.000 listings relevant to this topic. I doubt, you can supply more deeper explanation, then what Google supplies.
QUOTE (Nick+Nov 29 2006, 10:47 PM)
General Relativity predicts its own downfall by predicting singularities..
This says nothing about black hole existence. Even the water surface is singularity with respect of the surface wave spreading. Why the vacuum should be some exception? Lets talk about BH as about the most dense generation of collapsed stars available.
This says nothing about black hole existence. Even the water surface is singularity with respect of the surface wave spreading. Why the vacuum should be some exception? Lets talk about BH as about the most dense generation of collapsed stars available.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 29 2006, 09:05 PM)
The Google keyword search gives more then 740.000 listings relevant to this topic. I doubt, you can supply more deeper explanation, then what Google supplies.
True, but I doubt you go for explainations such as this which can be found online, you go for short, qualatitive descriptions and 'skim learn'. You don't learn the theories, you learn someone elses cut down description. Hell, sometimes you just copy and paste someone else's words!
With the power of the internet, anyone can pretend to be knowledgable about something because Google provides a short blast of information if you've never heard of something, while in a face to face discussion you'd be stumped. The problem is that a 5 line breakdown of a theory doesn't replace learning it properly and you've fallen foul of that on numerous occasions. Thinking QED doesn't have tranverse descriptions of the photon, thinking string theory has absolutely no physical predictions, thinking SUSY is only about "there's an equal number of fermions to bosons". Sometimes more than the briefest of introductions is needed and that's all you ever bother to get from Google.
Plus you have never bothered to look up 'scientific methodology' or you'd know why everyone finds AWT so lacking.
True, but I doubt you go for explainations such as this which can be found online, you go for short, qualatitive descriptions and 'skim learn'. You don't learn the theories, you learn someone elses cut down description. Hell, sometimes you just copy and paste someone else's words!
With the power of the internet, anyone can pretend to be knowledgable about something because Google provides a short blast of information if you've never heard of something, while in a face to face discussion you'd be stumped. The problem is that a 5 line breakdown of a theory doesn't replace learning it properly and you've fallen foul of that on numerous occasions. Thinking QED doesn't have tranverse descriptions of the photon, thinking string theory has absolutely no physical predictions, thinking SUSY is only about "there's an equal number of fermions to bosons". Sometimes more than the briefest of introductions is needed and that's all you ever bother to get from Google.
Plus you have never bothered to look up 'scientific methodology' or you'd know why everyone finds AWT so lacking.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 29 2006, 09:05 PM)
This says nothing about black hole existence.
The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems?
hi there
can a black hole be used as some kind of model for the universe prior to the big bang ?
if the big bang theory is to hold out much longer, surely modern science can understand a black holes hidden secrets and reconcile the issues you have been discussing.
I do not know as much as you all so I can not comment on things such as Fermi degeneracy etc.
can a black hole be used as some kind of model for the universe prior to the big bang ?
if the big bang theory is to hold out much longer, surely modern science can understand a black holes hidden secrets and reconcile the issues you have been discussing.
I do not know as much as you all so I can not comment on things such as Fermi degeneracy etc.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 29 2006, 11:19 PM)
..ou don't learn the theories, you learn someone elses cut down description...
Why I should waste my time with you and spell the same by my own words, if my English is far from perfect? And I'm not required to read the foreign theories in detail at all, I've my own theory, which looks pretty well.
Why I should waste my time with you and spell the same by my own words, if my English is far from perfect? And I'm not required to read the foreign theories in detail at all, I've my own theory, which looks pretty well.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 29 2006, 09:33 PM)
And I'm not required to read the foreign theories in detail at all, I've my own theory, which looks pretty well.
It doesn't work well in the eyes of science and I've a problem with what you say because you make false claims about mainstream theories in order to make your AWT seem more valid.
Yes, you're welcome to your view of mainstream theories but when I've told you 10 times that string theory includes GR and then you say again "String theory produces no experimental predictions" then I find it annoying because you're either being malicious and trolling or you're an idiot.
It doesn't work well in the eyes of science and I've a problem with what you say because you make false claims about mainstream theories in order to make your AWT seem more valid.
Yes, you're welcome to your view of mainstream theories but when I've told you 10 times that string theory includes GR and then you say again "String theory produces no experimental predictions" then I find it annoying because you're either being malicious and trolling or you're an idiot.
