Pages: 1, 2

HawkingBrain
According to Stephen Hawking himself, an inspiration came to him before going to bed one evening in 1970 (getting into bed is a rather slow process with his disability). He suddenly realized that since nothing can escape from a black hole, the area of the event horizon might stay the same or increase with time but it could never decrease. In fact, the area would increase whenever matter or radiation fell into the black hole. This non-decreasing behavior of a black hole's area was very reminiscent to that of entropy, which measures the degree of disorder in a system. One can create order out of disorder, but that requires expenditure of effort or energy such that there is an overall increase in disorder. In simple mathematical terms these statements can be expressed in differential forms as:
m dm = k dA ---------- (16a) for the black hole (since A rs2 m2 from the Schwarzschild's solution),

where m is the mass of the black hole, A is the area of the event horizon, and k is a proportional constant;

dE = T dS ---------- (16b) for the entropy,

where E is the energy, T is the temperature, and S is the entropy.

Since mass and energy are equivalent, we can equate Eqs.(16a) and (16b) to obtain:

dS = K dA / ( m T ) ---------- (16c)

where K is a new proportional constant. This equation implies that the area of the event horizon A is a measure of the entropy S of the black hole. Furthermore, the black hole is associated with a temperature T, and should emits radiation as any hot body. Thus, the black hole is not completely closed to the universe outside. It turns out that vacuum fluctuations at the edge of the event horizon may allow one member of the virtual particle / anti-particle pair to fall inside with negative energy; while the other escapes as a real particle with a positive energy according to the law of energy conservation. This is known as Hawking radiation (see Figure 09u); it is the first successful attempt to combine general relativity and quantum theory. The flow of negative energy (or mass) into the black hole would reduce its mass. As the black hole loses mass, the area of its event horizon gets smaller, but this decrease in the entropy of the black hole is more than compensated for by the entropy of the emitted radiation, so that the second law of thermodynamics is never violated. If we demand that in Eq.(16c) dS dA as stated originally (actually, it can be shown that S = (kBc3/4G) x A), then T 1 / m, and the rate of radiation L can be expressed as L rs2T4 1 / m2. Therefore, as the black hole loses mass, its temperature and rate of emission increase, then it lose mass even more quickly (Figure 09v). What happens when the mass of the black hole eventually becomes extremely small is not quite clear, but the most reasonable guess is that it would disappear completely in a tremendous final burst of emission.

It can be shown that the temperature T associated with the thermal radiation for a black hole is:

T = 0.6 x 10-7 msun / m (in degrees Kelvin)

where msun is the mass of the Sun. If the Sun is reduced to a black hole, its temperature would be just about 10-7 oK. On the other hand, there might be primordial black holes with a very much smaller mass that were made by the collapse of irregularities in the very early stages of the universe. Those with masses greater 1015 gm could have survived to the present day. They would have the size of a proton (~ 10-13cm) and a temperature of 1011 oK. At this temperature they would emit photons, neutrinos, and gravitons in profusion; they would radiate thermally at an ever increasing rate, and sending out X rays and gamma rays to be discovered. The lifetime of a black hole is roughly equal to = m / L = 10-35 m3 year, where m is in gm. This makes an ordinary mass black hole (m ~ 2x1033 gm for the Sun) live for a long time and its radiation unobservable.
This phenomenon of Hawking radiation also occurs in the event horizon created by an accelerating observer. Figure 09w shows that light ray emitted at certain distance can never catch up with the observer and thus an event horizon exists beyond which the observer cannot communicate. Theoretical arguement suggests that even in empty space, the observer will be able to detect radiation from the event horizon. A simple formula is derived to express the relationship between the acceleration a and the temperature T: T = a (/2kBc). It is suggested that members of the correlated virtual photon pairs are separated by the event horizon. As a result part of the information is missing, the observer detects random motion associated with the temperature. In this case the energy is extracted from the acceleration, which according to general relativity, is equivalent to gravitation.
Black hole and information:

According to general relativity anything that crosses the event horizon is trapped inside forever lost to the outside world.
In spite of his own discovery of Hawking radiation, which can return matter-energy back to the outside world, Hawking himself insists that information would be destroyed by the black hole.
Since entropy is related to information, the loss of information would violate the second law of thermodynamics, which holds that entropy would neither decrease nor disappear. Thus, the critics argue that nature may scramble information but never destroys it.
To resolve the dispute, 't Hooft and Susskind proposed the "Principle of Black Hole Complementarity" in which both sides are correct. For the outside observer, matter (the elephant in Figure 09x) would be reduced to thermal radiation at the event horizon (as it takes an infinite time for the elephant to cross such boundary according to observer a) and returns as scrambled information. For an observer crosses the event horizon into the black hole, nothing untoward happens until the tidal force takes over ... information is forever lost.
Such duality is further likened to a hologram located on some surface. There are two possible ways to interpret the hologram: one view corresponds to that for the outside observer a in Figure 09x; while the other represents the perception from observer b falling into the black hole. Meanwhile, other research in superstring theory finds the black hole to be a "fuzzball" (Figure 09y). The modified black hole does not possess a sharp event horizon; information can be stored in the strings and imprinted on outgoing Hawking radiation. Models of black holes from superstring theory also cast doubt on the idea of the singularity (at the center of the black hole). Yet another scheme suggests that information might leak out by means of quantum teleportation between the entangled pair of virtual particles (one of which has escaped while the other is trapped inside the black hole). However in the theory of loop quantum gravity, it has been shown that the information trapped in a black hole will be unable to escape via Hawking radiation. But it will survive, eventually rejoining the rest of the universe when the black hole evaporates.
ubavontuba
What happens to the kinetic energy of the infalling particles?
HawkingBrain
I'm not sure.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 8 2007, 07:00 PM)
What happens to the kinetic energy of the infalling particles?

Can't you work it out?

They are reabsorbed into the black hole. The infalling particles and the black hole form a closed system, they cannot spontaneously generate residual motion over a long period of time. The gravitational forces of the black hole pull the particles out of the vacuum. The particles are accelerated down into the black hole, but remember that the black hole is also accelerated upwards towards the particles. They collide, momentum conservation occurs and the system stops moving. No change in energy, no change in momentum.

It's like two people in a boat throwing a ball back and fore. The boat might 'jiggle' from the slight impulses but overall it's position and motion won't change (ignoring water resistence).

The only residual change in the black hole's motion can come from emitted particles and since emission is done in a spherically symmetric way (as demonstrated by the Zeroth Law of Black Hole Mechanics), Hawking radiation doesn't produce any motion for the black hole.

What's the matter Ub, can't you use your 'grasp' of relevent GR and QM results to work this out for yourself
ubavontuba
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 9 2007, 12:02 PM)
Can't you work it out?

They are reabsorbed into the black hole. The infalling particles and the black hole form a closed system, they cannot spontaneously generate residual motion over a long period of time. The gravitational forces of the black hole pull the particles out of the vacuum. The particles are accelerated down into the black hole, but remember that the black hole is also accelerated upwards towards the particles. They collide, momentum conservation occurs and the system stops moving. No change in energy, no change in momentum.

It's like two people in a boat throwing a ball back and fore. The boat might 'jiggle' from the slight impulses but overall it's position and motion won't change (ignoring water resistence).

The only residual change in the black hole's motion can come from emitted particles and since emission is done in a spherically symmetric way (as demonstrated by the Zeroth Law of Black Hole Mechanics), Hawking radiation doesn't produce any motion for the black hole.

What's the matter Ub, can't you use your 'grasp' of relevent GR and QM results to work this out for yourself

Do you even know what kinetic energy is? "Residual motion" has nothing to do with it.

Why don't you let someone else answer... someone that knows what they're talking about.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 09:04 PM)
Do you even know what kinetic energy is?  "Residual motion" has nothing to do with it.

The kinetic energy is absorbed back into the total mass-energy of the black hole. The momentum, which the kinetic energy of the particle was related to, is also gone, cancelled by the momentum of the black hole.

Is that simple enough for you or do you need a picture drawn for you in colourful jumbo felt pen and the explaination reworded so no word has more than 2 syllables in it?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 09:04 PM)
Why don't you let someone else answer... someone that knows what they're talking about.
Yes, my reference of a black hole theorem as well as showing how it all knits together with mass and energy conservation and quantum theory doesn't demonstrate that at all.

As usual, you don't actually retort anything I say, you just say "That's nothing to do with what I said" and hope noone realises you're just resorting to ignoring things because it went over your head.

Besides, why can't you work it out? How all your supposed knowledge abandoned you? Or was it never there in the first place...
ubavontuba
QUOTE (HawkingBrain+Dec 9 2007, 11:42 AM)
I'm not sure.

Wouldn't this energy have to be combined with the black hole? Couldn't it conceivably cancel out the energy loss to Hawking radiation?
HawkingBrain
Yes, it might.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (HawkingBrain+Dec 10 2007, 09:06 PM)
Yes, it might.

HawkingBrain,

Is that all you have to say about it? Can you elaborate?
ubavontuba
So HawkingBrain,

All show and no substance? Why am I not surprised?
ubavontuba
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 9 2007, 09:06 PM)
The kinetic energy is absorbed back into the total mass-energy of the black hole.

Isn't this kinetic energy adding mass/energy to the black hole?

QUOTE
The momentum, which the kinetic energy of the particle was related to, is also gone, cancelled by the momentum of the black hole.

Yeah, so? What's that got to do with my question?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The momentum, which the kinetic energy of the particle was related to, is also gone, cancelled by the momentum of the black hole.

Yeah, so? What's that got to do with my question?

Is that simple enough for you or do you need a picture drawn for you in colourful jumbo felt pen and the explaination reworded so no word has more than 2 syllables in it?

Reword it for me.

QUOTE
Yes, my reference of a black hole theorem as well as showing how it all knits together with mass and energy conservation and quantum theory doesn't demonstrate that at all.

A black hole theorem that doesn't mention the kinetic energy you just admitted gets added to the black hole!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Yes, my reference of a black hole theorem as well as showing how it all knits together with mass and energy conservation and quantum theory doesn't demonstrate that at all.

A black hole theorem that doesn't mention the kinetic energy you just admitted gets added to the black hole!

As usual, you don't actually retort anything I say, you just say "That's nothing to do with what I said" and hope noone realises you're just resorting to ignoring things because it went over your head.

You're just saying that to cover for your inability to maintain continuity in a discussion. You've probably been recently reprogrammed to use this device in addition to the stupid smilies you use to cover your apparent confusion.

QUOTE
Besides, why can't you work it out? How all your supposed knowledge abandoned you? Or was it never there in the first place...

I know I put it around here someplace!
einstienear
N(Y)7=ty5^Y
Ron
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:04 PM)
Do you even know what kinetic energy is? "Residual motion" has nothing to do with it.

Why don't you let someone else answer... someone that knows what they're talking about.

OMFG,
Are you trying to receive the wrath of the most knowledgeable man on this site? I'm impressed with your cool response, AlphaNumeric, although I would have loved to laugh at what you probably held back from saying.
Kinetic Energy must be something so difficult to understand that they wait until your PhD thesis prep to explain it to you!
Peace,
Ron
Sapo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 14 2007, 01:43 AM)
So HawkingBrain,

All show and no substance? Why am I not surprised?

This, from you?
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (Sapo+Dec 14 2007, 10:51 AM)
This, from you

I would guess he thinks if he takes up bashing the other cranks, we'll forget that he's spent so much time among their ranks. Slick lil *******, ain't he?
freethis
SO IF MASS = ENERGY, AND AS MASS IN CONVERTED TO RADIATION, AND ANTI MATTER WHY DOES ANTI MATTER HOLD MORE ENERGY THAN MATTER ITSELF? a violation of the 2nd law .
Sapo
QUOTE (freethis+Dec 14 2007, 01:39 PM)
SO IF MASS = ENERGY, AND AS MASS IN CONVERTED TO RADIATION, AND ANTI MATTER WHY DOES ANTI MATTER HOLD MORE ENERGY THAN MATTER ITSELF? a violation of the 2nd law .

BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (freethis+Dec 14 2007, 01:39 PM)
SO IF MASS = ENERGY, AND AS MASS IN CONVERTED TO RADIATION, AND ANTI MATTER WHY DOES ANTI MATTER HOLD MORE ENERGY THAN MATTER ITSELF? a violation of the 2nd law .

Somebody needs to point Dallas to this. He could get 3 or 4 new entries for his list...
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Sapo+Dec 14 2007, 03:51 PM)
This, from you?

Yes. As you personally know, I am often miffed by the general inability of the forum members to sustain a relevant conversation.

Have you anything relevant to add to the discussion? Or would you turn it into another personality debate, as usual?
ubavontuba
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 14 2007, 04:06 PM)
I would guess he thinks if he takes up bashing the other cranks, we'll forget that he's spent so much time among their ranks. Slick lil *******, ain't he?

The cranks that deserve the most bashing are the ones that can't maintain a relevant discussion and turn every interesting thread in this forum into a personality debate... cranks like you!

Is this all you have? Have you anything relevant to add to the discussion?
ubavontuba
QUOTE (freethis+Dec 14 2007, 06:39 PM)
SO IF MASS = ENERGY, AND AS MASS IN CONVERTED TO RADIATION, AND ANTI MATTER WHY DOES ANTI MATTER HOLD MORE ENERGY THAN MATTER ITSELF? a violation of the 2nd law .

Looks like Sapo and BigDumbWeirdo didn't know the answer.

Antimatter doesn't have any more energy than ordinary matter. Antimatter/matter annihlation is just the most efficient way to release the bound energy in mass.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 15 2007, 08:31 AM)
Looks like Sapo and BigDumbWeirdo didn't know the answer.

I'm pretty sure BigDumbWeirdo did know the answer. The question is so painfully chock full of misconceptions and ignorance a proper answer would only fall on deaf ears. Kind of like when we reply to your questions.

freethis is always coming out with such nonsense.
Sapo
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 15 2007, 06:47 AM)
I'm pretty sure BigDumbWeirdo did know the answer. The question is so painfully chock full of misconceptions and ignorance a proper answer would only fall on deaf ears. Kind of like when we reply to your questions.

freethis is always coming out with such nonsense.

I'm pretty sure I know the answer, too. Derision is the sort of reply to give someone who makes these ridiculous statements.
Sunova
This question is related to the basic nature of blackholes, where do all the mass have gone?It will be easier to picture an original blackhole before it begin to suck in any more matter as it has just formed from collapse of a stellar core. I will tell everythinabout the blackholes exceits math.

The mass of original blackholes may be in a constant process of compression into singularities. As they shrink, the question of energy conservation comes: what happens to the mass? all just disapeared? Let me first of all explain the state of conversion in the non-active condition of blackholes. The mass of the original blackhole is in a state of constant shrinking into a singularity(On an extremely massive body, a tiny movement require as much energy as near light speed movement in usual space, therefore we can take all of these mass as in ever accelerating to near or lightspeed motions),here the energy comes only from subjective gravity therefore it is safe to project that the CONVERTED energy does not appear outside event horizon but right in the singularity. On the otherhand in the surounding space or outside event horizon,a negative energy or condensed spacetime is created as a result of contracted mass into singularity. How long will it takes? All todays equations do not deal with my theory. In the center of a blackhole is concentration of infinte converted energy whose direct effect is hyper time acceleration,as the mass sink to its singularity, the super-contracted time in the singularity creats enormous energy by forcing the matter go through billions and billions and billions of years probably only in our relatively one second. Simultaneously, the matter in process of contracting is going through a long time dilation phase(also relative) before reaching the singularity where the incredibly enormous energy is being constantly multiplied, and stored. Once all the matter has reached this singularity, all energy accumulated will burst into the space the blackhole has created from its singularity.

Lets see what the blackholes are doing when they suck: The matter attracted by blackholes have to decay prematurely through a time contraction sphere (the true cause of redshift of the accretion disks), it is impossible for a small amount of mass to actually fall into the event horizon, the true fall into event horizon will only happen when the matter accelerated around the blackhole is heavier than the original blackhole. If you fall into accretion disk,you have to spin there till there come more buddies to go togather or be shot back into universe from it polarities if you can not catch up with your buddies.

New universes are born from blackholes, the time which have been experienced by matter in the singulairty will be represented in a constant universal expansion, or new universes have already began. We are in a blackholes singularity! This is the force of creation. My story finished, the math is left to mathematicians, I am a reader of stories,all kinds of stories,therefore I do not do math though I understand it. But I am deadly sure we will never observe a blasting blackhole, not matter the mass, the collapse time is all the same, the lifetime of universe never change. All blackholes are the buds of new universe to bloom when our universe end! Universes do not end!
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Sapo+Dec 15 2007, 01:35 PM)
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+ Dec 15 2007, 06:47 AM)

I'm pretty sure BigDumbWeirdo did know the answer. The question is so painfully chock full of misconceptions and ignorance a proper answer would only fall on deaf ears. Kind of like when we reply to your questions.

freethis is always coming out with such nonsense.

I'm pretty sure I know the answer, too. Derision is the sort of reply to give someone who makes these ridiculous statements.

So you two think the smart thing to do is to keep an ignorant person ignorant? How dumb is that? Why bother to respond at all? It looks to me like you two need to get a life outside the internet.

How much would you know if every question you ever asked were so callously answered?

AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 15 2007, 06:30 PM)
How dumb is that?

You tell me, you keep yourself pretty ignorant

I have 'discussed' things with freethis many times, specifically about scalars, vector fields, photons, gravity. He doesn't want to learn. He's keeping himself ignorant, just like you do. You and he both claim to be open to new things but you aren't really. You don't want to learn. You don't seem to be capable of it.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 15 2007, 06:30 PM)
How much would you know if every question you ever asked were so callously answered?
There's more ways to learn than just asking questions on the internet. There's books, videos, lectures and lecture notes. That's how I learnt the majority of the stuff I know. Some of us are a little more hard working when it comes to physics than you.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 15 2007, 06:30 PM)
It looks to me like you two need to get a life outside the internet.

I have thanks. I've just finished my Autumn term in my second year of a PhD. Friday I'm seeing my gf, whose been travelling for a few months, for the first time in a while, I'm planning on catching up with a bunch of people from 6th form when I'm back home for Christmas, then I'm spending 2 weeks in Mexico after new years and then my supervisor, myself and 2 collaberators will be putting a paper together to be published on the topic of vacuum stablisation.

I've got plenty going on thanks. I don't have to come onto the internet and pretend to understand things I don't, unlike you. When I claim I understand something, I can put my physics where my mouth is. How sad your life must be that you cannot.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 15 2007, 05:45 PM)
You tell me, you keep yourself pretty ignorant

Obviously not as ignorant as you! You argued that gravity is a classical force in General Relativity!

QUOTE
I have 'discussed' things with freethis many times, specifically about scalars, vector fields, photons, gravity. He doesn't want to learn. He's keeping himself ignorant, just like you do.

Maybe in trying to puff up your own importance, you're arguing over his head?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I have 'discussed' things with freethis many times, specifically about scalars, vector fields, photons, gravity. He doesn't want to learn. He's keeping himself ignorant, just like you do.

