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.
What happens to the kinetic energy of the infalling particles?
I'm not sure.
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
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
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.
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.
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?
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...
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...
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?
Wouldn't this energy have to be combined with the black hole? Couldn't it conceivably cancel out the energy loss to Hawking radiation?
Yes, it might.
QUOTE (HawkingBrain+Dec 10 2007, 09:06 PM)
Yes, it might.
HawkingBrain,
Is that all you have to say about it? Can you elaborate?
HawkingBrain,
Is that all you have to say about it? Can you elaborate?
So HawkingBrain,
All show and no substance? Why am I not surprised?
All show and no substance? Why am I not surprised?
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?
Yeah, so? What's that got to do with my question?
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.
A black hole theorem that doesn't mention the kinetic energy you just admitted gets added to the black hole!
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.
I know I put it around here someplace!
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?
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?
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!
N(Y)7=ty5^Y
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
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
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 14 2007, 01:43 AM)
So HawkingBrain,
All show and no substance? Why am I not surprised?
This, from you?
All show and no substance? Why am I not surprised?
This, from you?
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?
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 .
a violation of the 2nd law .
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 .
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...
a violation of the 2nd law . Somebody needs to point Dallas to this. He could get 3 or 4 new entries for his list...
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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?
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.
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.
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.
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!
Maybe in trying to puff up your own importance, you're arguing over his head?
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.
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.
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?
That's a nice back story, for a chatbot.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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....
from Dictionary.com:
from Dictionary.com:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
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.
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....
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)
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:
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
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)
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.
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
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!
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.
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.
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
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
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.
My God, what have you done said? Just don't bring no damn spurs.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Dec 15 2007, 07:19 PM)
Importance is relative.
Self importance (a.k.a. puffery) is wholly unattractive.
Don't hero worship this weasel. He knows a lot less than he pretends.
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...?
Point taken.
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.
All valid questions.
All valid questions.
It's not going to get an answer,
Why not? Why answer at all then?
He doesn't seem to be objecting to my answer.
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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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
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?
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?
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?
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!
WHAT EVIDENCE? When? What have I not addressed? BE SPECIFIC.
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?
"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!
"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.
Is this a test? This is used to describe the curvature of GR space, not to define it as a force.
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.
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.
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.... >_>
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.... >_>
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.
I've often thought something similar.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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'.
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.
...check this link out: http://universe-review.ca/R15-17-relativity.htm
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.
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.
...check this link out: http://universe-review.ca/R15-17-relativity.htm
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.
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).
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).
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?
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?
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?
Watch it with the short jokes! (sarcasm)
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.
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!
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?
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?
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!
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?
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?
No more than you turning every argument into a personality debate, rather than keeping the discussion relevant to the topic.
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.
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!
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?
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?
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=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!
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?
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!
Okay, you guys got me. I am a fat guy, and I do like polka. Don't forget the beer!
Or the nuts, either. 
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."
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.
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.
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?
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?)
You can figure out what my point is, but not see it... How bizarre....
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Hawking radiation : Semi-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.
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
Hawking radiation : Semi-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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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....
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....
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
Hawking radiation : Semi-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:
Maxwell's Electromagnetism : Classical
General and Special Relativity : Classical
Electrodynamics : Classical
Quantum mechanics : Non-classical
Quantum Field theory : Non-classical
Hawking radiation : Semi-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
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
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:
Has it worked?
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?
Okay, here it is again:
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
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!
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.
Then why have I been consistently right, and you WRONG?
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?
Good for you, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Good for you, but it's irrelevant to the discussion.
Your reasons amounted to "I don't understand relativity, therefore your link is wrong".
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!
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.
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!
When did I do that?
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.
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.
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?
Do you get it wrong there too? Are you sure? How do you know?
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.
Yes. I've properly predicted lots of outcomes for physical systems.
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?
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."
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?
As usual, I'm right and you're wrong.
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?
LIAR! YES YOU DID! IT"S IN YOUR OWN WORDS AT THE TOP OF THIS POST!
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!
Yes, it is!
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.
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.
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.
Your reasons amounted to "I don't understand relativity, therefore your link is wrong".
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!
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.
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.
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.
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&...=utf-8&oe=utf-8
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.
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.
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&...=utf-8&oe=utf-8
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.
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?
...
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.
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?
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.