QUOTE (kjw+Nov 29 2006, 11:23 PM)
can a black hole be used as some kind of model for the universe prior to the big bang ?
Of course, consider the gravastar concept, for example. The AWT is based on such insight, too.
In fact, the model of primordial black hole formation is the most realistic model of Universe evolution, we have so far.
Of course, consider the gravastar concept, for example. The AWT is based on such insight, too.
In fact, the model of primordial black hole formation is the most realistic model of Universe evolution, we have so far.
QUOTE (AlhaNumeric+Nov 29 2006, 11:23 PM)
...it doesn't work well in the eyes of science...
LOL, who says? Some naive postdoc, who spends all this time by the dumb web discussions?
LOL, who says? Some naive postdoc, who spends all this time by the dumb web discussions?
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 29 2006, 09:40 PM)
LOL, who says? Some naive postdoc
Still not getting the difference between 'postdoc' and 'postgrad'
I say that because it's got no derivation, incompatible postulates/claims and have no quantifiable predictions which aren't ad hoc'd.
Still not getting the difference between 'postdoc' and 'postgrad'
I say that because it's got no derivation, incompatible postulates/claims and have no quantifiable predictions which aren't ad hoc'd.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 29 2006, 09:40 PM)
who spends all this time by the dumb web discussions?
Having spent around 7 hours today banging my head against supersymmetry lecture notes which are speckled with misprints and sign errors, it always perks me up to come on here and realise that while I'm not a genius at physics I'm a damn sight better than some
I consider this place stress releaving
I consider this place stress releaving
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 29 2006, 11:55 PM)
Still not getting the difference between 'postdoc' and 'postgrad'
Sorry, it's bellow my visual acuity... You know, zero like zero... This is what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is calling.
Sorry, it's bellow my visual acuity... You know, zero like zero...
This is what the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is calling.QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 29 2006, 11:55 PM)
that while I'm not a genius at physics I'm a damn sight better than some
The fact, you can treat the equations doesn't necessarily mean, u can understand it (try to draw a Lie's group graphical representation, if you don't believe me). And the understanding of these equations doesn't necessarily mean, you can understand the underlying physical model.
The fact, you can treat the equations doesn't necessarily mean, u can understand it (try to draw a Lie's group graphical representation, if you don't believe me). And the understanding of these equations doesn't necessarily mean, you can understand the underlying physical model.
QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 29 2006, 10:17 PM)
(try to draw a Lie's group graphical representation, if you don't believe me)
Another example of terrible logic. Because system A doesn't have property B, it is therefore invalid.
Besides, I think you'll find that many Lie Groups you can draw. A circle is the S^1 Lie Group. Nice try Learn something about Lie Groups next time. Besides, there's more to science than pictures.
Another example of terrible logic. Because system A doesn't have property B, it is therefore invalid.
Besides, I think you'll find that many Lie Groups you can draw. A circle is the S^1 Lie Group. Nice try
Learn something about Lie Groups next time. Besides, there's more to science than pictures.QUOTE (Zephir+Nov 29 2006, 10:17 PM)
And the understanding of these equations doesn't necessarily mean, you can understand the underlying physical model.
I seem to be doing a decent job of showing flaws in your understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity, along with the understandings of people like Nick without having to mindless post equations. 
the black holes theere are and given by einstein' equations.the only one magician is the MY
FRATER ALPHANUMERIC THAT LIVE AS A "SINGULARITY".trying as ghost create
shadows in the human brains,and as vampire absorbed knowledge,that low or nothing imagination places in its effect phrases,
to the nick,already is the sufficient
the ghosts and vampires are creations of our proper inconsciousness.
or our obscure clouds that kill....
yours rules kill any creativity,is for that reason,that the bach,mozart,beethoven and others appear at some places,and not in others.
FRATER ALPHANUMERIC THAT LIVE AS A "SINGULARITY".trying as ghost create
shadows in the human brains,and as vampire absorbed knowledge,that low or nothing imagination places in its effect phrases,
to the nick,already is the sufficient
the ghosts and vampires are creations of our proper inconsciousness.
or our obscure clouds that kill....
yours rules kill any creativity,is for that reason,that the bach,mozart,beethoven and others appear at some places,and not in others.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Nov 29 2006, 11:17 PM)
yours rules kill any creativity
No, I attempt to correct the errors in people's perceptions of relativity. People such as Nick regularly make comments or statements about what they think relativity is saying about the behaviour of infalling objects or layout of space-time around a black hole. In cases like this it isn't imagination which is required, it's a decent understanding of the theory.