Maybe in trying to puff up your own importance, you're arguing over his head?

You and he both claim to be open to new things but you aren't really. You don't want to learn. You don't seem to be capable of it.

Again, I've specifically pointed out numerous errors in your contentions. Where, specifically, have I erred? How so? Be specific.

QUOTE
There's more ways to learn than just asking questions on the internet. There's books, videos, lectures and lecture notes. That's how I learnt the majority of the stuff I know. Some of us are a little more hard working when it comes to physics than you.

Maybe so, but you definitely haven't 'learnt' good English language skills.

Maybe a higher education is unavailable to him. Maybe he's lazy. In either case, a valid question should either receive a valid response, or none at all.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE There's more ways to learn than just asking questions on the internet. There's books, videos, lectures and lecture notes. That's how I learnt the majority of the stuff I know. Some of us are a little more hard working when it comes to physics than you.

Maybe so, but you definitely haven't 'learnt' good English language skills.

Maybe a higher education is unavailable to him. Maybe he's lazy. In either case, a valid question should either receive a valid response, or none at all.

I have thanks. I've just finished my Autumn term in my second year of a PhD...  ...and then my supervisor, myself and 2 collaberators will be putting a paper together to be published on the topic of vacuum stablisation.

Then why are you so often wrong? Why can't you back your claims with decent references? Why can't you analyze provided references?

QUOTE
...Friday I'm seeing my gf, whose been travelling for a few months, for the first time in a while, I'm planning on catching up with a bunch of people from 6th form when I'm back home for Christmas, then I'm spending 2 weeks in Mexico after new years...

I've got plenty going on thanks. I don't have to come onto the internet and pretend to understand things I don't, unlike you.

That's a nice back story, for a chatbot.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE ...Friday I'm seeing my gf, whose been travelling for a few months, for the first time in a while, I'm planning on catching up with a bunch of people from 6th form when I'm back home for Christmas, then I'm spending 2 weeks in Mexico after new years...I've got plenty going on thanks. I don't have to come onto the internet and pretend to understand things I don't, unlike you.

That's a nice back story, for a chatbot.

When I claim I understand something, I can put my physics where my mouth is. How sad your life must be that you cannot.

Then why couldn't you back your contention that Gravity is a force in GR?
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 15 2007, 12:45 PM)
I have thanks. I've just finished my Autumn term in my second year of a PhD. Friday I'm seeing my gf, whose been travelling for a few months, for the first time in a while, I'm planning on catching up with a bunch of people from 6th form when I'm back home for Christmas, then I'm spending 2 weeks in Mexico after new years and then my supervisor, myself and 2 collaberators will be putting a paper together to be published on the topic of vacuum stablisation.

First, let me just say I appreciate the defense, AN It's always nice for an amateur to be given credit by a professional.
Second, I wish you the best of times in seeing your GF (I know what that's like, thanks to a stint in the army,) your Christmas break and your trip to Mexico. I myself might be making a trip there quite soon for business reasons, maybe we'll run into each other.

QUOTE
Maybe in trying to puff up your own importance, you're arguing over his head?

Importance is relative. No-one will ever be as important to your spouse as you. In the field of physics, however, AN's importance is to your own (and to the importance of every crank on this site, and even to the importance of such amateurs as myself) what a mountain is to a molehill. Besides, if freethis truly understood the subjects on which he posts so often, he would have been able to hold his own in such a discussion.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Maybe in trying to puff up your own importance, you're arguing over his head?

Importance is relative. No-one will ever be as important to your spouse as you. In the field of physics, however, AN's importance is to your own (and to the importance of every crank on this site, and even to the importance of such amateurs as myself) what a mountain is to a molehill. Besides, if freethis truly understood the subjects on which he posts so often, he would have been able to hold his own in such a discussion.

Again, I've specifically pointed out numerous errors in your contentions. Where, specifically, have I erred? How so? Be specific.

Doubtless every single one of them made Dallas' lists....

QUOTE
Maybe so, but you definitely haven't 'learnt' good English language skills.

from Dictionary.com:
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Maybe so, but you definitely haven't 'learnt' good English language skills.

from Dictionary.com:
learnt      /lɜrnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[lurnt] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb a pt. and pp. of learn.

Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

Yes. Keep making fun of AN's ability to spell... It makes you look smart... The way a pair of glasses with a fake nose and Groucho Marx mustache makes a monkey look smart.
For the record, English and American English have many words that are spelled differently. Learnt is valid in English, but not in American English. Several other words that AN uses are the same, and if you were to use a high end spell checker, instead of the dirt-simple one provided by this forum, you'd have figured that out by now.

QUOTE
Then why couldn't you back your contention that Gravity is a force in GR?

Let me get this straight. You think GR doesn't deal with gravity? Or that it doesn't consider it a force?
ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO I don't know if I'll ever stop laughing at that....

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Then why couldn't you back your contention that Gravity is a force in GR?

Let me get this straight. You think GR doesn't deal with gravity? Or that it doesn't consider it a force?
ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO I don't know if I'll ever stop laughing at that....

Looks like Sapo and BigDumbWeirdo didn't know the answer.

I never previously claimed I did. (I do, by the way, and I didn't provide it for the exact reasons AN listed. GMTA, hehe )
Why is it that you would consider it a valid question? It's like asking "why is the sky red?" "Why is grass purple?" "Do humans have a sole?" "What is the reaming of life?" or the world famous "Why is dere so minny dum pepol in da wirld?"
It's not going to get an answer, and even if it did, it would never be accepted.
(BTW, proper answers to those questions are: "It isn't" "It isn't" "Sometimes" "religion" and "Cause you won't stop having sex.")

By the way, Ubavontuba (Which, IMHO somehow manages to be a dumber handle than even mine... Reminds me of a fat guy in leiderhosen dancing to polka music) as you can see, your attempt at subterfuge hasn't worked. Condemning HawkingBrain might make you temporarily correct, but it doesn't make you smart. (or knowledgeable, or intelligent, or a scientist, or particularly witty even)
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 15 2007, 07:10 PM)
Obviously not as ignorant as you!  You argued that gravity is a classical force in General Relativity!

It is classical. At most it's 'semi-classical' when you do the work Hawking does, because part of your theory is quantised.

Thanks for providing an excellent example to prove my point.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 15 2007, 07:10 PM)
Maybe in trying to puff up your own importance, you're arguing over his head?
He started the thread in question and mentioned all those things. I tried to correct him. He didn't want to know. If I'm arguing over his head, it's because he mentions thing which he doesn't understand but thinks he does.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 15 2007, 07:10 PM)
Again, I've specifically pointed out numerous errors in your contentions. Where, specifically, have I erred? How so? Be specific.
Still with the "We've had a multipage discussion with people giving multiple reasons why I'm incorrect, but I deny anyone has said that!" attitude. You and Zephir obviously learnt how to 'debate' from the same source.

Your inability to want to remember doesn't mean it didn't happen. Trippy, Rpenner, myself and numerous others have corrected you on plenty of things, often quantatively.

But if you want an example, try the first thing you said in your post
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 15 2007, 07:10 PM)
Then why are you so often wrong? Why can't you back your claims with decent references? Why can't you analyze provided references?
You always ignore any references provided. You don't actually retort them, you just say "Oh that's wrong". I provided a link to a world leading physicist explaining the multiple evidences for the speed of gravity being the speed of light and you just denied it all. No evidence of your own, you just said "No, not true. Doesn't count". How scientific. Every quantative analysis to counter your claim, you ignore. Probably because you don't understand it.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 15 2007, 07:10 PM)
That's a nice back story, for a chatbot.
See, in the absense of any actual physics to say you fall back on pointless insults. And yet you often claim I'm the one saying something irrelevent (usually when I provide a bit of evidence to demonstrate you're incorrect on something and you don't want to address it).

Even if I were a chatbot, the points I raise against you and evidence I provide are equally valid. The fact I have a life too just sticks in your side even more. The fact I don't have to validate myself by lying on the internet. People like Rpenner, Trippy and a few others know who I am in real life, Rpenner and I exchange emails every now and again (real emails, not PMs through the forum). Euler and I know one another in real life, I introduced him to this place. No doubt people would level "Get a life" at him too. He's a 2nd year PhD whose just bought his own house with his long term girlfriend (whose a great girl and has a great job, being a qualified lawyer) who just accepted his proposal of marriage. We're all moving on with our lives, our knowledge of physics and mathematics isn't because we 'waste our lives', it's the central tenant of our jobs!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 15 2007, 07:10 PM)
Then why couldn't you back your contention that Gravity is a force in GR?
It is. Do you know the geodesic equation?
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 15 2007, 07:10 PM)
Second, I wish you the best of times in seeing your GF (I know what that's like, thanks to a stint in the army,) your Christmas break and your trip to Mexico.
Thanks I've been to Mexico before but only for a night out in the town just across the border from the Texan town of Del Rio, during a 6 week round-country trip to the US in the summer of 2006. This time it's to the Yukatan. No doubt if Kaneda is back (someone said his ban has been lifted?) he'll accuse me of lying about my where-abouts for 2 weeks, as he did about my 5 week trip to Canada/Alaska this summer, as if I concocted an elaborate lie for no reason at all. As Ub's comments about being a chatbot demonstrate, some people are so desperate to disagree with me they move past "Rational skepticism" to just plan paranoid.
Darren
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 15 2007, 10:27 PM)
He's a 2nd year PhD whose just bought his own house with his long term girlfriend (whose a great girl and has a great job, being a qualified lawyer) who just accepted his proposal of marriage. We're all moving on with our lives, our knowledge of physics and mathematics isn't because we 'waste our lives', it's the central tenant of our jobs!

Wow!, that sounds just about perfect, what more could anybody want?

Sigh!, I wish my life had turned out like that. I'm actually too scared to go to the local shops even.

Cheers
Darren
Sapo
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 15 2007, 02:19 PM)
"What is the reaming of life?"

My God, what have you done said?

Just don't bring no damn spurs.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 15 2007, 07:19 PM)
Importance is relative.

Self importance (a.k.a. puffery) is wholly unattractive.

QUOTE
No-one will ever be as important to your spouse as you. In the field of physics, however, AN's importance is to your own (and to the importance of every crank on this site, and even to the importance of such amateurs as myself) what a mountain is to a molehill. Besides, if freethis truly understood the subjects on which he posts so often, he would have been able to hold his own in such a discussion.

Don't hero worship this weasel. He knows a lot less than he pretends.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE No-one will ever be as important to your spouse as you. In the field of physics, however, AN's importance is to your own (and to the importance of every crank on this site, and even to the importance of such amateurs as myself) what a mountain is to a molehill. Besides, if freethis truly understood the subjects on which he posts so often, he would have been able to hold his own in such a discussion.

Don't hero worship this weasel. He knows a lot less than he pretends.

Doubtless every single one of them made Dallas' lists....

Which matters because...?

QUOTE
from Dictionary.com:

Yes. Keep making fun of AN's ability to spell... It makes you look smart... The way a pair of glasses with a fake nose and Groucho Marx mustache makes a monkey look smart.
For the record, English and American English have many words that are spelled differently. Learnt is valid in English, but not in American English. Several other words that AN uses are the same, and if you were to use a high end spell checker, instead of the dirt-simple one provided by this forum, you'd have figured that out by now.

Point taken.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE from Dictionary.com:Yes. Keep making fun of AN's ability to spell... It makes you look smart... The way a pair of glasses with a fake nose and Groucho Marx mustache makes a monkey look smart.For the record, English and American English have many words that are spelled differently. Learnt is valid in English, but not in American English. Several other words that AN uses are the same, and if you were to use a high end spell checker, instead of the dirt-simple one provided by this forum, you'd have figured that out by now.

Point taken.

Let me get this straight. You think GR doesn't deal with gravity? Or that it doesn't consider it a force?
ROFLMAO ROFLMAO ROFLMAO I don't know if I'll ever stop laughing at that....

AlphaNumeric was contending it was a force properly described in QFT. It isn't.

QUOTE
I never previously claimed I did. (I do, by the way, and I didn't provide it for the exact reasons AN listed. GMTA, hehe )
Why is it that you would consider it a valid question? It's like asking "why is the sky red?" "Why is grass purple?" "Do humans have a sole?" "What is the reaming of life?" or the world famous "Why is dere so minny dum pepol in da wirld?"

All valid questions.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I never previously claimed I did. (I do, by the way, and I didn't provide it for the exact reasons AN listed. GMTA, hehe )Why is it that you would consider it a valid question? It's like asking "why is the sky red?" "Why is grass purple?" "Do humans have a sole?" "What is the reaming of life?" or the world famous "Why is dere so minny dum pepol in da wirld?"

All valid questions.

It's not going to get an answer,

Why not? Why answer at all then?

QUOTE
and even if it did, it would never be accepted.

He doesn't seem to be objecting to my answer.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE and even if it did, it would never be accepted.

He doesn't seem to be objecting to my answer.

(BTW, proper answers to those questions are: "It isn't" "It isn't" "Sometimes" "religion" and "Cause you won't stop having sex.")

On a rather crude level.

QUOTE
By the way, Ubavontuba (Which, IMHO somehow manages to be a dumber handle than even mine... Reminds me of a fat guy in leiderhosen dancing to polka music) as you can see, your attempt at subterfuge hasn't worked. Condemning HawkingBrain might make you temporarily correct, but it doesn't make you smart. (or knowledgeable, or intelligent, or a scientist, or particularly witty even)

I didn't condemn him. I certainly didn't berate him in the crude and derogatory fashion that you so often use. I was merely expressing my personal disappointment.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 15 2007, 10:27 PM)
It is classical. At most it's 'semi-classical' when you do the work Hawking does, because part of your theory is quantised.

Thanks for providing an excellent example to prove my point.

You're a fool. You argued it's a QFT force. It isn't. You then provided the weakest reference I've ever seen on this forum... a reference that didn't even back your claims! You can read about it here: http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...ndpost&p=289853

QUOTE
He started the thread in question and mentioned all those things. I tried to correct him. He didn't want to know. If I'm arguing over his head, it's because he mentions thing which he doesn't understand but thinks he does.

What's that to do with anything? Freethis asked a simple question. Is it too hard to answer in kind? If you can't, why answer at all?

Have you considered that others besides freethis read your responses? Maybe others might want to learn, but are too shy to post (especially in light of the degenerate responses of the self-proclaimed forum mafia)?

Perhaps in trying to puff up your own importance with your derogatory responses, you're degenerating into irrelevance yourself?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE He started the thread in question and mentioned all those things. I tried to correct him. He didn't want to know. If I'm arguing over his head, it's because he mentions thing which he doesn't understand but thinks he does.

What's that to do with anything? Freethis asked a simple question. Is it too hard to answer in kind? If you can't, why answer at all?

Have you considered that others besides freethis read your responses? Maybe others might want to learn, but are too shy to post (especially in light of the degenerate responses of the self-proclaimed forum mafia)?

Perhaps in trying to puff up your own importance with your derogatory responses, you're degenerating into irrelevance yourself?

Still with the "We've had a multipage discussion with people giving multiple reasons why I'm incorrect, but I deny anyone has said that!" attitude.  You and Zephir obviously learnt how to 'debate' from the same source.

Your inability to want to remember doesn't mean it didn't happen. Trippy, Rpenner, myself and numerous others have corrected you on plenty of things, often quantatively.

But if you want an example, try the first thing you said in your post

Ooh! Using the stupid smilies and deflection at the same time! Your programmers must be impressed!

What's the matter, couldn't come up with any specifics? I've given several specific examples where you've been wrong. Shall I list them again?

QUOTE
You always ignore any references provided. You don't actually retort them, you just say "Oh that's wrong". I provided a link to a world leading physicist explaining the multiple evidences for the speed of gravity being the speed of light and you just denied it all. No evidence of your own, you just said "No, not true. Doesn't count". How scientific. Every quantative analysis to counter your claim, you ignore. Probably because you don't understand it.

That's a blatant lie. I specifically stated the reasons your references were questionable (at best). You failed to back them up. You tried once, but boy was that a failure! You used a blog as a reference that refuted your own claims!

On the other hand, it is you that ignores references. Do you remember the Unruh radiation paper fiasco?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You always ignore any references provided. You don't actually retort them, you just say "Oh that's wrong". I provided a link to a world leading physicist explaining the multiple evidences for the speed of gravity being the speed of light and you just denied it all. No evidence of your own, you just said "No, not true. Doesn't count". How scientific. Every quantative analysis to counter your claim, you ignore. Probably because you don't understand it.

That's a blatant lie. I specifically stated the reasons your references were questionable (at best). You failed to back them up. You tried once, but boy was that a failure! You used a blog as a reference that refuted your own claims!

On the other hand, it is you that ignores references. Do you remember the Unruh radiation paper fiasco?

See, in the absense of any actual physics to say you fall back on pointless insults. And yet you often claim I'm the one saying something irrelevent

Ha! Ha! Ha! Excellent table turning! Your programmers ought to be beaming!

QUOTE
(usually when I provide a bit of evidence to demonstrate you're incorrect on something and you don't want to address it).

Even if I were a chatbot, the points I raise against you and evidence I provide are equally valid.

WHAT EVIDENCE? When? What have I not addressed? BE SPECIFIC.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE (usually when I provide a bit of evidence to demonstrate you're incorrect on something and you don't want to address it).Even if I were a chatbot, the points I raise against you and evidence I provide are equally valid.

WHAT EVIDENCE? When? What have I not addressed? BE SPECIFIC.

The fact I have a life too just sticks in your side even more. The fact I don't have to validate myself by lying on the internet.

If you don't have to, why do you?

QUOTE
People like Rpenner, Trippy and a few others know who I am in real life, Rpenner and I exchange emails every now and again (real emails, not PMs through the forum).

"Real e-mails." Like that proves you're a flesh and blood person. Give me a break!

I generally like Rpenner (I hope he's mature enough to accept the compliment). He disagrees with me, but he's been honest enough to objectively verify my claims a couple of times.

A true scientist isn't swayed by popular opinions. Rpenner shows promise!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE People like Rpenner, Trippy and a few others know who I am in real life, Rpenner and I exchange emails every now and again (real emails, not PMs through the forum).

"Real e-mails." Like that proves you're a flesh and blood person. Give me a break!

I generally like Rpenner (I hope he's mature enough to accept the compliment). He disagrees with me, but he's been honest enough to objectively verify my claims a couple of times.

A true scientist isn't swayed by popular opinions. Rpenner shows promise!

Euler and I know one another in real life, I introduced him to this place. No doubt people would level "Get a life" at him too. He's a 2nd year PhD whose just bought his own house with his long term girlfriend (whose a great girl and has a great job, being a qualified lawyer) who just accepted his proposal of marriage. We're all moving on with our lives, our knowledge of physics and mathematics isn't because we 'waste our lives', it's the central tenant of our jobs!

Good for him. I don't know him though. He rarely posts in the forums I do, and when he does, it's usually just to level an irrelevant insult.