If someone comes up with a novel approach to something or truely comes up with a new idea, all power to them. If someone is trying to say "Relativity claims...." when it doesn't, I'll try to correct them.
Would you try to correct someone who kept saying 2+2=5? It's like that, just a bit more complicated material.
No, I attempt to correct the errors in people's perceptions of relativity. People such as Nick regularly make comments or statements about what they think relativity is saying about the behaviour of infalling objects or layout of space-time around a black hole. In cases like this it isn't imagination which is required, it's a decent understanding of the theory.
If someone comes up with a novel approach to something or truely comes up with a new idea, all power to them. If someone is trying to say "Relativity claims...." when it doesn't, I'll try to correct them.
Would you try to correct someone who kept saying 2+2=5? It's like that, just a bit more complicated material.
QUOTE (mott.carl+Nov 29 2006, 11:17 PM)
is for that reason,that the bach,mozart,beethoven and others appear at some places,and not in others.
You do realise we aren't talking music, we're talking maths and physics. In maths and physics Britain has produced plenty of Bachs and Beethovens. Newton, Dirac, Eddington, Stoke, Maxwell, Joule, Kelvin, Hardy, Clifford, Green (both of them), Thompson (both of them), Hawking, Penrose, the list goes on and on.
I'm not trying to kill the creativity of anyone. I'm attempting to correct their misunderstandings of established theories precisely so they can understand more and perhaps come up with something new once they have the fundamentals right.
I'm not trying to kill the creativity of anyone. I'm attempting to correct their misunderstandings of established theories precisely so they can understand more and perhaps come up with something new once they have the fundamentals right.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 30 2006, 12:28 AM)
...I seem to be doing a decent job of showing flaws in your understanding of quantum mechanics and relativity...
LOL, which flaws, for example? Lets make some fun
LOL, which flaws, for example? Lets make some fun
You think QED can't explain tranverse motion. You think that because a theory included SR by design it includes GR automatically. You think massless oscillating fields are impossible. You think a gravitationally bound photon to a Z boson would give the behaviour of the electron. You think the gluon has mass because a gluon condensate has mass. You think you can't graphically represent any Lie group. You think that chaotic nonlinear fluid dynamics can be modelled by the wave equation alone.
Anyone whose read your posts will be aware you've got some huge gaps in your knowledge.
Anyone whose read your posts will be aware you've got some huge gaps in your knowledge.
macbeth, hamlet of shakespeare or faustus of goethe?
AlphaNumeric. Can you give me details of the expedition that went to a black hole to check this maths out?
Too much of higher maths deals in things we cannot know nothing about and uses impossibilities to do so. It also "proves itself true" with more of the same.
Super-strings are dead. Some people got time to waste, that's upto them. Maths proves that they exist. Right?
I don't agree with you so I don't know science. I think the term is "strawman argument" to use an incredibly boring expression.
The person's sense of time slows down as he moves toward the central mass at almost light speed. Unless he is god, what perception is he going to have?
A smilie does not make up for a poor post.
Too much of higher maths deals in things we cannot know nothing about and uses impossibilities to do so. It also "proves itself true" with more of the same.
Super-strings are dead. Some people got time to waste, that's upto them. Maths proves that they exist. Right?
I don't agree with you so I don't know science. I think the term is "strawman argument" to use an incredibly boring expression.
The person's sense of time slows down as he moves toward the central mass at almost light speed. Unless he is god, what perception is he going to have?
A smilie does not make up for a poor post.
Zephir. According to legend, neutrinos can go through a light year of lead. It is unlikely that protons are made up of chargeless particles 1/2000th the mass of an electron.
Nick. Stephen Hawking has admitted to being wrong a number of times.
You claim black holes do not exist because they are timeless. Time does not exist. Relativistic speeds can slow down change but not time. If it slowed down time, then it would slow the object down making high speed travel impossible.