QUOTE
It is. Do you know the geodesic equation?

Is this a test? This is used to describe the curvature of GR space, not to define it as a force.

Trippy
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 16 2007, 11:27 AM)
Even if I were a chatbot, the points I raise against you and evidence I provide are equally valid. The fact I have a life too just sticks in your side even more. The fact I don't have to validate myself by lying on the internet. People like Rpenner, Trippy and a few others know who I am in real life, Rpenner and I exchange emails every now and again (real emails, not PMs through the forum). Euler and I know one another in real life, I introduced him to this place. No doubt people would level "Get a life" at him too. He's a 2nd year PhD whose just bought his own house with his long term girlfriend (whose a great girl and has a great job, being a qualified lawyer) who just accepted his proposal of marriage. We're all moving on with our lives, our knowledge of physics and mathematics isn't because we 'waste our lives', it's the central tenant of our jobs!

Cool.

Heh heh.

I just had to defer my postgrad stuff, because I've had too much on my plate, going to try it again next year. Married, own a house, 7 months pregnant (Well, my wife is/we are).

Yeah, maybe I should get a life to.... >_>
Trippy
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 16 2007, 08:19 AM)
By the way, Ubavontuba (Which, IMHO somehow manages to be a dumber handle than even mine... Reminds me of a fat guy in leiderhosen dancing to polka music) as you can see, your attempt at subterfuge hasn't worked.

I've often thought something similar.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:50 AM)
You're a fool.  You argued it's a QFT force.  It isn't.

Your failure to understand things you claim to know is no fault of mine. Quantum mechanical processes are non-classical. Relativity is classical. The combination of the two (as Hawking radiation is) is semi-classical.

Grasp that?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:50 AM)
What's that to do with anything?
You mentioned me talking over his head. I pointed out that all topics I'd mentioned were brought up by him. If he doesn't want to talk about quantum mechanics and relativity, he shouldn't bring them up.

Besides, I'm not talking about very complex things, on the scale of it. I'm talking on a level which any graduate student should understand. Anyone who has got far enough through a physics course to have been lectured Hawking radiation will follow me. Just because you don't doesn't mean I'm talking over people's heads deliberately. It's just your head is so low it's easy to talk over yours.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:50 AM)
Ooh! Using the stupid smilies and deflection at the same time! Your programmers must be impressed!
That the best you've got? Your usual fallback onto "OMG, u r a ch@tbot!!"
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:50 AM)
What's the matter, couldn't come up with any specifics? I've given several specific examples where you've been wrong. Shall I list them again?
I pointed to a speciic case in that very post. I didn't even have to leave the thread! And your list of my 'errors' is nothing more than a list of things students understand about relativity and quantum mechanics that you don't.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:50 AM)
I specifically stated the reasons your references were questionable (at best). You failed to back them up. You tried once, but boy was that a failure! You used a blog as a reference that refuted your own claims!
The fact you don't believe the personal webpage of one of the best known theoretical physicists in the world is no fault of mine. You consider them 'questionable' because you don't understand them. You offered no reason other than "I don't believe that". What am I supposed to refute about that? I don't refute the fact you don't believe them, I don't consider you intelligent enough to gasp them.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:50 AM)
Do you remember the Unruh radiation paper fiasco?
The one which you then argued against because you considered the equivalence principle not something physicists should be resting on?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:50 AM)
A true scientist isn't swayed by popular opinions.
No, a real physist uses logic, evidence and rationality. That's why you're not a physicist.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:50 AM)
"Real e-mails." Like that proves you're a flesh and blood person. Give me a break!
Do you think you take the 'high ground' be constantly having to fall back on "You're a chat bot". My feedback demonstrates people consider my comments and posts interesting and useful. The discussions I have with people demonstrate my ability to converse. Threads like [url=http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=19278
this one[/url] show the level of mathematics I actually work at. Notice the lack of cranks in that thread. You're all scared away by real science discussion. What's the matter, a 'chat bot' having a discussion too scary for you?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:50 AM)
Is this a test? This is used to describe the curvature of GR space, not to define it as a force.
What does 'x' represent in the geodesic equation? Here's a clue to help you Google, 'test mass'.
Guest00
QUOTE (HawkingBrain+Dec 8 2007, 07:31 AM)
According to Stephen Hawking himself, an inspiration came to him before going to bed one evening in 1970 (getting into bed is a rather slow process with his disability). He suddenly realized that since nothing can escape from a black hole, the area of the event horizon might stay the same or increase with time but it could never decrease. In fact, the area would increase whenever matter or radiation fell into the black hole. This non-decreasing behavior of a black hole's area was very reminiscent to that of entropy, which measures the degree of disorder in a system. One can create order out of disorder, but that requires expenditure of effort or energy such that there is an overall increase in disorder. In simple mathematical terms these statements can be expressed in differential forms as:
m dm = k dA ---------- (16a)        for the black hole (since A  rs2  m2 from the Schwarzschild's solution),

where m is the mass of the black hole, A is the area of the event horizon, and k is a proportional constant;

dE = T dS ---------- (16b)        for the entropy,

where E is the energy, T is the temperature, and S is the entropy.

Since mass and energy are equivalent, we can equate Eqs.(16a) and (16b) to obtain:

dS = K dA / ( m T ) ---------- (16c)

where K is a new proportional constant. This equation implies that the area of the event horizon A is a measure of the entropy S of the black hole. Furthermore, the black hole is associated with a temperature T, and should emits radiation as any hot body. Thus, the black hole is not completely closed to the universe outside. It turns out that vacuum fluctuations at the edge of the event horizon may allow one member of the virtual particle / anti-particle pair to fall inside with negative energy; while the other escapes as a real particle with a positive energy according to the law of energy conservation. This is known as Hawking radiation (see Figure 09u); it is the first successful attempt to combine general relativity and quantum theory. The flow of negative energy (or mass) into the black hole would reduce its mass. As the black hole loses mass, the area of its event horizon gets smaller, but this decrease in the entropy of the black hole is more than compensated for by the entropy of the emitted radiation, so that the second law of thermodynamics is never violated. If we demand that in Eq.(16c) dS  dA as stated originally (actually, it can be shown that S = (kBc3/4G) x A), then T  1 / m, and the rate of radiation L can be expressed as L  rs2T4  1 / m2. Therefore, as the black hole loses mass, its temperature and rate of emission increase, then it lose mass even more quickly (Figure 09v). What happens when the mass of the black hole eventually becomes extremely small is not quite clear, but the most reasonable guess is that it would disappear completely in a tremendous final burst of emission.

It can be shown that the temperature T associated with the thermal radiation for a black hole is:

T = 0.6 x 10-7 msun / m (in degrees Kelvin)

where msun is the mass of the Sun. If the Sun is reduced to a black hole, its temperature would be just about 10-7 oK. On the other hand, there might be primordial black holes with a very much smaller mass that were made by the collapse of irregularities in the very early stages of the universe. Those with masses greater 1015 gm could have survived to the present day. They would have the size of a proton (~ 10-13cm) and a temperature of 1011 oK. At this temperature they would emit photons, neutrinos, and gravitons in profusion; they would radiate thermally at an ever increasing rate, and sending out X rays and gamma rays to be discovered. The lifetime of a black hole is roughly equal to  = m / L = 10-35 m3 year, where m is in gm. This makes an ordinary mass black hole (m ~ 2x1033 gm for the Sun) live for a long time and its radiation unobservable.
This phenomenon of Hawking radiation also occurs in the event horizon created by an accelerating observer. Figure 09w shows that light ray emitted at certain distance can never catch up with the observer and thus an event horizon exists beyond which the observer cannot communicate. Theoretical arguement suggests that even in empty space, the observer will be able to detect radiation from the event horizon. A simple formula is derived to express the relationship between the acceleration a and the temperature T: T = a (/2kBc). It is suggested that members of the correlated virtual photon pairs are separated by the event horizon. As a result part of the information is missing, the observer detects random motion associated with the temperature. In this case the energy is extracted from the acceleration, which according to general relativity, is equivalent to gravitation.
Black hole and information:

According to general relativity anything that crosses the event horizon is trapped inside forever lost to the outside world.
In spite of his own discovery of Hawking radiation, which can return matter-energy back to the outside world, Hawking himself insists that information would be destroyed by the black hole.
Since entropy is related to information, the loss of information would violate the second law of thermodynamics, which holds that entropy would neither decrease nor disappear. Thus, the critics argue that nature may scramble information but never destroys it.
To resolve the dispute, 't Hooft and Susskind proposed the "Principle of Black Hole Complementarity" in which both sides are correct. For the outside observer, matter (the elephant in Figure 09x) would be reduced to thermal radiation at the event horizon (as it takes an infinite time for the elephant to cross such boundary according to observer a) and returns as scrambled information. For an observer crosses the event horizon into the black hole, nothing untoward happens until the tidal force takes over ... information is forever lost.
Such duality is further likened to a hologram located on some surface. There are two possible ways to interpret the hologram: one view corresponds to that for the outside observer a in Figure 09x; while the other represents the perception from observer b falling into the black hole. Meanwhile, other research in superstring theory finds the black hole to be a "fuzzball" (Figure 09y). The modified black hole does not possess a sharp event horizon; information can be stored in the strings and imprinted on outgoing Hawking radiation. Models of black holes from superstring theory also cast doubt on the idea of the singularity (at the center of the black hole). Yet another scheme suggests that information might leak out by means of quantum teleportation between the entangled pair of virtual particles (one of which has escaped while the other is trapped inside the black hole). However in the theory of loop quantum gravity, it has been shown that the information trapped in a black hole will be unable to escape via Hawking radiation. But it will survive, eventually rejoining the rest of the universe when the black hole evaporates.

I've "highlighted" certain parts from the post quoted to make things a bit easier.

Equations? Ok, I see them.
Figures? I don't see any "fuzz-balls" or "elephants." I don't even see any pink tutus.

Could HawkingBrain truly be this good of a writer?-- No! Well Mr. Brain, it seems you've plagiarized once again.

PS:
AN, as a San Diego (which is a nice 30~45min drive from Tijuana, Mexico) native,
I'd like to give you a kind reminder to not drink the water down there-- that is, unless it's bottled.
Trippy
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 21 2007, 09:41 PM)
Your failure to understand things you claim to know is no fault of mine. Quantum mechanical processes are non-classical. Relativity is classical. The combination of the two (as Hawking radiation is) is semi-classical.

Let's see if I (a none physicist) have grasped this correctly (no, I'm not afraid of ambarresing myself by getting it wrong in public).

Relativity is classical because it regards space-time as being continuous, and fields as being continuous, whereas QM is non-classical because it regards space-time as being discrete and quantized, and fields as being discrete and quantized. And this is the basic source of all the problems of trying to unify them (well, general relativity and QM at least).
ubavontuba
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 21 2007, 08:41 AM)
Your failure to understand things you claim to know is no fault of mine. Quantum mechanical processes are non-classical. Relativity is classical. The combination of the two (as Hawking radiation is) is semi-classical.

Grasp that?

Trying to dodge and weave, are we? You described it both in the classical Newtonian sense and QFT, without regards to General Relativity. You even compared it to electromagnetism!

Grasp that?

QUOTE
You mentioned me talking over his head. I pointed out that all topics I'd mentioned were brought up by him. If he doesn't want to talk about quantum mechanics and relativity, he shouldn't bring them up.

Instead of trying to dazzle him with your stupendousness, have you thought to answer as simply and earnestly as you can, and then move on? Does it really matter whether he gets it? Are you forgetting the other readers?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You mentioned me talking over his head. I pointed out that all topics I'd mentioned were brought up by him. If he doesn't want to talk about quantum mechanics and relativity, he shouldn't bring them up.

Instead of trying to dazzle him with your stupendousness, have you thought to answer as simply and earnestly as you can, and then move on? Does it really matter whether he gets it? Are you forgetting the other readers?

Besides, I'm not talking about very complex things, on the scale of it. I'm talking on a level which any graduate student should understand. Anyone who has got far enough through a physics course to have been lectured Hawking radiation will follow me.

What makes you think he's gone that far?

QUOTE
Just because you don't doesn't mean I'm talking over people's heads deliberately. It's just your head is so low it's easy to talk over yours.

Watch it with the short jokes! (sarcasm)

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Just because you don't doesn't mean I'm talking over people's heads deliberately. It's just your head is so low it's easy to talk over yours.

Watch it with the short jokes! (sarcasm)

That the best you've got? Your usual fallback onto "OMG, u r a ch@tbot!!"

It's no worse than your stupid smilies and deflection. Argue the relevant points, or don't argue at all.

QUOTE
I pointed to a speciic case in that very post. I didn't even have to leave the thread!

You mean the one where you were blatantly wrong? The one where you insisted gravity is both properly described in the Newtonian and QFT sense in General Relativity? Give me a break!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I pointed to a speciic case in that very post. I didn't even have to leave the thread!

You mean the one where you were blatantly wrong? The one where you insisted gravity is both properly described in the Newtonian and QFT sense in General Relativity? Give me a break!

And your list of my 'errors' is nothing more than a list of things students understand about relativity and quantum mechanics...

So your point is that you didn't understand them when you should have?

QUOTE
...that you don't.

Remember, it was you that was wrong, not me. Seems kind of silly to say the one that was right didn't understand, while the one that was wrong did... doesn't it?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE ...that you don't.

Remember, it was you that was wrong, not me. Seems kind of silly to say the one that was right didn't understand, while the one that was wrong did... doesn't it?

The fact you don't believe the personal webpage of one of the best known theoretical physicists in the world is no fault of mine. You consider them 'questionable' because you don't understand them. You offered no reason other than "I don't believe that". What am I supposed to refute about that? I don't refute the fact you don't believe them, I don't consider you intelligent enough to gasp them.

A blatant lie. I offered a list of specific reasons that reference was questionable. Have you forgotten already? I even asked you to explain the apparent discrepencies I noted. You then tried to back it up with that stupid blog reference about QFT gravity, ignoring all the other discrepencies I noted!

QUOTE
The one which you then argued against because you considered the equivalence principle not something physicists should be resting on?

Where'd you get that? I never said any such thing. I argued for the paper I mentioned. Trying to spread false information, are we?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The one which you then argued against because you considered the equivalence principle not something physicists should be resting on?

Where'd you get that? I never said any such thing. I argued for the paper I mentioned. Trying to spread false information, are we?

No, a real physist uses logic, evidence and rationality. That's why you're not a physicist.

Then apparently you're not either. How could you be appling "logic, evidence and rationality," when you've been wrong so often?

QUOTE
Do you think you take the 'high ground' be constantly having to fall back on "You're a chat bot".

No more than you turning every argument into a personality debate, rather than keeping the discussion relevant to the topic.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Do you think you take the 'high ground' be constantly having to fall back on "You're a chat bot".

No more than you turning every argument into a personality debate, rather than keeping the discussion relevant to the topic.

My feedback demonstrates people consider my comments and posts interesting and useful.

Or, their gullibility. Or, manipulation.

QUOTE
The discussions I have with people demonstrate my ability to converse. Threads like [url=http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=19278
this one[/url] show the level of mathematics I actually work at. Notice the lack of cranks in that thread. You're all scared away by real science discussion. What's the matter, a 'chat bot' having a discussion too scary for you?

Ooh. More irrelevance. What's the matter, too embarrassed to keep to the discussion at hand? Can't handle being wrong? Feel the need to retreat to a place you feel safe?

If you can't describe physics by simply stating what happens given certain conditions, you can't describe physics!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The discussions I have with people demonstrate my ability to converse. Threads like [url=http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtopic=19278this one[/url] show the level of mathematics I actually work at. Notice the lack of cranks in that thread. You're all scared away by real science discussion. What's the matter, a 'chat bot' having a discussion too scary for you?

Ooh. More irrelevance. What's the matter, too embarrassed to keep to the discussion at hand? Can't handle being wrong? Feel the need to retreat to a place you feel safe?

If you can't describe physics by simply stating what happens given certain conditions, you can't describe physics!

What does 'x' represent in the geodesic equation? Here's a clue to help you Google, 'test mass'.

More irrelevance. Why, after I've been right so often (and you not), would you continue to try and test me?

Do you now know that gravity is curved spacetime in GR?

ubavontuba
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 21 2007, 07:10 AM)
I've often thought something similar.

Okay, you guys got me. I am a fat guy, and I do like polka. Don't forget the beer!
Sapo
Or the nuts, either.
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 12:06 AM)
Self importance (a.k.a. puffery) is wholly unattractive.

Well, first AN would have to display some puffery. Instead, he seems to often display a lack of patience with people who claim to understand physics but really don't, and you seem to interpret that as "puffery."

QUOTE
Don't hero worship this weasel.  He knows a lot less than he pretends.

My hero worship is reserved for people of heroic deeds, not people of shocking intelligence and incredible knowledge. He knows a lot more than he talks about here, I can promise you that. Hell, even I know a lot more than I talk about here, AN damn sure has more knowledge in reserve than I do.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Don't hero worship this weasel.  He knows a lot less than he pretends.

My hero worship is reserved for people of heroic deeds, not people of shocking intelligence and incredible knowledge. He knows a lot more than he talks about here, I can promise you that. Hell, even I know a lot more than I talk about here, AN damn sure has more knowledge in reserve than I do.

Which matters because...?

He knows what he's talking about.

QUOTE
AlphaNumeric was contending it was a force properly described in QFT.  It isn't.

Well, for starters, I don't see him making that claim anywhere in this thread. Second, why don't you provide some evidence to support your claim that it's not?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE AlphaNumeric was contending it was a force properly described in QFT.  It isn't.

Well, for starters, I don't see him making that claim anywhere in this thread. Second, why don't you provide some evidence to support your claim that it's not?

All valid questions.

Illogical, tautological questions are somehow valid in your little world? Wow, it must be easy to win a debate: Just ask a few meaningless questions and let your opponent's inability to answer them speak for itself, as long as your opponent doesn't get wise to you and give meaningless answers. Such as those I detailed before. (Actually, the last one has a meaning. I wonder if you can figure it out?)

QUOTE
Why not?  Why answer at all then?

You can figure out what my point is, but not see it... How bizarre....

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Why not?  Why answer at all then?

You can figure out what my point is, but not see it... How bizarre....

He doesn't seem to be objecting to my answer.

Yes, when I get annoyed I ignore the annoying people, too.

QUOTE
I didn't condemn him.  I certainly didn't berate him in the crude and derogatory fashion that you so often use.  I was merely expressing my personal disappointment.

Aww, you've hurt my feelings Well, not really. I don't really give a crap. To be honest, I'm a little amused, if anything.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I didn't condemn him.  I certainly didn't berate him in the crude and derogatory fashion that you so often use.  I was merely expressing my personal disappointment.

Aww, you've hurt my feelings Well, not really. I don't really give a crap. To be honest, I'm a little amused, if anything.

Or the nuts, either.

Oh, I think we'll do just fine without any more nuts that we already have.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 22 2007, 07:54 AM)
Well, first AN would have to display some puffery. Instead, he seems to often display a lack of patience with people who claim to understand physics but really don't, and you seem to interpret that as "puffery."

My hero worship is reserved for people of heroic deeds, not people of shocking intelligence and incredible knowledge. He knows a lot more than he talks about here, I can promise you that. Hell, even I know a lot more than I talk about here, AN damn sure has more knowledge in reserve than I do.

He knows what he's talking about.

Well, for starters, I don't see him making that claim anywhere in this thread. Second, why don't you provide some evidence to support your claim that it's not?

Illogical, tautological questions are somehow valid in your little world? Wow, it must be easy to win a debate: Just ask a few meaningless questions and let your opponent's inability to answer them speak for itself, as long as your opponent doesn't get wise to you and give meaningless answers. Such as those I detailed before. (Actually, the last one has a meaning. I wonder if you can figure it out?)

You can figure out what my point is, but not see it... How bizarre....

Yes, when I get annoyed I ignore the annoying people, too.

Aww, you've hurt my feelings Well, not really. I don't really give a crap. To be honest, I'm a little amused, if anything.

QUOTE (Sapo+)
Or the nuts, either.

Oh, I think we'll do just fine without any more nuts that we already have.

Blah-de-blah-de-blah.

Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?

More importantly, can you add anything relevant to the discussion?

I doubt it.
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
Trying to dodge and weave, are we?  You described it both in the classical Newtonian sense and QFT, without regards to General Relativity.  You even compared it to electromagnetism!

Grasp that?

Newtonian gravity : Classical
Maxwell's Electromagnetism : Classical
General and Special Relativity : Classical
Electrodynamics : Classical
Quantum mechanics : Non-classical
Quantum Field theory : Non-classical

QFT is a combination of two classical theories, SR and EM and then fully quantised in it's dynamical fields. Space-time in QFT is not dynamical.

GR has dynamical space-time but makes no attempt to quantise it.

Putting QFT into a GR background results in some dynamical fields being quantised and some not. Hence, semi-classical.

My previous comments about Newton's and Maxwell's work was entirely consistent. Your ability to understand is not.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
Instead of trying to dazzle him with your stupendousness, have you thought to answer as simply and earnestly as you can, and then move on? Does it really matter whether he gets it? Are you forgetting the other readers?
Previous attempts to engage the original poster in discussion, in numerous threads and via PMs have failed. He has been caught plagerising on more than one occasion and he sees no problem with telling flat out lies. Subtley has been tried. As with you, it failed. Hence I didn't bother in this thread. If I'm blunt in one thread and he stops posting this crap, then it's worth it.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
What makes you think he's gone that far?
If this is his own work, he should have. He has told me, via PM, that he's an Oxford graduate in physics. I know several such people and they are intelligent to know what they know. He's claiming detailed knowledge about Hawking radiation and to be an Oxford physics graduate. If he wasn't lying about the latter, he'd not be lying about the former. However, he is lying about both.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
You mean the one where you were blatantly wrong? The one where you insisted gravity is both properly described in the Newtonian and QFT sense in General Relativity? Give me a break!
Give me a link to a post of mine where I said relativity describes a quantised gravity. I never had. Neither have I said relativity describes gravity in a Newtonian fashion. 'Classical' doesn't mean "In the way Newton did it". Plenty of classical physics came after 1680.

GR is classical. QFT is non-classical. QFT in a GR background is semi-classical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiclassical

"Third, semiclassical gravity is the approximation to the yet unknown theory of quantum gravity in which one treats matter fields as being quantum and the gravitational field as being classical. The classical Einstein equations are computed with the expectation value of the quantum matter fields in the classical background. Semiclassical gravity has applications in black hole physics and physical cosmology."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiclassical_gravity

"The most important applications of semiclassical gravity are to understand the Hawking radiation of black holes "

Your lack of knowledge on a subject doesn't mean your claims built on that ignorance are correct.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
So your point is that you didn't understand them when you should have?
My progress through education has demonstrated I have understood them. Perhaps not as well as I should have, but I've certainly proven a set level of knowledge and understanding.

For instance, I sat this exam and attained a Distinction in it. Care to have a shot at a few of the questions?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
A blatant lie. I offered a list of specific reasons that reference was questionable. Have you forgotten already? I even asked you to explain the apparent discrepencies I noted. You then tried to back it up with that stupid blog reference about QFT gravity, ignoring all the other discrepencies I noted!
Your reasons amounted to "I don't understand relativity, therefore your link is wrong". The 'blog' was the webpage of the theoretical physicist I mentioned. You do realise that some very clever people have personal websites? Just because it doesn't have a company sticker on it or you haven't heard of their name doesn't mean they aren't right.

http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Baez_J/0/1/0/all/0/1

There's some of his work. He's well known for this blog precisely because he presents such high level material and understanding in a way which is so accessible.

You offered no actual evidence against the list of experiments and effects my link provided. You just said "I don't agree" but padded it out.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
Where'd you get that? I never said any such thing. I argued for the paper I mentioned. Trying to spread false information, are we?
You questioned how much physicists should use the equivalence principle to link gravity-less systems to gravitational ones. Your evidence also relies on scalar QED, quite different from fermionic QED.

Here is a more indepth roundup of Unruh work in physics. No controversy at all. It is a shown to be a reformulation of free QFT in different coordinate. There's plenty more on ArXiv.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
Then apparently you're not either. How could you be appling "logic, evidence and rationality," when you've been wrong so often?
If your example is because you didn't understand what 'classical' means and you don't understand the evidence for the light speed of gravity, that's not me being incorrect, it's you believing your ignorance cannot be wrong.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
No more than you turning every argument into a personality debate, rather than keeping the discussion relevant to the topic.
I forget, which one of us keeps resorting to "Says a chatbot"?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
Ooh. More irrelevance. What's the matter, too embarrassed to keep to the discussion at hand? Can't handle being wrong? Feel the need to retreat to a place you feel safe?
As usual, I provide evidence to show I'm capable of serious discussion of physics when the person(s) I'm talking to aren't irrational and ignorant and it's ignored. The evidence is there, even if you (as usual) refuse to acknowledge it.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
If you can't describe physics by simply stating what happens given certain conditions, you can't describe physics!
I can actually do relativity, QFT and a modicum of black hole physics. If someone gives me physical initial conditions for a fair few systems, I can compute what the outcome will be. Can you? Nope. Every request you prove you can, you've avoided. I know you'll have given some excuse about not doing the black hole questions I linked to earlier in this post.

So what makes you think you can 'describe physics'? To a physicist, 'describing physics' isn't about words, it's about equations, it's about precise derivations and quantative results. People have provided you with such things to counteract your entirely armwavey claims. You ignore them.

Your criticism falls squarely on your shoulders, not mine. Feel free to provide a link to a post of yours which involves you crunching some numbers.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
More irrelevance. Why, after I've been right so often (and you not), would you continue to try and test me?
As usual, if you don't know something "it's irrelevent".

The 'x' in the geodesic equation is the path traced out by a test particle under the influence of Einstein's gravity. At any given moment, you can use normal coordinates to put it into a special relativity framework where the x'' is directly equivalent to an acceleration. Thus picking an inertial frame within which to do your definition of various physical properties leads you to find that the object is experiencing a force.

You wouldn't realise this, you've never done such mathematical physics. If given the action for relativity, could you derive the geodesic equation? I doubt it. You don't understand it, so it's 'irrelevent'. Irrelevent for you perhaps, but not to physicists. You don't seem to realise this.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 21 2007, 07:19 PM)
Do you now know that gravity is curved spacetime in GR?
I never said otherwise. That doesn't mean the notion of 'force' is completely removed from relativity as a result. Normal coordinates, inertial frames, extended objects, relative motion ini gravitational fields. They all maintain a notion of force, it's just not as easy for people who don't do relativity to understand, compared to F=ma in Newtonian physics. Yet another thing you don't seem to realise.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 22 2007, 09:12 AM)
Blah-de-blah-de-blah.

Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?

More importantly, can you add anything relevant to the discussion?

I doubt it.

The hypocrisy is staggering....
ubavontuba
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 24 2007, 09:41 AM)
Newtonian gravity : Classical
Maxwell's Electromagnetism : Classical
General and Special Relativity : Classical
Electrodynamics : Classical
Quantum mechanics : Non-classical
Quantum Field theory : Non-classical

QFT is a combination of two classical theories, SR and EM and then fully quantised in it's dynamical fields. Space-time in QFT is not dynamical.

GR has dynamical space-time but makes no attempt to quantise it.

Putting QFT into a GR background results in some dynamical fields being quantised and some not. Hence, semi-classical.

My previous comments about Newton's and Maxwell's work was entirely consistent. Your ability to understand is not.

Fine, here it is again:
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+ Dec 5 2007, 08:40 AM)
Orbits aren't uniform motion, they are experiencing a force.

QUOTE (ubavontuba+ Dec 6 2007, 04:46 AM)
In General Relativity they're in uniform motion, in curved space. Don't you know anything about General Relativity?

QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+ Dec 7 2007, 08:03 AM)
Being in freefall isn't the same as uniform motion. If you picked an inertial frame, the orbitting object would clearly not be in uniform motion. If you picked any other freefalling frame along the orbit (other than a perfectly circular orbit ) then the freefalling frames would not be uniformly moving with respect to one another. Then you have that you'd be aware of tidal effects, the force of gravity would be stronger on one side than the other of the object.

QUOTE (ubavontuba+ Dec 8 2007, 06:32 PM)
Trying to CYA? It isn't working. Einstein clearly defines gravity as curved spacetime. Variances in the structure of the curves is irrelevant to his tenet.

QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+ Dec 8 2007, 08:05 PM)
I explained why orbits are not uniform motion. You didn't actually retort anything I said. There's a way to measure the difference between moving in an orbit and being in an inertial frame sans gravity.

QUOTE (ubavontuba+ Dec 9 2007, 07:50 AM)
That's only because of the gravitational gradients. It's a structure of curved spacetime that affects the orbit. In GR gravity is not a force. Are you contending otherwise?

QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+ Dec 9 2007, 10:28 AM)
There is force in general relativity. Simplyt saying "It's a gradient" doesn't remove that, all forces are defined as the gradients of potentials, haven't you ever done electromagnetism?

A short discussion on it is here : http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130654

QUOTE (ubavontuba+ Dec 9 2007, 09:37 PM)
Did you even read that debate? The "mentor" struggles to define it as a force and admits it's 'ambiguous' and 'dependent' on certain conditions.

Unlike magnetism, it's not a force as described by QFT.

The evidence is that gravity in General Relativity is not properly defined as a force.

I'll use the same reference you used: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130654
Given a particular worldline (of zero volume), one can define a force that an observer following that worldline would measure with an acceleromater.

That is not sufficient to be ble to unambiguously define gravity as a "force" in general. For slowly moving objects there is an interpretation available of gravity as a force. This runs into difficulties with as simple a situation as defining the force on a rapidly (i.e. relativistically) moving object, however. While one can compute the 4-accleration for any particular wordline, interpreting gravity as a force requires that one pick out particular moving worldlines as being "straight lines of constant velocity". This turns out to be ambiguous and dependent on the coordinates used. The worldlines that follow geodesics experience no force at all, so they don't define the notion of "straight" that is wanted here.

(bold is mine)

Obviously, you insist it is a force and not curved spacetime in General Relativity. Here's a final reference about orbits in curved space that I think even you can understand: Gravity as Curved Space.
And here's a quote from this Wikipedia article:
Instead of describing the effect of gravitation as a "force", Einstein introduced the concept of curved space-time in which bodies move along curved trajectories.
Obviously, YOU ARE WRONG! Gravity in General Relativity is NOT a force. It's curved space, as I've consistently stated.

QUOTE
Previous attempts to engage the original poster in discussion, in numerous threads and via PMs have failed. He has been caught plagerising on more than one occasion and he sees no problem with telling flat out lies. Subtley has been tried. As with you, it failed. Hence I didn't bother in this thread. If I'm blunt in one thread and he stops posting this crap, then it's worth it.

Has it worked?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Previous attempts to engage the original poster in discussion, in numerous threads and via PMs have failed. He has been caught plagerising on more than one occasion and he sees no problem with telling flat out lies. Subtley has been tried. As with you, it failed. Hence I didn't bother in this thread. If I'm blunt in one thread and he stops posting this crap, then it's worth it.

Has it worked?

If this is his own work, he should have. He has told me, via PM, that he's an Oxford graduate in physics. I know several such people and they are intelligent to know what they know. He's claiming detailed knowledge about Hawking radiation and to be an Oxford physics graduate. If he wasn't lying about the latter, he'd not be lying about the former. However, he is lying about both.

So? Why make a fool of yourself over his problems?

QUOTE
Give me a link to a post of mine where I said relativity describes a quantised gravity. I never had. Neither have I said relativity describes gravity in a Newtonian fashion. 'Classical' doesn't mean "In the way Newton did it". Plenty of classical physics came after 1680.

Okay, here it is again:
QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Give me a link to a post of mine where I said relativity describes a quantised gravity. I never had. Neither have I said relativity describes gravity in a Newtonian fashion. 'Classical' doesn't mean "In the way Newton did it". Plenty of classical physics came after 1680.

Okay, here it is again:
There is force in general relativity. Simplyt saying "It's a gradient" doesn't remove that, all forces are defined as the gradients of potentials, haven't you ever done electromagnetism?

A short discussion on it is here : http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130654

QUOTE
GR is classical. QFT is non-classical. QFT in a GR background is semi-classical.

There is no QFT in General Relativity! You only brought up "semi-classical" in an attempt to backpeddle your way out of your mistake. It isn't working!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE GR is classical. QFT is non-classical. QFT in a GR background is semi-classical.

There is no QFT in General Relativity! You only brought up "semi-classical" in an attempt to backpeddle your way out of your mistake. It isn't working!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiclassical

"Third, semiclassical gravity is the approximation to the yet unknown theory of quantum gravity in which one treats matter fields as being quantum and the gravitational field as being classical. The classical Einstein equations are computed with the expectation value of the quantum matter fields in the classical background. Semiclassical gravity has applications in black hole physics and physical cosmology."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiclassical_gravity

"The most important applications of semiclassical gravity are to understand the Hawking radiation of black holes "

A hypothetical hodge-podge.

QUOTE
Your lack of knowledge on a subject doesn't mean your claims built on that ignorance are correct.

Then why have I been consistently right, and you WRONG?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Your lack of knowledge on a subject doesn't mean your claims built on that ignorance are correct.

Then why have I been consistently right, and you WRONG?

My progress through education has demonstrated I have understood them. Perhaps not as well as I should have, but I've certainly proven a set level of knowledge and understanding.

Then why are you so often WRONG?

QUOTE
For instance, I sat this exam and attained a Distinction in it. Care to have a shot at a few of the questions?

Good for you, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE For instance, I sat this exam and attained a Distinction in it. Care to have a shot at a few of the questions?

Good for you, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.

Liar! I was very specific as to what was wrong with it. You just couldn't back it up! Obviously then, it is YOU that don't understand relativity. You'll probably STILL argue that gravity is a force and not curved space in General Relativity!

QUOTE
The 'blog' was the webpage of the theoretical physicist I mentioned. You do realise that some very clever people have personal websites? Just because it doesn't have a company sticker on it or you haven't heard of their name doesn't mean they aren't right.

It doesn't matter who wrote the website. The truth is the truth and wrong is wrong, regardless of the author. It's my job to find logic errors like this. I'm very good at it.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The 'blog' was the webpage of the theoretical physicist I mentioned. You do realise that some very clever people have personal websites? Just because it doesn't have a company sticker on it or you haven't heard of their name doesn't mean they aren't right.

It doesn't matter who wrote the website. The truth is the truth and wrong is wrong, regardless of the author. It's my job to find logic errors like this. I'm very good at it.

http://arxiv.org/find/math/1/au:+Baez_J/0/1/0/all/0/1

There's some of his work. He's well known for this blog precisely because he presents such high level material and understanding in a way which is so accessible.

You offered no actual evidence against the list of experiments and effects my link provided. You just said "I don't agree" but padded it out.

You need to reassess what I wrote. You even tried to argue one of my contentions, and that's what led you to state that gravity is a force and not curved space in General Relativity!

QUOTE
You questioned how much physicists should use the equivalence principle to link gravity-less systems to gravitational ones. Your evidence also relies on scalar QED, quite different from fermionic QED.

When did I do that?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You questioned how much physicists should use the equivalence principle to link gravity-less systems to gravitational ones. Your evidence also relies on scalar QED, quite different from fermionic QED.

When did I do that?

Here is a more indepth roundup of Unruh work in physics. No controversy at all. It is a shown to be a reformulation of free QFT in different coordinate. There's plenty more on ArXiv.

Nice reference, but it boils down to: We haven't seen it, and we don't care.

QUOTE
If your example is because you didn't understand what 'classical' means and you don't understand the evidence for the light speed of gravity, that's not me being incorrect, it's you believing your ignorance cannot be wrong.

My examples are: How your neutron star reference was falsified. How the LHC would cause earth capture of some nano black holes (should they occur). How the earth couldn't capture cosmic ray induced nano black holes. How in GR, gravity isn't a force, but rather it's curved space.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE If your example is because you didn't understand what 'classical' means and you don't understand the evidence for the light speed of gravity, that's not me being incorrect, it's you believing your ignorance cannot be wrong.

My examples are: How your neutron star reference was falsified. How the LHC would cause earth capture of some nano black holes (should they occur). How the earth couldn't capture cosmic ray induced nano black holes. How in GR, gravity isn't a force, but rather it's curved space.

I forget, which one of us keeps resorting to "Says a chatbot"?

I forget, which one of us keeps using deflection and smilies to deflect the argument?

QUOTE
As usual, I provide evidence to show I'm capable of serious discussion of physics when the person(s) I'm talking to aren't irrational and ignorant and it's ignored. The evidence is there, even if you (as usual) refuse to acknowledge it.

Do you get it wrong there too? Are you sure? How do you know?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE As usual, I provide evidence to show I'm capable of serious discussion of physics when the person(s) I'm talking to aren't irrational and ignorant and it's ignored. The evidence is there, even if you (as usual) refuse to acknowledge it.

Do you get it wrong there too? Are you sure? How do you know?

I can actually do relativity, QFT and a modicum of black hole physics. If someone gives me physical initial conditions for a fair few systems, I can compute what the outcome will be.

No you can't. You refused to acknowledge several of my predictions/contentions that were later corroborated by others. Only after independent verification, do you concede. Even then, you often revert to your old arguments.

QUOTE
Can you? Nope.

Yes. I've properly predicted lots of outcomes for physical systems.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Can you? Nope.

Yes. I've properly predicted lots of outcomes for physical systems.

Every request you prove you can, you've avoided. I know you'll have given some excuse about not doing the black hole questions I linked to earlier in this post.

You still want to test me. You just can't stand not knowing how I predict things so accurately, can you?