You claim black holes do not exist because they are timeless. Time does not exist. Relativistic speeds can slow down change but not time. If it slowed down time, then it would slow the object down making high speed travel impossible.
kjw. The original idea was a singularity which was "not a black hole". It was a "magic" singularity because where as normal ones are almost totally inert in that sense, this magic one didn't just inflate/expand, but initially did it trillions of times faster than light.
The big bang is only as alive as the last fudge used to prop it up.
The big bang is only as alive as the last fudge used to prop it up.
Zephir. Every science message board has it's own "AlphaNumeric". Someone who no matter what you say will just keep quoting text books at you, totally without imagination. The trouble is, most people already know their answers, having read said text books and have come up with something else for various reasons, so they are basically a waste of time.
AlphaNumeric.
Superstrings = discredited.
Supersymmetry = pending.
Superstrings = discredited.
Supersymmetry = pending.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 30 2006, 08:08 PM)
..According to legend, neutrinos can go through a light year of lead. It is unlikely that protons are made up of chargeless particles 1/2000th the mass of an electron....
I don't think, the protons are made up from free neutrinos, BTW this is the Sylwester Kornowski hypothesis.
I don't think, the protons are made up from free neutrinos, BTW this is the Sylwester Kornowski hypothesis.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 30 2006, 06:04 PM)
AlphaNumeric. Can you give me details of the expedition that went to a black hole to check this maths out?
As I think I've already said to you, the various components of relativity and quantum mechanics which go into Hawking radiation have been checked experimentally. However it is not yet known if Hawking radiation does exist.
I have said it certainly does, just I (and a lot of other physicists) think it does.
As I think I've already said to you, the various components of relativity and quantum mechanics which go into Hawking radiation have been checked experimentally. However it is not yet known if Hawking radiation does exist.
I have said it certainly does, just I (and a lot of other physicists) think it does.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 30 2006, 06:04 PM)
Super-strings are dead. Some people got time to waste, that's upto them. Maths proves that they exist. Right?
Maths doesn't prove anything exists, but the elegance of string theory is hard to deny (when you actually do it).
You don't like string theory, right we get it. They aren't 'dead' by any means.
You don't like string theory, right we get it. They aren't 'dead' by any means.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 30 2006, 06:04 PM)
Superstrings = discredited.
Nope. Some people certainly don't like the theory but it's not discredited.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 30 2006, 06:04 PM)
Supersymmetry = pending.
A great deal of people have high hopes that it's pending to be proven by the LHC.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 30 2006, 06:04 PM)
I don't agree with you so I don't know science.
No, you just don't seem to understand things properly.
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 30 2006, 06:04 PM)
Every science message board has it's own "AlphaNumeric". Someone who no matter what you say will just keep quoting text books at you, totally without imagination.
Ah that's original of you too. Someone actually understands something and doens't just say "It's crap isn't it!" without having done the theory and so they must have no imagination
For someone calling me unoriginal, that's a pretty unoriginal insult too!
For someone calling me unoriginal, that's a pretty unoriginal insult too!
QUOTE (kaneda+Nov 30 2006, 06:04 PM)
The trouble is, most people already know their answers, having read said text books and have come up with something else for various reasons, so they are basically a waste of time.
How much string theory and SUSY have you actually done then?
[QUOTE]kaneda Posted: Today at 3:17 AM The big bang is only as alive as the last fudge used to prop it up.
QUOTE]
what fudges are you referring to ?
QUOTE]
what fudges are you referring to ?
AlphaNumeric. We've checked it out but we don't know if it exists. Sure!
Maths proves maths. Elegant maths proves elegant maths.
Scientists said it was a dead end. Sounds discredited to me.
Like the Higg's Boson. I'm waiting for a particle that turns out to weigh 2 kg.
Telling someone they are wrong because they do not see your point of view is a poor argument.
These people's ideas of answers is to quote from text books, and if it is not in their text books, it is obviously wrong. Boring.
Thankfully I have wasted very little time on these scientific dead ends. I note you are still wasting your time. It takes all kinds.
Maths proves maths. Elegant maths proves elegant maths.
Scientists said it was a dead end. Sounds discredited to me.
Like the Higg's Boson. I'm waiting for a particle that turns out to weigh 2 kg.
Telling someone they are wrong because they do not see your point of view is a poor argument.
These people's ideas of answers is to quote from text books, and if it is not in their text books, it is obviously wrong. Boring.