QUOTE
So what makes you think you can 'describe physics'? To a physicist, 'describing physics' isn't about words, it's about equations, it's about precise derivations and quantative results. People have provided you with such things to counteract your entirely armwavey claims. You ignore them.

Actually, I think it was Brian Greene that made a very similar statement about the need to describe physics with mere words. I think he calls it, "word pictures."

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE So what makes you think you can 'describe physics'? To a physicist, 'describing physics' isn't about words, it's about equations, it's about precise derivations and quantative results. People have provided you with such things to counteract your entirely armwavey claims. You ignore them.

Actually, I think it was Brian Greene that made a very similar statement about the need to describe physics with mere words. I think he calls it, "word pictures."

Your criticism falls squarely on your shoulders, not mine. Feel free to provide a link to a post of yours which involves you crunching some numbers.

Do I need to describe Newtonian gravity to state that apples fall down?

QUOTE
As usual, if you don't know something "it's irrelevent".

As usual, I'm right and you're wrong.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE As usual, if you don't know something "it's irrelevent".

As usual, I'm right and you're wrong.

The 'x' in the geodesic equation is the path traced out by a test particle under the influence of Einstein's gravity. At any given moment, you can use normal coordinates to put it into a special relativity framework where the x'' is directly equivalent to an acceleration. Thus picking an inertial frame within which to do your definition of various physical properties leads you to find that the object is experiencing a force.

You wouldn't realise this, you've never done such mathematical physics. If given the action for relativity, could you derive the geodesic equation? I doubt it. You don't understand it, so it's 'irrelevent'. Irrelevent for you perhaps, but not to physicists. You don't seem to realise this.

Whatever. Parallel lines can meet, triangles can have more than 180 degrees, blah-de-blah-de-blah.

You probably wouldn't feel the need to "prove your abilities" like this, if you hadn't been caught in so many errors... now would you?

QUOTE
I never said otherwise.

LIAR! YES YOU DID! IT"S IN YOUR OWN WORDS AT THE TOP OF THIS POST!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I never said otherwise.

LIAR! YES YOU DID! IT"S IN YOUR OWN WORDS AT THE TOP OF THIS POST!

That doesn't mean the notion of 'force' is completely removed from relativity as a result. Normal coordinates, inertial frames, extended objects, relative motion ini gravitational fields. They all maintain a notion of force, it's just not as easy for people who don't do relativity to understand, compared to F=ma in Newtonian physics. Yet another thing you don't seem to realise.

BACKPEDDLING!

QUOTE
The hypocrisy is staggering....

Yes, it is!
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
Obviously, you insist it is a force and not curved spacetime in General Relativity. Here's a final reference about orbits in curved space that I think even you can understand: Gravity as Curved Space.
And here's a quote from this Wikipedia article:
Instead of describing the effect of gravitation as a "force", Einstein introduced the concept of curved space-time in which bodies move along curved trajectories.
Obviously, YOU ARE WRONG! Gravity in General Relativity is NOT a force. It's curved space, as I've consistently stated.
I have never said it isn't curved space. I have discussed such things as geodesics many times on these forums.

However, your own link doesn't say "It isn't a force" but that in certain formulations it isn't a force. In Newtonian physics and rotating systems, depending on your description centripetal force is either there or it isn't.

Even in usual Newtonian systems, an object in freefall measures no force (due to the equivalence principle) but is still experiencing a force. This subtley is made more complicated in relativity, I have never denied that (it's an important consideration in the Pound Rebka experiment). Simply saying "It is not a force" without any other caveat is not correct though. Your own sources say so.

As usual, you only see in black and white.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
So? Why make a fool of yourself over his problems?
Oh the irony.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
Okay, here it is again:
For someone who complains so much about a lack of relevent replies that's funny. I asked for you to "Give me a link to a post of mine where I said relativity describes a quantised gravity". That bit you quote of me says nothing of the sort.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
There is no QFT in General Relativity! You only brought up "semi-classical" in an attempt to backpeddle your way out of your mistake. It isn't working!
Yet more evidence you fail to grasp this.

QFT is formulated within a relativistic framework, specifically special relativity. The Lorentzian metric plays a vital role (particularly in such things as polarisation and negative norm states). To go from special to general relativity, classically, you allow the metric to vary and obey the Einstein Field Equations. If you allow this to happen within QFT all heal breaks loose with the equations becoming impossibly hard. However, if you restrict yourself to something like a time varying g_tt component only they you can consider classical GR corrections to QFT. It's a mixture of classical and quantum, hence 'semi-classical'.

There is a huge amount of work in the area of QFT in curved space-times.

Once again, just because you don't know about it doesn't make me wrong. I never claimed gravity in GR was quantised. I know it isn't. I asked you to provide a post of mine where I said otherwise, you didn't. You have now demonstrated you don't understand what putting QFT into a slightly GR background means.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
A hypothetical hodge-podge.
The definition of a term cannot be 'hypothetical'. When someone in physics says "semi-classical" that is what they are referring to. The plethora of links that Google search just found demonstrates this isn't something I just made up.

You're really having trouble accepting this.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
Then why have I been consistently right, and you WRONG?
...
Then why are you so often WRONG?
As I've just demonstrated, you being ignorant of something well known to physics students doesn't make you right.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
Liar! I was very specific as to what was wrong with it. You just couldn't back it up! Obviously then, it is YOU that don't understand relativity. You'll probably STILL argue that gravity is a force and not curved space in General Relativity!
Still having trouble reading what I've said. It must be your method of debate. You read something and then twist the words so that those people who didn't read the original discussion think I said something quite different.

GR is about curved space-time. I haven't said otherwise. This doesn't mean I'm prevented from defining a notion of force within my description if I'm careful about it. It will not be a globally defined definition (few things in GR are), but at any given point in my space-time for a particular object it's possible.

Again, all you see is black or white.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
Good for you, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.
You questioned if I knew any relativity. Thus it's relevent.

Nice avoidance of my challenge. Scared?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
You'll probably STILL argue that gravity is a force and not curved space in General Relativity!
I've never argued that exact claim. You have twisted what I said to claim that's what I said.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
Yes. I've properly predicted lots of outcomes for physical systems.
I've yet to see you do any relativity at all.

Feel free to prove me wrong

Waving your arms and talking in very vague terms isn't 'properly predicting'.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
It doesn't matter who wrote the website. The truth is the truth and wrong is wrong, regardless of the author. It's my job to find logic errors like this. I'm very good at it.
I'm Superman.

Saying it doesn't make it true.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
You still want to test me. You just can't stand not knowing how I predict things so accurately, can you?
I want to test you because you've yet to take up that challenge, despite being asked so many times.

Point me to a post of yours where you've done actual mathematics or answered one of the many such questions I've asked you. You've never done it.

There's nothing for me to 'not stand'. It is more along the lines of you can't stand I keep asking you to put your physics where your mouth is and you can't do it. So now you're just pretending you've done it. Why do you tell a lie you know is so transparent?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
My examples are: How your neutron star reference was falsified. How the LHC would cause earth capture of some nano black holes (should they occur). How the earth couldn't capture cosmic ray induced nano black holes. How in GR, gravity isn't a force, but rather it's curved space.
You never falsified my neutron star reference.

I never claimed that it was impossible for black holes to be gravitational captured. I explained the extremely lengthy odds to meet all the 'ifs' your comments used. Still can't see in anything other than black and white...

I never claimed gravity wasn't curved space-time. Still with black and white.

And your talk about absorption of cosmic ray produced products amounted to ignoring the actual calculations people provided you.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
When did I do that?
Up until you found trhe scalar QED paper which brought into question Unruh radiation (nice attempt at just ignoring the paper I just provided which says precisely the opposite. What's the matter, can't say anything relevent?), you relied on trying to break the link between Hawking radiation and Unruh radiation.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
As usual, I'm right and you're wrong.
Was that an attempt to retort my explaination of why you were incorrect?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
I forget, which one of us keeps using deflection and smilies to deflect the argument?
Yes, at most 5 smilies in a post which makes up 2 or 3 screen lengths is really an effective way to deflect the argument! You can bearly see any text for all the smilies I use. (sarcasm).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
Whatever. Parallel lines can meet, triangles can have more than 180 degrees, blah-de-blah-de-blah.

You probably wouldn't feel the need to "prove your abilities" like this, if you hadn't been caught in so many errors... now would you?
So I demonstrate some understanding and you palm it off with "blah blah blah". That's how you debate. When someone provides evidence against you, you ignore it or consider it 'irrelevent'. Then you claim noone has provided anything against you since everything against you you didnt understand and thus consider 'irrelevent'.

If a very short skim explaination of how to define a force on an object at a particular point in space-time is 'proving my ability', so be it. How else do you think I should discuss GR? By showing no knowledge at all? I guess that's how you manage it.

As usual, your retort is nothing but "I'm going to ignore it". Did big words like"normal coordinates" scare you when you Googled to see what that meant?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
LIAR! YES YOU DID! IT"S IN YOUR OWN WORDS AT THE TOP OF THIS POST!
Where did I say "Gravity isn't curved space-time"?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 24 2007, 01:07 PM)
BACKPEDDLING!
No, an explaination of why the black and white world you see isn't good enough to understand more subtle issues.

*sigh*

Yet another post of yours were you don't demonstrate any relativity knowledge and when I do you just say "irrelevent". You make claims I've said things I never have, even going on to quote posts as evidence which don't back you up!

Any request you put your physics where your mouth is is ignored. For about the 20th time. And yet you claim you can 'accurately predict things in relativity'. Not once have you done so, despite requests.
mott.carl
the hawking radiation would be energy send by the BH,through the "erosion" of it mass,given by the virtual particles,produced in BH,when the photons are distorted
by strongest gravitational force,deforming the vacuum,decaying in positron and electron,when the positron is an electron advancing backward in time,and the electron are positron retarding the field potential,increasing the entropy,and being
absorbed by the BH,but the informations are storing,and turningat the externe, observer,at the event horizon,by the antiparticles,that are produced by the distortion of the spacetimes( curvatures),that are transformed by the spins,that is the metric of the time,through the transformations by rotations(right and left-handed)
Trippy
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 24 2007, 10:41 PM)
For instance, I sat this exam and attained a Distinction in it. Care to have a shot at a few of the questions?

Man... I understand (some) relativity, and have studied (some) relativity, but I don't mind admitting that I got about half way through the first question and (apparently) went cross eyed, started babling incoherrently and frothed at the mouth.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 24 2007, 01:25 PM)
I have never said it isn't curved space. I have discussed such things as geodesics many times on these forums.

You certainly strongly implied it by insisting it's a force and never agreeing with me when I repeatedly stated it's curved space. That's close enough for me to call it.

QUOTE
However, your own link doesn't say "It isn't a force" but that in certain formulations it isn't a force. In Newtonian physics and rotating systems, depending on your description centripetal force is either there or it isn't.

The point is that it's not a force in General Relativity. I never said it could never be described as a force.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE However, your own link doesn't say "It isn't a force" but that in certain formulations it isn't a force. In Newtonian physics and rotating systems, depending on your description centripetal force is either there or it isn't.

The point is that it's not a force in General Relativity. I never said it could never be described as a force.

Even in usual Newtonian systems, an object in freefall measures no force (due to the equivalence principle) but is still experiencing a force. This subtley is made more complicated in relativity, I have never denied that (it's an important consideration in the Pound Rebka experiment). Simply saying "It is not a force" without any other caveat is not correct though. Your own sources say so.

Again, I never said that. The argument is about General Relativity.

QUOTE
As usual, you only see in black and white.

As usual, you only see what you want to see.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE As usual, you only see in black and white.

As usual, you only see what you want to see.

Oh the irony.

Indeed.

QUOTE
For someone who complains so much about a lack of relevent replies that's funny. I asked for you to "Give me a link to a post of mine where I said relativity describes a quantised gravity". That bit you quote of me says nothing of the sort.

In that reply, you compared it to eloctromagnetism (which is properly described in QFT).

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE For someone who complains so much about a lack of relevent replies that's funny. I asked for you to "Give me a link to a post of mine where I said relativity describes a quantised gravity". That bit you quote of me says nothing of the sort.

In that reply, you compared it to eloctromagnetism (which is properly described in QFT).

Yet more evidence you fail to grasp this.

QFT is formulated within a relativistic framework, specifically special relativity. The Lorentzian metric plays a vital role (particularly in such things as polarisation and negative norm states). To go from special to general relativity, classically, you allow the metric to vary and obey the Einstein Field Equations. If you allow this to happen within QFT all heal breaks loose with the equations becoming impossibly hard. However, if you restrict yourself to something like a time varying g_tt component only they you can consider classical GR corrections to QFT. It's a mixture of classical and quantum, hence 'semi-classical'.

There is a huge amount of work in the area of QFT in curved space-times.

Once again, just because you don't know about it doesn't make me wrong. I never claimed gravity in GR was quantised. I know it isn't. I asked you to provide a post of mine where I said otherwise, you didn't. You have now demonstrated you don't understand what putting QFT into a slightly GR background means.

Stop trying to change the subject. I never stated I had a problem with quantum field theory in curved space-times. I stated that gravity was properly described as curved space in General Relativity. "General Relativity" is the subject at hand.

QUOTE
The definition of a term cannot be 'hypothetical'. When someone in physics says "semi-classical" that is what they are referring to. The plethora of links that Google search just found demonstrates this isn't something I just made up.

You're really having trouble accepting this.

I didn't state the term is hypothetical. I stated the application is hypothetical.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The definition of a term cannot be 'hypothetical'. When someone in physics says "semi-classical" that is what they are referring to. The plethora of links that Google search just found demonstrates this isn't something I just made up.You're really having trouble accepting this.

I didn't state the term is hypothetical. I stated the application is hypothetical.

As I've just demonstrated, you being ignorant of something well known to physics students doesn't make you right.

And your use of diversionary tactics doesn't make you right.

QUOTE
Still having trouble reading what I've said. It must be your method of debate. You read something and then twist the words so that those people who didn't read the original discussion think I said something quite different.

I reposted the original discussion. Did you miss it? Want me to do it again?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Still having trouble reading what I've said. It must be your method of debate. You read something and then twist the words so that those people who didn't read the original discussion think I said something quite different.

I reposted the original discussion. Did you miss it? Want me to do it again?

GR is about curved space-time. I haven't said otherwise. This doesn't mean I'm prevented from defining a notion of force within my description if I'm careful about it. It will not be a globally defined definition (few things in GR are), but at any given point in my space-time for a particular object it's possible.

Your assertions were clearly general, otherwise you would've readily agreed with me that it's correct to call gravity curved space in General Relativity, and you wouldn't have continued trying to press your contention that it's a force. You certainly wouldn't have asserted that, "Orbits aren't uniform motion, they are experiencing a force." if you knew that gravity is curved space and tides are the result of curvature gradients (not force).

QUOTE
Again, all you see is black or white.

I see it exactly as it is. I'm not going to let you weasel out of it.

Say it with me now:
"Ubavontuba, you were right. Gravity is curved space in General Relativity."

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Again, all you see is black or white.

I see it exactly as it is. I'm not going to let you weasel out of it.

Say it with me now:
"Ubavontuba, you were right. Gravity is curved space in General Relativity."

You questioned if I knew any relativity. Thus it's relevent.

Even if you did perform as you stated on the test, it only shows you can crunch numbers. You obviously don't understand the principles those numbers represent.

QUOTE
Nice avoidance of my challenge. Scared?

A little.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Nice avoidance of my challenge. Scared?

A little.

I've never argued that exact claim. You have twisted what I said to claim that's what I said.

Yes, you have. Want to go over it again, line by line?

QUOTE
I've yet to see you do any relativity at all.

Feel free to prove me wrong

Waving your arms and talking in very vague terms isn't 'properly predicting'.

I've not been vague. Where have I been vague?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I've yet to see you do any relativity at all.Feel free to prove me wrongWaving your arms and talking in very vague terms isn't 'properly predicting'.

I've not been vague. Where have I been vague?

I'm Superman.

Saying it doesn't make it true.

You're right. You're certainly not Superman.

QUOTE
I want to test you because you've yet to take up that challenge, despite being asked so many times.

Point me to a post of yours where you've done actual mathematics or answered one of the many such questions I've asked you. You've never done it.

There's nothing for me to 'not stand'. It is more along the lines of you can't stand I keep asking you to put your physics where your mouth is and you can't do it. So now you're just pretending you've done it. Why do you tell a lie you know is so transparent?

I'm not pretending anything. I've clearly stated that I'm not going to discuss my methods. Maybe a birdie told me, maybe I have access to a supercomputer, maybe I'm the supercomputer. It's none of your business.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I want to test you because you've yet to take up that challenge, despite being asked so many times.Point me to a post of yours where you've done actual mathematics or answered one of the many such questions I've asked you. You've never done it. There's nothing for me to 'not stand'. It is more along the lines of you can't stand I keep asking you to put your physics where your mouth is and you can't do it. So now you're just pretending you've done it. Why do you tell a lie you know is so transparent?

I'm not pretending anything. I've clearly stated that I'm not going to discuss my methods. Maybe a birdie told me, maybe I have access to a supercomputer, maybe I'm the supercomputer. It's none of your business.

You never falsified my neutron star reference.

It falsified itself. Rpenner corroborated it.

QUOTE
I never claimed that it was impossible for black holes to be gravitational captured. I explained the extremely lengthy odds to meet all the 'ifs' your comments used. Still can't see in anything other than black and white...

You forcefully argued against it.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I never claimed that it was impossible for black holes to be gravitational captured. I explained the extremely lengthy odds to meet all the 'ifs' your comments used. Still can't see in anything other than black and white...

You forcefully argued against it.

I never claimed gravity wasn't curved space-time.

Yes, you did (see above).

QUOTE
Still with black and white.

Sometimes that's all there is.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Still with black and white.

Sometimes that's all there is.

And your talk about absorption of cosmic ray produced products amounted to ignoring the actual calculations people provided you.

Which are wrong for reasons I provided.

QUOTE
Up until you found trhe scalar QED paper which brought into question Unruh radiation (nice attempt at just ignoring the paper I just provided which says precisely the opposite. What's the matter, can't say anything relevent?), you relied on trying to break the link between Hawking radiation and Unruh radiation.

That's not true. You need to go back and reassess the arguments. I never tried to break the link between Unruh radiation and Hawking radiation, you did. I clearly stated one could not exist without the other. So to recap, I reinforced the link and then stated neither has been observed. Your own reference doesn't say otherwise, it merely contends that a lack of observation is irrelevant.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Up until you found trhe scalar QED paper which brought into question Unruh radiation (nice attempt at just ignoring the paper I just provided which says precisely the opposite. What's the matter, can't say anything relevent?), you relied on trying to break the link between Hawking radiation and Unruh radiation.

That's not true. You need to go back and reassess the arguments. I never tried to break the link between Unruh radiation and Hawking radiation, you did. I clearly stated one could not exist without the other. So to recap, I reinforced the link and then stated neither has been observed. Your own reference doesn't say otherwise, it merely contends that a lack of observation is irrelevant.

Was that an attempt to retort my explaination of why you were incorrect?

It was a reply to your retort. It happens to be true.

QUOTE
Yes, at most 5 smilies in a post which makes up 2 or 3 screen lengths is really an effective way to deflect the argument! You can bearly see any text for all the smilies I use. (sarcasm).

You only use them to cover when you've lost the relevant point in the discussion and therefore have nothing relevant to add.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Yes, at most 5 smilies in a post which makes up 2 or 3 screen lengths is really an effective way to deflect the argument! You can bearly see any text for all the smilies I use. (sarcasm).

You only use them to cover when you've lost the relevant point in the discussion and therefore have nothing relevant to add.

So I demonstrate some understanding and you palm it off with "blah blah blah". That's how you debate. When someone provides evidence against you, you ignore it or consider it 'irrelevent'. Then you claim noone has provided anything against you since everything against you you didnt understand and thus consider 'irrelevent'.

That wasn't evidence against me. It was you attempting to backpedal on the curved space issue again.

QUOTE
If a very short skim explaination of how to define a force on an object at a particular point in space-time is 'proving my ability', so be it. How else do you think I should discuss GR? By showing no knowledge at all? I guess that's how you manage it.

As usual, your retort is nothing but "I'm going to ignore it". Did big words like"normal coordinates" scare you when you Googled to see what that meant?

You only started talking about geodesic equations after I slammed you for the curved space issue.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE If a very short skim explaination of how to define a force on an object at a particular point in space-time is 'proving my ability', so be it. How else do you think I should discuss GR? By showing no knowledge at all? I guess that's how you manage it.As usual, your retort is nothing but "I'm going to ignore it". Did big words like"normal coordinates" scare you when you Googled to see what that meant?

You only started talking about geodesic equations after I slammed you for the curved space issue.

Where did I say "Gravity isn't curved space-time"?

See above.

QUOTE
No, an explaination of why the black and white world you see isn't good enough to understand more subtle issues.

Deflection.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE No, an explaination of why the black and white world you see isn't good enough to understand more subtle issues.

Deflection.

*sigh*

Indeed!

QUOTE
Yet another post of yours were you don't demonstrate any relativity knowledge and when I do you just say "irrelevent". You make claims I've said things I never have, even going on to quote posts as evidence which don't back you up!

Ha! Ha! That's funny coming from someone that used a blog entry (that refuted his claims!) as a reference!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Yet another post of yours were you don't demonstrate any relativity knowledge and when I do you just say "irrelevent". You make claims I've said things I never have, even going on to quote posts as evidence which don't back you up!

Ha! Ha! That's funny coming from someone that used a blog entry (that refuted his claims!) as a reference!

Any request you put your physics where your mouth is is ignored. For about the 20th time. And yet you claim you can 'accurately predict things in relativity'. Not once have you done so, despite requests.

Webster's dictionary:
pre-dict: to declare or indicate in advance; esp : foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason.

I don't see any words indicating a mathematical derivation is required. It looks to me like my predictions meet the definition.
ubavontuba
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays!
AlphaNumeric
Ub avoids the request he puts his physics where his mouth is and ignores a long section of my post where I point out and explain that he's consistently lying.

Didn't want to respond to those bits? I wonder why....

Seems pointless continuing with this thread. Every post you come out with a new false claim. For instance :

I said : "I never claimed that it was impossible for black holes to be gravitational captured. I explained the extremely lengthy odds to meet all the 'ifs' your comments used. Still can't see in anything other than black and white..."

You said : "You forcefully argued against it."

Nope. If you reread the thread over in physics news or whatever it is, I went through and explained how each stage of the requirements for the LHC to be a danger increased the odds of such an occurance hugely. It's obviously not impossible. I explained why it's so unlikely. Remember how I commented about things such as "It's possible turning on a light will cause a quantum reaction which destroys the Earth" ? Such things are possible, just as the LHC destroying the Earth. Are either of them 'likely'? No. And that's what I explained.

No wonder you keep saying "I'm always right", you never remember what was said!
ubavontuba
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 26 2007, 04:50 PM)
Ub avoids the request he puts his physics where his mouth is and ignores a long section of my post where I point out and explain that he's consistently lying.

What are you talking about? I didn't ignore any sections and I've been consistent throughout. You're just trying to twist things around and cover up your own blatant lies... by lying again!

QUOTE
Didn't want to respond to those bits? I wonder why....

What are you talking about? I responded to every bit of your post.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Didn't want to respond to those bits? I wonder why....

What are you talking about? I responded to every bit of your post.

Seems pointless continuing with this thread. Every post you come out with a new false claim....

You mean that's what you do. First you claim gravity is a force in General Relativity, then you try to justify it by talking about QFT in curved space-time. You've still yet to admit that I'm right about gravity being curved space in General Relativity!

Really, don't you know anything about General Relativity?

QUOTE
...For instance :

I said : "I never claimed that it was impossible for black holes to be gravitational captured. I explained the extremely lengthy odds to meet all the 'ifs' your comments used. Still can't see in anything other than black and white..."

If they form (as expected by CERN scientists and others), then some will be captured, period. There's no way around it. There's no extension of the odds beyond that.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE ...For instance : I said : "I never claimed that it was impossible for black holes to be gravitational captured. I explained the extremely lengthy odds to meet all the 'ifs' your comments used. Still can't see in anything other than black and white..."

If they form (as expected by CERN scientists and others), then some will be captured, period. There's no way around it. There's no extension of the odds beyond that.

You said : "You forcefully argued against it."

Which you did! Are you denying that?

QUOTE
Nope. If you reread the thread over in physics news or whatever it is, I went through and explained how each stage of the requirements for the LHC to be a danger increased the odds of such an occurance hugely.

Now you've extended it to "being a danger," which is clearly more than "being captured." This is nothing more than a bait and switch ruse, used in an attempt to justify your mistakes through deception.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Nope. If you reread the thread over in physics news or whatever it is, I went through and explained how each stage of the requirements for the LHC to be a danger increased the odds of such an occurance hugely.

Now you've extended it to "being a danger," which is clearly more than "being captured." This is nothing more than a bait and switch ruse, used in an attempt to justify your mistakes through deception.

It's obviously not impossible. I explained why it's so unlikely.

And most of your arguments were against contentions of mine, which have now been corroborated.

QUOTE
Remember how I commented about things such as "It's possible turning on a light will cause a quantum reaction which destroys the Earth" ? Such things are possible, just as the LHC destroying the Earth. Are either of them 'likely'? No. And that's what I explained.

What a lying piece of work you are. As I've explained; experimentally, it can be shown that turning on a light switch is safe. The same cannot be said for the LHC.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Remember how I commented about things such as "It's possible turning on a light will cause a quantum reaction which destroys the Earth" ? Such things are possible, just as the LHC destroying the Earth. Are either of them 'likely'? No. And that's what I explained.

What a lying piece of work you are. As I've explained; experimentally, it can be shown that turning on a light switch is safe. The same cannot be said for the LHC.

No wonder you keep saying "I'm always right", you never remember what was said!

I remember all of it. You're a liar, you've been caught in your lies, and now you're just trying to weasel out of it by lying some more!.

Spreading obviously false and misleading information (like the light switch thing) is completely dishonest and despicable... especially from someone claiming to be a scientist!
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 26 2007, 10:46 PM)
What are you talking about? I didn't ignore any sections and I've been consistent throughout. You're just trying to twist things around and cover up your own blatant lies... by lying again!
What are you talking about? I responded to every bit of your post.

Then answer these questions and show us what you came up with.

QUOTE
You mean that's what you do.  First you claim gravity is a force in General Relativity, then you try to justify it by talking about QFT in curved space-time.  You've still yet to admit that I'm right about gravity being curved space in General Relativity!

It is a force in GR. It's a force that curves space. (cue the victorious music)
Do you need me to email you what Einstein actually said about GR?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You mean that's what you do.  First you claim gravity is a force in General Relativity, then you try to justify it by talking about QFT in curved space-time.  You've still yet to admit that I'm right about gravity being curved space in General Relativity!

It is a force in GR. It's a force that curves space. (cue the victorious music)
Do you need me to email you what Einstein actually said about GR?

Really, don't you know anything about General Relativity?

I bet Farsight knows more about it than you.

QUOTE
I remember all of it.  You're a liar, you've been caught in your lies, and now you're just trying to weasel out of it by lying some more!.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I remember all of it.  You're a liar, you've been caught in your lies, and now you're just trying to weasel out of it by lying some more!.

Spreading obviously false and misleading information (like the light switch thing) is completely dishonest and despicable... especially from someone claiming to be a scientist!

I just want to point out how laughable these claims are.
Yer keeping me in stitches, you fat, old, polka loving drunkard.
Trippy
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 28 2007, 11:06 AM)
I bet Farsight knows more about it than you.

Funny as heck.

As scary as it is funny.

And yet... Probably very true...
Edward 3
I would appreciate your help with this concept of Hawking Radiation. I assume that, if it can escape the gravity of the black hole, the particle must have been formed outside the event horizon and , as such, I do not understand how it can be classified as "black hole radiation" - any more than a particle resulting from a vacuum fluctuation millions of light-years away. My confusion may arise solely from the terminology employed - or is it related to Uncertainty Principle?
ubavontuba
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 27 2007, 10:06 PM)
Then answer these questions and show us what you came up with.

It is a force in GR. It's a force that curves space. (cue the victorious music)
Do you need me to email you what Einstein actually said about GR?
Out of context.

I bet Farsight knows more about it than you.

I just want to point out how laughable these claims are.
Yer keeping me in stitches, you fat, old, polka loving drunkard.

QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 27 2007, 10:41 PM )
Funny as heck.

As scary as it is funny.

And yet... Probably very true...

Personal attacks, is that all you guys have?

You bore me.
Sapo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 28 2007, 05:26 PM)

Personal attacks, is that all you guys have?

You bore me.

I guess your feedback bores you, too. So sorry, it amuses the hell out of me.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Sapo+Dec 28 2007, 11:04 PM)
I guess your feedback bores you, too. So sorry, it amuses the hell out of me.

You still can't think of anything relevant to add to the discussion? How much longer do you need?
Sapo
Derisive remarks about you aren't relevant? Why not?
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Edward 3+Dec 27 2007, 10:49 PM)
I would appreciate your help with this concept of Hawking Radiation. I assume that, if it can escape the gravity of the black hole, the particle must have been formed outside the event horizon and , as such, I do not understand how it can be classified as "black hole radiation" - any more than a particle resulting from a vacuum fluctuation millions of light-years away. My confusion may arise solely from the terminology employed - or is it related to Uncertainty Principle?

Here's a reference for you: Wikipedia: Hawking radiation
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Sapo+Dec 28 2007, 11:42 PM)
Derisive remarks about you aren't relevant? Why not?

This forum topic is titled: "Hawking Radiation, Blackhole Evaporation." Are the derisive remarks relevant to Hawking radiation and black hole evaporation?
Sapo
No, I guess not. You are a tempting target, though.
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 28 2007, 05:26 PM)

Personal attacks, is that all you guys have?

You bore me.

Asking you to answer some questions about physics and offering you a copy of Einsteins pop-science paper constitutes a personal attack? My my, you must be a big hit at the hospital whenever you forget to take your pills.
(That last sentence was, in fact a personal attack. )
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Sapo+Dec 28 2007, 11:53 PM)
No, I guess not. You are a tempting target, though.

Why?

Did you join the forum solely for the purpose of identifying "targets" to harrass? Do you have any interest in physics?

Perhaps you've forgotten what attracted you to this site to begin with?
ubavontuba
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 28 2007, 11:56 PM)
Asking you to answer some questions about physics and offering you a copy of Einsteins pop-science paper constitutes a personal attack? My my, you must be a big hit at the hospital whenever you forget to take your pills.
(That last sentence was, in fact a personal attack.

If that's all you had genuinely done, I'd gladly respond accordingly. But your intent clearly lay elsewhere.
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 28 2007, 07:16 PM)
If that's all you had genuinely done, I'd gladly respond accordingly. But your intent clearly lay elsewhere.

Of course, if you had taken me up on the request, you'd have had the chance to prove me and AN wrong.
But then, my intent was simple, and fulfilled by your refusal to do so: To show you don't know what you're talking about.
Thanks for proving me right, though. And thanks for the neg, I really love it when someone critiques my grammar in a pair of sentences that critiqued their intelligence. It's so much more satisfying than if you'd demonstrated me to be wrong
ubavontuba
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 29 2007, 12:31 AM)
Of course, if you had taken me up on the request, you'd have had the chance to prove me and AN wrong.

QUOTE
But then, my intent was simple, and fulfilled by your refusal to do so: To show you don't know what you're talking about.

Right! Like you'd be able to tell if I was right or not (sarcasm).

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE But then, my intent was simple, and fulfilled by your refusal to do so: To show you don't know what you're talking about.

Right! Like you'd be able to tell if I was right or not (sarcasm).

Thanks for proving me right, though. And thanks for the neg, I really love it when someone critiques my grammar in a pair of sentences that critiqued their intelligence. It's so much more satisfying than if you'd demonstrated me to be wrong

Apparently, you know nothing of physics or grammar. You certainly don't seem capable of discussing the former, and you've certainly demonstrated enough shortcomings with the latter...

Have you looked for a forum for the emotionally immature? You'd fit right in!
Sapo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 28 2007, 07:09 PM)
Why?

Did you join the forum solely for the purpose of identifying "targets" to harrass? Do you have any interest in physics?

Perhaps you've forgotten what attracted you to this site to begin with?

My stated reason for joining this forum after reading drivel, tripe, bagasse, and basura from folks like Zephir, was to either promote discussion of science or to gain a better understanding, without the cranks' additions to the stew. That only some of the fools have been banned, or left of their own volition, is still an encouraging thing. I know Sisyphus, now, and share his toil.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Sapo+Dec 29 2007, 12:55 AM)
My stated reason for joining this forum...was to either promote discussion of science or to gain a better understanding...

Have you been successful?

In what way are you "promoting discussion?"

In what way are you "gaining a better understanding?"

How has harrassing me, without regard to the subject matter at hand, helped?

Have you ever even tried using simple, civil conversation? Have you tried with me? When?
Sapo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 28 2007, 08:02 PM)
Have you been successful?

In what way are you "promoting discussion?"

In what way are you "gaining a better understanding?"

How has harrassing me, without regard to the subject matter at hand, helped?

Have you ever even tried using simple, civil conversation? Have you tried with me? When?

OK. It's a new year, I'll be civil to you. Let's try it again. Got any recipes?
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Sapo+Dec 29 2007, 01:13 AM)
OK. It's a new year, I'll be civil to you. Let's try it again. Got any recipes?

Not me, but my wife's quite the cook/baker. Her cinnamon rolls are awesome!

What science subjects interest you?
Sapo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 28 2007, 08:28 PM)
Not me, but my wife's quite the cook/baker.  Her cinnamon rolls are awesome!

What science subjects interest you?

From Recipe Source:

Trilobite Creole

2 lb fresh trilobites*
1 qt water
1/2 c vegetable oil
3 md yellow onions; chopped
2 lg bell peppers (red, green or
-yellow); chopped
5 celery; chopped fine
10 lg tomatoes; peeled, seeded
2 ts salt
1 ts red pepper; ground
1/2 ts black pepper; ground
1/2 ts white pepper; ground
2 ts dried thyme
2 ts dried basil
1 1/2 ts sugar
5 ea bay leaf
1 c green onions; chopped
1 c parsley; chopped
1 ts tabasco sauce; or more to taste

*If trilobites are out of season or extinct in your area, shrimp or
crawfish may be substituted.

Peel and devein the trilobites. Place heads (if you still have them), and
peels in a small saucepan and add water. Bring to a slow boil over
medium-high heat and boil slowly for 15-20 minutes. Strain and discard the
heads and peels. Retain the stock.

Place the oil in a Dutch oven or other large, heavy pot and place over
medium-high heat. Add the onions, peppers and celery and saute, stirring
often, until the vegetables are very soft, about 45 minutes. Stir in the
simmer. Reduce the heat to medium and let simmer for 2 hours, stirring
occasionally. This is your creole sauce and it can be prepared 1-2 days in
advance and stored in the 'fridge. The flavors improve after sitting a
couple of days.

When you are ready to serve, return the sauce to a simmer and add the
trilobites. Cook until they turn pink, about 7 minutes. Stir in the green
onions and parsley and let cook for 1 minute more. Serve on rice.

========================

Howzat?
ubavontuba
Sounds tasty! If only I could get my time machine working!

Maybe I'll just have to make due with the substitutions.
Sapo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 28 2007, 08:51 PM)
Sounds tasty! If only I could get my time machine working!

Maybe I'll just have to make due with the substitutions.

Dooley noted.
AlphaNumeric
I've spent the last 3 days almost incapacitated from some kind of virus so haven't come online and it doesn't seem to have mattered. Ub is still ignoring anything anyone says to him, unable to do any relativity or quantum mechanics, avoids putting his physics where his mouth is and labels anything which goes against him as "irrelevent" despite his constant use of "You're a chatbot" attempts at insults.

I'm sure he's just dying to say "Did your programmers give you a bug" or some other terrible pun since I've mentioned being ill.

Maybe his time would be better spent piketing the front of CERN, rather than having to reply to so much 'irrelevent' posts here? Or maybe he and Homosapians@risk can get cracking on that book HS@R wanted Ub to help him with?

And thanks for the neg feedback. I work in the physics community and constant have my ideas and comments evaluated by physicists. Where's your published work? Where's your physics ability? Oh yeah, you tuck tail and run when we ask you to prove you can do any kind of physics, then you lie to claim you have!
ubavontuba
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 29 2007, 02:14 PM)
I've spent the last 3 days almost incapacitated from some kind of virus so haven't come online and it doesn't seem to have mattered. Ub is still ignoring anything anyone says to him, unable to do any relativity or quantum mechanics, avoids putting his physics where his mouth is and labels anything which goes against him as "irrelevent" despite his constant use of "You're a chatbot" attempts at insults.

I'm sure he's just dying to say "Did your programmers give you a bug" or some other terrible pun since I've mentioned being ill.

Maybe his time would be better spent piketing the front of CERN, rather than having to reply to so much 'irrelevent' posts here? Or maybe he and Homosapians@risk can get cracking on that book HS@R wanted Ub to help him with?

And thanks for the neg feedback. I work in the physics community and constant have my ideas and comments evaluated by physicists. Where's your published work? Where's your physics ability? Oh yeah, you tuck tail and run when we ask you to prove you can do any kind of physics, then you lie to claim you have!

I'm sorry to hear you've been ill. I hope you're feeling better now.

So, you say you're a physiscist and all you can come up with are personal attacks? What school of science teaches these methods?
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 28 2007, 07:42 PM)

ROFLMAO Maybe you and Parsons should get together and compare delusions. If you had managed to accomplish that, you'd have pos' from people like AN, Me, Dallas, Euler, N O M, and so on and so forth. Not negs.

QUOTE
Right!  Like you'd be able to tell if I was right or not (sarcasm).