Thankfully I have wasted very little time on these scientific dead ends. I note you are still wasting your time. It takes all kinds.
kjw. Some fudges:
The original black hole became a singularity. But singularities don't inflate/expand. Branes from another universe were brought in, then from many universes to support conservation. Space inflates (not expands?) at 10^20 times the speed of light from a point source to about cricket ball size, magically. Then equally magically slows below light speed. Vacuum energy. Dark energy. Fudge energy. It expands. How does energy cause space to expand? Then we have ultimately compacted matter and energy expanding. Seperate matter forms from a superdense condensate. This should have been all the heaviest elements with little light elements, not the other way around. Then just to be awkward the universe decided to accelerate faster several billion years ago. Allegedly.
The CMB came from the mutual annihilation of 2,000,000,000 universes worth of anti-matter and matter material (from where?). Sure it did, and the presents under the xmas tree came from Santa Claus.
All type 1A supernovae are the same, except for the ones which aren't, like one twice as bright. There is 4x, 9x, even upto 400x as much dark matter as there is light matter according to which nonsense idea you believe. And it is all in the halo, yet the light matter ignores upto 400x as much gravity from the DM and stays in the galaxy.
The original black hole became a singularity. But singularities don't inflate/expand. Branes from another universe were brought in, then from many universes to support conservation. Space inflates (not expands?) at 10^20 times the speed of light from a point source to about cricket ball size, magically. Then equally magically slows below light speed. Vacuum energy. Dark energy. Fudge energy. It expands. How does energy cause space to expand? Then we have ultimately compacted matter and energy expanding. Seperate matter forms from a superdense condensate. This should have been all the heaviest elements with little light elements, not the other way around. Then just to be awkward the universe decided to accelerate faster several billion years ago. Allegedly.
The CMB came from the mutual annihilation of 2,000,000,000 universes worth of anti-matter and matter material (from where?). Sure it did, and the presents under the xmas tree came from Santa Claus.
All type 1A supernovae are the same, except for the ones which aren't, like one twice as bright. There is 4x, 9x, even upto 400x as much dark matter as there is light matter according to which nonsense idea you believe. And it is all in the halo, yet the light matter ignores upto 400x as much gravity from the DM and stays in the galaxy.
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 1 2006, 03:23 PM)
Scientists said it was a dead end. Sounds discredited to me.
Some scientists dont' like the idea of strings, but considering large parts of many theoretical physics departments around the globe are working on them, wouldn't that point to the fact it's still very much a viable theory in most peoples eyes?
Some scientists dont' like the idea of strings, but considering large parts of many theoretical physics departments around the globe are working on them, wouldn't that point to the fact it's still very much a viable theory in most peoples eyes?
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 1 2006, 03:23 PM)
Like the Higg's Boson.
AHAHAHAHAHA You think the Higgs has been discredited?! Pretty much everyone working in high energy physics expects it to be found by the LHC.
A tiny minority saying "We think you're wrong" doesn't mean a theory is discredited!
A tiny minority saying "We think you're wrong" doesn't mean a theory is discredited!
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 1 2006, 03:23 PM)
Telling someone they are wrong because they do not see your point of view is a poor argument.
And telling me strings have been discredited when I know for a fact thousands of people in some of the top physics/maths departments in the world are working on them (and branes) as viable models for quantum gravity is a pretty poor argument too. If your arguements were good you'd have looked into whose researching what and 10 seconds with Google will tell you strings are still in the game by a LONG way.
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 1 2006, 03:23 PM)
These people's ideas of answers is to quote from text books, and if it is not in their text books, it is obviously wrong. Boring.
Another crap arguement. Just because I happen to know what is in my textbooks because I LEARNT THEM, unlike 99% of the posters on this forum, suddenly my views are invalid Yeah, the one whose actually informed on a subject is somehow the least able to comment on it. Good one
Magically it's possible to be creative and free thinking AND be well informed. Obviously you've not experienced that yourself.
Yeah, the one whose actually informed on a subject is somehow the least able to comment on it. Good one Magically it's possible to be creative and free thinking AND be well informed. Obviously you've not experienced that yourself.
QUOTE (kaneda+Dec 1 2006, 03:23 PM)
note you are still wasting your time. It takes all kinds.
I happen to be intouch with the physics community enough to know some things aren't 'discredited' just because a few fringe people said so.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.