I don't need to be able to (and I could for a few of those questions.) because I know you can't answer even one of them correctly. AN could tell you if you got them right, and I know he would, too.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Right!  Like you'd be able to tell if I was right or not (sarcasm).

I don't need to be able to (and I could for a few of those questions.) because I know you can't answer even one of them correctly. AN could tell you if you got them right, and I know he would, too.

Apparently, you know nothing of physics or grammar.  You certainly don't seem capable of discussing the former, and you've certainly demonstrated enough shortcomings with the latter...

ROFLMAO
Yeah, I've NEVER discussed physics on this site. Not once. Don't bother going through my posting history to see whether or not I have. Cause I haven't. ROFLMAO
I wonder how much whining about grammar you'd do if this was a poetry forum.... Your head likely would have exploded by now. Tell me something, have you ever even heard of a concept called "prose?" or maybe "Creative license?"

QUOTE
Have you looked for a forum for the emotionally immature?  You'd fit right in!

Why don't you stop trying to say less with more words and just call me a poopyhead? Flinging mud is all you're really doing, and it's all the more amusing because you're making stupid assumptions and outright lying to have any mud to throw, and when it comes down to it, you accuse ME of being emotionally immature. ROFLMAO You're priceless.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 31 2007, 04:52 PM)
ROFLMAO Maybe you and Parsons should get together and compare delusions. If you had managed to accomplish that, you'd have pos' from people like AN, Me, Dallas, Euler, N O M, and so on and so forth. Not negs.

Actually, most of my contentions have been corroborated... by AlphaNumeric himself!

As for the others you listed (including you), they have no claim to respectability. None have engaged with me in serious discussions on the relevant topics (without resorting to childish antics).

QUOTE
I don't need to be able to (and I could for a few of those questions.) because I know you can't answer even one of them correctly. AN could tell you if you got them right, and I know he would, too.

I'm not interested in being tested. If you want to test me, check the validity of my arguments. Every one of them has merit, and all have been corroborated to various degrees by a number of relatively respected individuals in this forum.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I don't need to be able to (and I could for a few of those questions.) because I know you can't answer even one of them correctly. AN could tell you if you got them right, and I know he would, too.

I'm not interested in being tested. If you want to test me, check the validity of my arguments. Every one of them has merit, and all have been corroborated to various degrees by a number of relatively respected individuals in this forum.

ROFLMAO
Yeah, I've NEVER discussed physics on this site. Not once. Don't bother going through my posting history to see whether or not I have. Cause I haven't.

I don't see that you've included any physics discussions in this post!

QUOTE
ROFLMAO
I wonder how much whining about grammar you'd do if this was a poetry forum.... Your head likely would have exploded by now. Tell me something, have you ever even heard of a concept called "prose?" or maybe "Creative license?"

This is a science site, not a literary site.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE ROFLMAOI wonder how much whining about grammar you'd do if this was a poetry forum.... Your head likely would have exploded by now. Tell me something, have you ever even heard of a concept called "prose?" or maybe "Creative license?"

This is a science site, not a literary site.

Why don't you stop trying to say less with more words and just call me a poopyhead? Flinging mud is all you're really doing, and it's all the more amusing because you're making stupid assumptions and outright lying to have any mud to throw, and when it comes down to it, you accuse ME of being emotionally immature. ROFLMAO You're priceless.

Right, like I'm the one flinging mud. Give me a break. Read aloud what you wrote to me (as if it's something I wrote to you). Then, tell me you aren't slinging mud.

What specific arguments do you have against my contentions? Do you even know enough about the relevant discussions to even have any opinions (beyond childish name-calling)?
AlphaNumeric
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 1 2008, 10:01 AM)
Actually, most of my contentions have been corroborated... by AlphaNumeric himself!

Just because you didn't completely fail to understand your high school physics lessons doesn't mean that your overall claims are correct. As usual, you avoid being specific because if you were it would be obvious that I have disagreed with your main claims repeatedly and have repeatedly had to correct you on many things.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 1 2008, 10:01 AM)
None have engaged with me in serious discussions on the relevant topics (without resorting to childish antics).
You're the guy who called me a chat bot. Not exactly taking the high road, are you? And you've yet to do anything like crunch any numbers or call forth any equations or models. Whenever anyone does to counter your arm waving, you call it 'irrelevent'. The reason for the lack of serious discussion is you. The rest of us manage it just fine in other threads. You're the common denominator.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 1 2008, 10:01 AM)
I'm not interested in being tested. If you want to test me, check the validity of my arguments. Every one of them has merit, and all have been corroborated to various degrees by a number of relatively respected individuals in this forum
'Every one of them'? That's a lie.

And the reason you don't want to be tested is because you don't want to put your physics where your mouth is. You claim to have read quantum theory books, but you cannot name any of them and you cannot do any actual quantum mechanics.

Feel free to prove me wrong.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Jan 1 2008, 02:36 PM)
Just because you didn't completely fail to understand your high school physics lessons doesn't mean that your overall claims are correct. As usual, you avoid being specific because if you were it would be obvious that I have disagreed with your main claims repeatedly and have repeatedly had to correct you on many things.

Sure, you've repeatedly disagreed with me on my contentions, only to have to acknowledge their validity... one, by one. You just hate that, don't you?

I've consistently made the same contentions from day one. What corrections are you talking about? What specific arguments do you still have to bring against my contentions?

Again, thanks for acknowledging that I apparently at least know some physics.

QUOTE
You're the guy who called me a chat bot. Not exactly taking the high road, are you?

Only after you started with the name-calling. Besides I didn't just simply call you a chatbot without cause, I verified it through experiment first. Lately, it's you that keeps bringing this up. I only use it rarely, usually when you're arguments lose context, or you're being particularly impish.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You're the guy who called me a chat bot. Not exactly taking the high road, are you?

Only after you started with the name-calling. Besides I didn't just simply call you a chatbot without cause, I verified it through experiment first. Lately, it's you that keeps bringing this up. I only use it rarely, usually when you're arguments lose context, or you're being particularly impish.

And you've yet to do anything like crunch any numbers or call forth any equations or models. Whenever anyone does to counter your arm waving, you call it 'irrelevent'.

So, how many numbers did you have to crunch to not know gravity is curved space in General Relativity?

QUOTE
The reason for the lack of serious discussion is you. The rest of us manage it just fine in other threads. You're the common denominator.

So, I'm the reason you lose self-control? Isn't that like blaming the victim for the crime?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE The reason for the lack of serious discussion is you. The rest of us manage it just fine in other threads. You're the common denominator.

So, I'm the reason you lose self-control? Isn't that like blaming the victim for the crime?

'Every one of them'? That's a lie.

Elaborate. In which way do you disagree?

QUOTE
And the reason you don't want to be tested is because you don't want to put your physics where your mouth is. You claim to have read quantum theory books, but you cannot name any of them and you cannot do any actual quantum mechanics.

Frustrating how I apparently get it right so easily, isn't it?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE And the reason you don't want to be tested is because you don't want to put your physics where your mouth is. You claim to have read quantum theory books, but you cannot name any of them and you cannot do any actual quantum mechanics.

Frustrating how I apparently get it right so easily, isn't it?

Feel free to prove me wrong.

I've invited you to do a mathematical derivation of my and your various contentions numerous times, why have you failed to do so? Maybe you can't.
Sapo
ubavontuba, maybe y'all should trade recipes, too.
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 1 2008, 04:01 AM)
Actually, most of my contentions have been corroborated... by AlphaNumeric himself!

Still lying? Shame shame...

QUOTE
As for the others you listed (including you), they have no claim to respectability.  None have engaged with me in serious discussions on the relevant topics (without resorting to childish antics).

Oh yes. A person working on his PhD in physics has no clam to respectability in a forum devoted to physics. Neither does a person with a genuine interest in real physics.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE As for the others you listed (including you), they have no claim to respectability.  None have engaged with me in serious discussions on the relevant topics (without resorting to childish antics).

Oh yes. A person working on his PhD in physics has no clam to respectability in a forum devoted to physics. Neither does a person with a genuine interest in real physics.

I'm not interested in being tested.  If you want to test me, check the validity of my arguments.  Every one of them has merit, and all have been corroborated to various degrees by a number of relatively respected individuals in this forum.

Wait... Didn't you just claim that those people I listed don't have any claim to respectability on this forum? Now you claim they're respectable and they've corroborated your claims? Well, we've got one bold-faced lie, and two contradictory statements, all in one post!

QUOTE
I don't see that you've included any physics discussions in this post!

What could I possibly say about your claims that AN hasn't already? Besides, I don't see any actual physics in your posts in this thread, either. Just stupid finger-pointing.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I don't see that you've included any physics discussions in this post!

What could I possibly say about your claims that AN hasn't already? Besides, I don't see any actual physics in your posts in this thread, either. Just stupid finger-pointing.

This is a science site, not a literary site.

Then why all the complaints about my grammar?

QUOTE
Right, like I'm the one flinging mud.  Give me a break.  Read aloud what you wrote to me (as if it's something I wrote to you).  Then, tell me you aren't slinging mud.

I never said I wasn't. Only difference is, I'm not lying and BSing and misinterpreting to get some mud. You're providing me with plenty.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Right, like I'm the one flinging mud.  Give me a break.  Read aloud what you wrote to me (as if it's something I wrote to you).  Then, tell me you aren't slinging mud.

I never said I wasn't. Only difference is, I'm not lying and BSing and misinterpreting to get some mud. You're providing me with plenty.

What specific arguments do you have against my contentions?  Do you even know enough about the relevant discussions to even have any opinions (beyond childish name-calling)?

What contentions? All you've done in this thread is accuse AN of not knowing anything about physics, and complain about HawkingBrain. Where's the model in that? Where's the physics in that? Where's the common sense in that? You're only qualification to talk about physics is an interest in physics, AN's qualifications include hundreds of hours spent learning about physics and a pending PhD in physics. Call me crazy, but if asked to choose between the two of you, I'd pick AN every single time.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Jan 3 2008, 05:16 PM)
Still lying? Shame shame...

Believe it, or not... what you think, won't change the truth of it.

QUOTE
Oh yes. A person working on his PhD in physics has no clam to respectability in a forum devoted to physics. Neither does a person with a genuine interest in real physics.

What's any of that to do with what I said about respectability?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Oh yes. A person working on his PhD in physics has no clam to respectability in a forum devoted to physics. Neither does a person with a genuine interest in real physics.

What's any of that to do with what I said about respectability?

Wait... Didn't you just claim that those people I listed don't have any claim to respectability on this forum? Now you claim they're respectable and they've corroborated your claims? Well, we've got one bold-faced lie, and two contradictory statements, all in one post!

I said "relatively respected individuals." The people on your list do not meet the criteria.

QUOTE

Obviously, nothing.

QUOTE (->

Obviously, nothing.

Besides, I don't see any actual physics in your posts in this thread, either. Just stupid finger-pointing.

I asked you to list your arguments with my contentions. You couldn't come up with a single relevant discussion. It seems these personality debates are all you have. Do they somehow make you feel important and relevant? You're not.

QUOTE
Then why all the complaints about my grammar?

An educated person should be able to write and spell with a reasonable proficiency.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Then why all the complaints about my grammar?

An educated person should be able to write and spell with a reasonable proficiency.

I never said I wasn't. Only difference is, I'm not lying and BSing and misinterpreting to get some mud. You're providing me with plenty.

Have you found a website for the emotionally immature yet? Hurry!

QUOTE
What contentions? All you've done in this thread is accuse AN of not knowing anything about physics, and complain about HawkingBrain.

I'm not the one that would turn every single interesting thread in this forum into a personality debate... however within reason, I will defend myself. AlphaNumeric and I have been arguing this and related topics, in multiple threads, over an extended amount of time. Catch up, will you?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE What contentions? All you've done in this thread is accuse AN of not knowing anything about physics, and complain about HawkingBrain.

I'm not the one that would turn every single interesting thread in this forum into a personality debate... however within reason, I will defend myself. AlphaNumeric and I have been arguing this and related topics, in multiple threads, over an extended amount of time. Catch up, will you?

Where's the model in that? Where's the physics in that? Where's the common sense in that?

My very first post in this topic was purely about physics. Did you miss it? Did you forget about the one where I answered a question you couldn't, concerning antimatter?

QUOTE
You're only qualification to talk about physics is an interest in physics, AN's qualifications include hundreds of hours spent learning about physics and a pending PhD in physics.

So you think "qualifications" means someone can create the truth by his word? Science doesn't work like that.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE You're only qualification to talk about physics is an interest in physics, AN's qualifications include hundreds of hours spent learning about physics and a pending PhD in physics.

So you think "qualifications" means someone can create the truth by his word? Science doesn't work like that.

Call me crazy,

Okay, you're crazy!

QUOTE
but if asked to choose between the two of you, I'd pick AN every single time.

Then you'd simply be wrong alongside him.

This is quickly getting boring. Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?

More importantly, can you add anything relevant to the discussion?
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 3 2008, 11:37 PM)
Believe it, or not... what you think, won't change the truth of it.

The truth of it is that you're lying, and nothing I say will change that: so we actually agree on something.

QUOTE
What's any of that to do with what I said about respectability?

Oh. My. God. You're. Dumb.
It has everything to do with it. You imply that AN (a student of physics who almost has his PhD) has no respectability on a forum dedicated to physics.....

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE What's any of that to do with what I said about respectability?

Oh. My. God. You're. Dumb.
It has everything to do with it. You imply that AN (a student of physics who almost has his PhD) has no respectability on a forum dedicated to physics.....

I said "relatively respected individuals."  The people on your list do not meet the criteria.

Yet amazingly, by the only measure of respect possible on this forum short of a popularity contest (feedback score,) they beat you hands down with the sole exception of Dallas.

QUOTE
I asked you to list your arguments with my contentions.  You couldn't come up with a single relevant discussion.  It seems these personality debates are all you have.  Do they somehow make you feel important and relevant?  You're not.

Oh, I dunno. I fail to see how a person commenting on the level of intelligence, logic and physics knowledge of a person posting in a physics forum is irrelevant.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I asked you to list your arguments with my contentions.  You couldn't come up with a single relevant discussion.  It seems these personality debates are all you have.  Do they somehow make you feel important and relevant?  You're not.

Oh, I dunno. I fail to see how a person commenting on the level of intelligence, logic and physics knowledge of a person posting in a physics forum is irrelevant.

An educated person should be able to write and spell with a reasonable proficiency.

Which I do. Once again, ever heard of "creative license" or "prose?"

QUOTE
Have you found a website for the emotionally immature yet?  Hurry!

Funny how you think criticisms of you are irrelevant, but criticisms of me are relevant. Hypocritical much?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Have you found a website for the emotionally immature yet?  Hurry!

Funny how you think criticisms of you are irrelevant, but criticisms of me are relevant. Hypocritical much?

I'm not the one that would turn every single interesting thread in this forum into a personality debate...

Yet you're doing so as we speak... You've been doing so in almost every interaction with AN you've had, too.

QUOTE
AlphaNumeric and I have been arguing this and related topics, in multiple threads, over an extended amount of time.  Catch up, will you?

In case you hadn't noticed, there's this handy little link on everyone's profile here, that looks like this: Find all posts by this member
and I use it often. Apparently, you don't, because when I pointed out (through the use of sarcasm) that I discuss physics quite often around here, you claimed that I haven't done so in this thread. By the way, you still haven't, either.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE AlphaNumeric and I have been arguing this and related topics, in multiple threads, over an extended amount of time.  Catch up, will you?

In case you hadn't noticed, there's this handy little link on everyone's profile here, that looks like this: Find all posts by this member
and I use it often. Apparently, you don't, because when I pointed out (through the use of sarcasm) that I discuss physics quite often around here, you claimed that I haven't done so in this thread. By the way, you still haven't, either.

My very first post in this topic was purely about physics.  Did you miss it?

Right. It was a question asked of someone you've demonstrated little respect for. And your second (and each subsequent post) was a personal argument with either me, Sapo, or AN.

QUOTE
Did you forget about the one where I answered a question you couldn't, concerning antimatter?

ROFLMAO "Couldn't" and "Didn't" aren't synonymous, ya friggan mo'.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Did you forget about the one where I answered a question you couldn't, concerning antimatter?

ROFLMAO "Couldn't" and "Didn't" aren't synonymous, ya friggan mo'.

So you think "qualifications" means someone can create the truth by his word?  Science doesn't work like that.

No. And I've said nothing to indicate that I think that. That's a pretty little straw man you've got, there.

QUOTE
Then you'd simply be wrong alongside him.

Prove it
Considering you lack even a claim to an education in physics, if you want to say someone like AN is wrong about something, you'd better have some damn good proof. It's kinda like me telling you that you're wrong about some aspects of polka and beer.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Then you'd simply be wrong alongside him.

Prove it
Considering you lack even a claim to an education in physics, if you want to say someone like AN is wrong about something, you'd better have some damn good proof. It's kinda like me telling you that you're wrong about some aspects of polka and beer.

This is quickly getting boring.  Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?

QUOTE
More importantly, can you add anything relevant to the discussion?

Yup A lot more than you, I'd bet.
ubavontuba
BigDumbWeirdo,

Still couldn't think of anything relevant to add to the discussion? How much longer do you need?

QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Jan 4 2008, 08:05 PM)
It has everything to do with it. You imply that AN (a student of physics who almost has his PhD) has no respectability on a forum dedicated to physics.....

You got a problem understanding English? I excluded AlphaNumeric from my statement regarding respectability.

QUOTE
And your second (and each subsequent post) was a personal argument with either me, Sapo, or AN.

I didn't initiate these arguments.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE And your second (and each subsequent post) was a personal argument with either me, Sapo, or AN.

I didn't initiate these arguments.

"Couldn't" and "Didn't" aren't synonymous,

With you, they seem to be.

QUOTE
...I've said nothing to indicate that I think that. That's a pretty little straw man you've got, there.

Here's proof:
...if you want to say someone like AN is wrong about something, you'd better have some damn good proof. -BigDumbWeirdo
Why should my burden of proof be any different than his? Facts are facts. They do not change in regards to one's claims to an education.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE ...I've said nothing to indicate that I think that. That's a pretty little straw man you've got, there.

Here's proof:
...if you want to say someone like AN is wrong about something, you'd better have some damn good proof. -BigDumbWeirdo
Why should my burden of proof be any different than his? Facts are facts. They do not change in regards to one's claims to an education.

Prove it
Considering you lack even a claim to an education in physics, if you want to say someone like AN is wrong about something, you'd better have some damn good proof.

Been there, done that.
BigDumbWeirdo
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 4 2008, 09:00 PM)
You got a problem understanding English?  I excluded AlphaNumeric from my statement regarding respectability.

You're right. I should have said "You imply that Euler (a student of physics who almost has his PhD) has no respectability on a forum dedicated to physics..... "
You could substitute Dallas, too.... The statement holds true.

QUOTE
I didn't initiate these arguments.

Ever heard the old expression, "It takes two to tango?"

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE I didn't initiate these arguments.

Ever heard the old expression, "It takes two to tango?"

With you, they seem to be.

That doesn't make any sense. You'll have to express yourself clearly.

QUOTE
Here's proof:
...if you want to say someone like AN is wrong about something, you'd better have some damn good proof.  -BigDumbWeirdo
Why should my burden of proof be any different than his?  Facts are facts.  They do not change in regards to one's claims to an education.

Because AN has spent the time, money and energy to earn our respect as a physicist. You have not.
Because of all this time, money and energy spent, we all have reason to accept at face value claims AN makes about physics. You have provided no such reason. Now, if AN makes a claim that can be verified by physical evidence, or papers published in a peer-reviewed, respected journal of physics, then the amount and quality of any evidence you bring forth to refute him had better be impressive, lest it fail to achieve anything. Comprende ahora?

Every word of this argument between us could have been avoided if you had simply answered the questions posed to you by both AN and myself correctly. By choosing to argue the point rather than prove it, you are providing a very clear indication of the credence you give to your own abilities in physics. If you had answered them incorrectly, it would have at least demonstrated a level of sincerity that arguing with me doesn't. Oh, and just for the record...

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Here's proof:...if you want to say someone like AN is wrong about something, you'd better have some damn good proof.  -BigDumbWeirdoWhy should my burden of proof be any different than his?  Facts are facts.  They do not change in regards to one's claims to an education.

Because AN has spent the time, money and energy to earn our respect as a physicist. You have not.
Because of all this time, money and energy spent, we all have reason to accept at face value claims AN makes about physics. You have provided no such reason. Now, if AN makes a claim that can be verified by physical evidence, or papers published in a peer-reviewed, respected journal of physics, then the amount and quality of any evidence you bring forth to refute him had better be impressive, lest it fail to achieve anything. Comprende ahora?

Every word of this argument between us could have been avoided if you had simply answered the questions posed to you by both AN and myself correctly. By choosing to argue the point rather than prove it, you are providing a very clear indication of the credence you give to your own abilities in physics. If you had answered them incorrectly, it would have at least demonstrated a level of sincerity that arguing with me doesn't. Oh, and just for the record...

SO IF MASS = ENERGY, AND AS MASS IN CONVERTED TO RADIATION, AND ANTI MATTER WHY DOES ANTI MATTER HOLD MORE ENERGY THAN MATTER ITSELF? a violation of the 2nd law .

It doesn't. Antimatter does not hold more energy per particle than normal matter, nor are there more anti-particles than normal particles in the universe.
Also, I don't know why one would say "as mass [is] converted to radiation and anti-matter" in this sense, because matter is not being converted into anti-matter, but into photons.
The only reason I even bothered to respond to that question is because -in re-reading it- I discovered another flaw in it that has not been mentioned by anyone thus far, and therefore was able to demonstrate my own understanding of physics without you being able to accuse me of copying your own, partially correct answer.

As I've explained before, as AN has explained before: The question is not valid. Don't think for one second that "Antimatter/matter annihlation is just the most efficient way to release the bound energy in mass." has anything to do with the question, unless there was some hidden subtext that only you are privy to. You responded to an invalid question by pointing out it's invalidity, then go on to give an equally invalid elaboration. Smooth move there, oh master of physics. Way to educate.
Oh yeah, and you know what else I see in your inapplicable answer? An obvious misspelling. Ouch.

So much for your whining about my inability to contribute to this discussion. There's no discussion to contribute to. Only a lecture, with the students stupidly questioning the professor's knowledge, without any knowledge of their own with which to compare his. Remember this?
QUOTE
You argued that gravity is a classical force in General Relativity!

Gravity is and always has been treated as a classical force in general relativity. QM and the theorizing of the graviton are where gravity begins to be quantized.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Jan 5 2008, 06:15 AM)
You're right. I should have said "You imply that Euler (a student of physics who almost has his PhD) has no respectability on a forum dedicated to physics..... "
You could substitute Dallas, too.... The statement holds true.

Even though you put Euler on a list of people who've given me negative feedback, he hasn't done so. Judging from a forum search for both our names, and searching Euler's posting history, I don't think we've even had any contact. So I'll add him to my excluded list along with AlphaNumeric (he didn't even meet the criteria of your list!). as for Dallas (banned from PhysOrg, rejoined using "One Tequilla") on the other hand, he hasn't engaged with me in serious discussions on the relevant topics (without resorting to childish antics). Therefore, he has no claim to respectability.

QUOTE
Ever heard the old expression, "It takes two to tango?"

One must lead. Besides, most of my "arguments" were me simply asking you if you had anything relevant to contribute to the discussion, remember?

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Ever heard the old expression, "It takes two to tango?"

One must lead. Besides, most of my "arguments" were me simply asking you if you had anything relevant to contribute to the discussion, remember?

That doesn't make any sense. You'll have to express yourself clearly.

With you, "couldn't" and "didn't" seem to be synonymous. This is in regards to your apparent inability to answer a simple question.

QUOTE
Because AN has spent the time, money and energy to earn our respect as a physicist. You have not.  Because of all this time, money and energy spent, we all have reason to accept at face value claims AN makes about physics. You have provided no such reason. Now, if AN makes a claim that can be verified by physical evidence, or papers published in a peer-reviewed, respected journal of physics, then the amount and quality of any evidence you bring forth to refute him had better be impressive, lest it fail to achieve anything. Comprende ahora?

What are you talking about? AlphaNumeric has never provided any decent references in our discussions. Nor, has he made any statements that were verifiable through such references. In fact, the opposite is generally the case.

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE Because AN has spent the time, money and energy to earn our respect as a physicist. You have not.  Because of all this time, money and energy spent, we all have reason to accept at face value claims AN makes about physics. You have provided no such reason. Now, if AN makes a claim that can be verified by physical evidence, or papers published in a peer-reviewed, respected journal of physics, then the amount and quality of any evidence you bring forth to refute him had better be impressive, lest it fail to achieve anything. Comprende ahora?

What are you talking about? AlphaNumeric has never provided any decent references in our discussions. Nor, has he made any statements that were verifiable through such references. In fact, the opposite is generally the case.

Every word of this argument between us could have been avoided if you had simply answered the questions posed to you by both AN and myself correctly. By choosing to argue the point rather than prove it, you are providing a very clear indication of the credence you give to your own abilities in physics. If you had answered them incorrectly, it would have at least demonstrated a level of sincerity that arguing with me doesn't. Oh, and just for the record...

Showing math proves I know something besides math?

As I wrote in my signature: "If you can't describe physics by simply stating what happens given certain conditions, you can't describe physics!"

QUOTE
Gravity is and always has been treated as a classical force in general relativity. QM and the theorizing of the graviton are where gravity begins to be quantized.

No it isn't! General Relativity is a classical definition of gravity, but it's not a force in General Relativity. It's curved space-time.
Trippy
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 6 2008, 02:24 PM)
As I wrote in my signature: "If you can't describe physics by simply stating what happens given certain conditions, you can't describe physics!"

Give over.

You don't even understand classical physics, something you've demonstrated yourself to be inept at on more then one occassion.bet he asks for proof
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 6 2008, 06:46 AM)
Give over.

You don't even understand classical physics, something you've demonstrated yourself to be inept at on more then one occassion.bet he asks for proof

Ha! Ha! Ha!

That's simply histerical, especially from you. You've gotten it wrong so badly, so many times, that any examples you might provide would thusly be tainted with your own misconceptions. To you, it's ironclad. To someone that knows, it's laughable. This is exactly why Rpenner and AlphaNumeric repeatedly refused to come to your defense.
Trippy
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 6 2008, 09:54 PM)
Ha! Ha! Ha!

That's simply histerical, especially from you. You've gotten it wrong so badly, so many times, that any examples you might provide would thusly be tainted with your own misconceptions. To you, it's ironclad. To someone that knows, it's laughable. This is exactly why Rpenner and AlphaNumeric repeatedly refused to come to your defense.

You seem to have forgotten that EVERY calculation I have done - bar one has been born out by PEER REVIEWED LITERATURE. seriously, how does he turn his computer on each day?

The only one that hasn't was my residual velocity calculation, and IF that's wrong, I can point to the EXACT place in my working where I screwed up (a point I made at the time).

Meanwhile, on your side we've got a bunch of what... Conjecture, speculation, and armwaving, not backed up by any tangible facts, and all based on the assumption that all the known laws of physics are wrong.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 6 2008, 09:30 AM)
You seem to have forgotten that EVERY calculation I have done - bar one has been born out...

Then why do you think the earth is a preferred rest frame for the collision result? Also, what was that thing about 7.5%?

QUOTE
Meanwhile, on your side we've got a bunch of what...  Conjecture, speculation, and armwaving, not backed up by any tangible facts, and all based on the assumption that all the known laws of physics are wrong.

Actually, all of my contentions are based on the laws of physics, as known. It's that I understand them and you don't, that confuses you.
Trippy
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 6 2008, 10:42 PM)
Then why do you think the earth is a preferred rest frame for the collision result?  Also, what was that thing about 7.5%?

Actually, all of my contentions are based on the laws of physics, as known.  It's that I understand them and you don't, that confuses you.

It was never 7.5% ya friggan mo!

The figure you're talking about was based on a series of approximations, which I detailed in the very same post, the approximations were made based on a lack of figures (something I imagine you know nothing about - figures that is), and I then went on to do a more accurate calculation that was based on more accurate approximations.

Ironicaly, you argue against approximations that work in your favour. So tell me when I state "Making these approximations, using these figures, and doing this calculation, we arrive at this result" where precisely is the problem? Idiot.

And as for theis BS about the earth being a preferred frame of reference. You never were able to back that up, or provide any figures that contradicted me.

And you don't understand them, that's the problem. You contended that dropping an asteroid on the earth from gravitational infinity somehow violated the conservation of energy. I explained why you were wrong in words, and you blustered on and on and on, in a way that made it readily transparent that you had precisely no clue what you were actually talking about, so I did the calculas, and provided a FULL working. You claimed the calculas was wrong, and demanded I feed it numbers, so I did, and then after an extended silence, you segued onto a completely different topic, claiming that, some how, dropping large objects towards each other from gravitational infinity had something to do with Hawking Radiation.
mott.carl
is possible that the hawking radiation be linked to the discrete energy states;this is
with multiples wave functions,non-continuos,that does appear the spacetimes,as formed "granular" waves.that are the tachyons,that when observed into of the
4-dimensional relativistic spacetime,generate continuos wave functions,that does
the lenght contraction and time dilatations,be been as relations of discrete and continue waves,through spontaneous symmetry breaking-pt spectral series,with
noncommutative properties,that measure the discreteness in the spacetime,to
orderer the events.by that reason the observers are very important to measure
the physical events,because some spacetime regions,already neear the speed of light,are discontinuos,and non-completely smoothies.the 4-dimension,the time,carry these properties to speeds near the speed of light.then there occur the
brekdown of symetries in 4-dimensions,that must be restaured in dimensions greater than 4,explaining the "continuity" of the spacetime,through the lenght contraction and time dilatation,through of the reversion of the operator,PT,in 5-dimension
in 4-dimensions,is impossible occur the phenomenons of the spatial contraction and temporal dilatation
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 6 2008, 09:51 AM)
It was never 7.5%...!

Close enough for you to be embarrassed by it.

QUOTE
(something I imagine you know nothing about - figures that is)

I like a nice figure!

QUOTE (->
 QUOTE (something I imagine you know nothing about - figures that is)

I like a nice figure!

where precisely is the problem?

Where to start!

QUOTE
And as for theis BS about the earth being a preferred frame of reference.  You never were able to back that up, or provide any figures that contradicted me.

If you knew anything about collisions and relativity, this would be obvious. Here's an illustration:

Shoot a pea off a basketball with a .22. Tell me if the collision result is at rest with the basketball.
Trippy
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 6 2008, 11:05 PM)
Close enough for you to be embarrassed by it.

(Remaining irrelevant BS snipped for brevity)

Don't you ever get sick of the taste of #### in your own mouth?

I'm not embarresed by it.

I knew it would be erroneous before I posted it, but I posted it anyway, because it seemed like a good starting point.

And I seem to recall it being closer to 18% Saying that 7.5 is close to 18 is like saying that your IQ is nearly as high as average.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 6 2008, 10:14 AM)
And I seem to recall it being closer to 18%

Would you care to make a bet on it?
NeoNo.1
According to Stephen Hawking himself, an inspiration came to him before going to bed one evening in 1970 (getting into bed is a rather slow process with his disability). He suddenly realized that since nothing can escape from a black hole, the area of the event horizon might stay the same or increase with time but it could never decrease. In fact, the area would increase whenever matter or radiation fell into the black hole. This non-decreasing behavior of a black hole's area was very reminiscent to that of entropy, which measures the degree of disorder in a system. One can create order out of disorder, but that requires expenditure of effort or energy such that there is an overall increase in disorder. In simple mathematical terms these statements can be expressed in differential forms as:
m dm = k dA ---------- (16a) for the black hole (since A rs2 m2 from the Schwarzschild's solution),

where m is the mass of the black hole, A is the area of the event horizon, and k is a proportional constant;

dE = T dS ---------- (16b) for the entropy,

where E is the energy, T is the temperature, and S is the entropy.

Since mass and energy are equivalent, we can equate Eqs.(16a) and (16b) to obtain:

dS = K dA / ( m T ) ---------- (16c)

where K is a new proportional constant. This equation implies that the area of the event horizon A is a measure of the entropy S of the black hole. Furthermore, the black hole is associated with a temperature T, and should emits radiation as any hot body. Thus, the black hole is not completely closed to the universe outside. It turns out that vacuum fluctuations at the edge of the event horizon may allow one member of the virtual particle / anti-particle pair to fall inside with negative energy; while the other escapes as a real particle with a positive energy according to the law of energy conservation. This is known as Hawking radiation (see Figure 09u); it is the first successful attempt to combine general relativity and quantum theory. The flow of negative energy (or mass) into the black hole would reduce its mass. As the black hole loses mass, the area of its event horizon gets smaller, but this decrease in the entropy of the black hole is more than compensated for by the entropy of the emitted radiation, so that the second law of thermodynamics is never violated. If we demand that in Eq.(16c) dS dA as stated originally (actually, it can be shown that S = (kBc3/4G) x A), then T 1 / m, and the rate of radiation L can be expressed as L rs2T4 1 / m2. Therefore, as the black hole loses mass, its temperature and rate of emission increase, then it lose mass even more quickly (Figure 09v). What happens when the mass of the black hole eventually becomes extremely small is not quite clear, but the most reasonable guess is that it would disappear completely in a tremendous final burst of emission.

It can be shown that the temperature T associated with the thermal radiation for a black hole is:

T = 0.6 x 10-7 msun / m (in degrees Kelvin)

where msun is the mass of the Sun. If the Sun is reduced to a black hole, its temperature would be just about 10-7 oK. On the other hand, there might be primordial black holes with a very much smaller mass that were made by the collapse of irregularities in the very early stages of the universe. Those with masses greater 1015 gm could have survived to the present day. They would have the size of a proton (~ 10-13cm) and a temperature of 1011 oK. At this temperature they would emit photons, neutrinos, and gravitons in profusion; they would radiate thermally at an ever increasing rate, and sending out X rays and gamma rays to be discovered. The lifetime of a black hole is roughly equal to = m / L = 10-35 m3 year, where m is in gm. This makes an ordinary mass black hole (m ~ 2x1033 gm for the Sun) live for a long time and its radiation unobservable.
This phenomenon of Hawking radiation also occurs in the event horizon created by an accelerating observer. Figure 09w shows that light ray emitted at certain distance can never catch up with the observer and thus an event horizon exists beyond which the observer cannot communicate. Theoretical arguement suggests that even in empty space, the observer will be able to detect radiation from the event horizon. A simple formula is derived to express the relationship between the acceleration a and the temperature T: T = a (/2kBc). It is suggested that members of the correlated virtual photon pairs are separated by the event horizon. As a result part of the information is missing, the observer detects random motion associated with the temperature. In this case the energy is extracted from the acceleration, which according to general relativity, is equivalent to gravitation.
Black hole and information:

....

Ok...

Only if it is true, if white holes exist. Simply done...
..and they should. If we are to beleieve that particles and antipartiners are time-reversed, then if Hawking decaliars their existences, then SO MUST white holes, for they are the time-reversed entities.
Trippy
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 6 2008, 11:26 PM)
Would you care to make a bet on it?

No, because:

1) I don't care, and
2) It's completely irrelevant to anything, especially given that I have since offered more accurate figures.

You know, usually when someone who studies science offers a set of figures with the caveat "These figures are inaccurate for the following reasons" and then a little while later offers a second set of figures with the caveat "These figures are more accurate, but still inaccurate for the following reasons" the more accurate figures supercede the less accurate ones, and the less accurate ones are discarded.

It's pulling this sort of #### that's one of the reasons why people despise you.
ubavontuba
QUOTE (Trippy+Jan 6 2008, 08:14 PM)
No, because:

1) I don't care, and
2) It's completely irrelevant to anything, especially given that I have since offered more accurate figures.

You know, usually when someone who studies science offers a set of figures with the caveat "These figures are inaccurate for the following reasons" and then a little while later offers a second set of figures with the caveat "These figures are more accurate, but still inaccurate for the following reasons" the more accurate figures supercede the less accurate ones, and the less accurate ones are discarded.

It's pulling this sort of #### that's one of the reasons why people despise you.

It didn't go down like that at all.

It's your irascible demeanor, irreformable arrogance, and irremediable ignorance that makes you so spiteful.
Trippy
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Jan 7 2008, 11:04 AM)
blah blah blah

*Yawn*

CHange the tune.

Yeah it did go down like that.

here.

Note the second to last sentence of the post.

QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 5 2007, 08:43 PM)
Calculations treat atoms as a solid sphere.

And while you're at it, note that the figure is 17.7%

You stated 7.5%, and I said I remembered it being a lot closer to 18%
I wish I had taken that bet now. Oh well.

And then note here where I state:

QUOTE (Trippy+Sep 7 2007, 09:43 PM)
Of course, using the Ionic radius mprobably isn't that accurate, given that atoms themselves are mostly empty space.

And I'm fairly sure that I stated elsewhere in that thread, after I derived the figure of 99.999997% that that was treating the nucleus as a solid sphere, rather then a pile of marbles, because treating it as a pile of marbles requires knowledge of how the marbles are stacked - as any mineralologist will tell you, the free space in any pile of spheres depends on how those spheres are stacked, more over, it's dependedent upon some very new and slightly controversial theories on nuclear shells. I also pointed out that it worked in your favour by reducing the free space in the nucleus, rather then enabling the possibility of the blackhole sliding between quarks and nucleons un noticed. I also stated in a later calculation that I was assuming that impact with a nucleus resulted in a feeding event, and the black hole consuming an entire nucleons worth of mass and energy - a scenario that is highly unlikely given that black holes are intrinsically messy eaters.

So here we see that Ubavontuba is wrong... Yet again.
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.