QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 23 2008, 03:02 PM)
You're doing a wonderful job of twisting this out of context - whether or not I think Primordial Black holes are responsible for some, or all of dark matter is irrelevant to whether or not I think that such a black hole can be captured
Which again demonstrates you don't understand orbital dynamics. How can it be captured? Explain the mechanism.
Like what?
Like what?
I.
Don't.
Have.
To.
You made the point and you won't back it up? That's weak.
If they're so ordinary, why did you choose such a relatively obscure reference?
If they're so ordinary, why did you choose such a relatively obscure reference?
You're the one making the unsubstantiated, unfounded, extraordinary claims.
No, I've made claims that are consistent with the observations. You're the one making claims that are contrary to observations.
Hey, you made the claim they can be captured. Prove it. How does it work?
It's quickly becoming obvious that you haven't a clue!
Hey, you made the claim they can be captured. Prove it. How does it work?
It's quickly becoming obvious that you haven't a clue!
It wasn't just Brown dawrfs that were ruled out.
Hence the word "predominate."
And you've been unable to answer the questions, which leads me to believe that you're lying, and that you haven't actually read the paper.
Which again demonstrates you don't understand orbital dynamics. How can it be captured? Explain the mechanism.
QUOTE
The only thing you've demonstrated is that you may not have taken all of he factors into consideration.
Like what?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The only thing you've demonstrated is that you may not have taken all of he factors into consideration. |
Like what?
I.
Don't.
Have.
To.
You made the point and you won't back it up? That's weak.
QUOTE
I'm not the one making the bizzare claims. I'm making ordinary claims, and I've cited peer reviewed literature to back up those ordinary claims.
If they're so ordinary, why did you choose such a relatively obscure reference?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm not the one making the bizzare claims. I'm making ordinary claims, and I've cited peer reviewed literature to back up those ordinary claims. |
If they're so ordinary, why did you choose such a relatively obscure reference?
You're the one making the unsubstantiated, unfounded, extraordinary claims.
No, I've made claims that are consistent with the observations. You're the one making claims that are contrary to observations.
QUOTE
If you think that such a capture is impossible, then PROOVE IT.
Offer some form of peer reviewed literature, that substantiates your claim, or some form of calculation that does the same. Live up to your own standards of proof you hypocrite.
Offer some form of peer reviewed literature, that substantiates your claim, or some form of calculation that does the same. Live up to your own standards of proof you hypocrite.
Hey, you made the claim they can be captured. Prove it. How does it work?
It's quickly becoming obvious that you haven't a clue!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you think that such a capture is impossible, then PROOVE IT. Offer some form of peer reviewed literature, that substantiates your claim, or some form of calculation that does the same. Live up to your own standards of proof you hypocrite. |
Hey, you made the claim they can be captured. Prove it. How does it work?
It's quickly becoming obvious that you haven't a clue!
It wasn't just Brown dawrfs that were ruled out.
Hence the word "predominate."
QUOTE
Yes, however you continue to ask me questions that were addressed in the paper, which leads me to believe that you're lying, and that you haven't actually read the paper.
And you've been unable to answer the questions, which leads me to believe that you're lying, and that you haven't actually read the paper.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 11:15 AM)
But we are talking about individual collisions.
You may be, but I never was.
You may be, but I never was.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 11:27 AM)
Which again demonstrates you don't understand orbital dynamics. How can it be captured? Explain the mechanism.
Twaddle. How many times have I said it now? There's two scenarios proposed in the paper I linked to.
Twaddle. How many times have I said it now? There's two scenarios proposed in the paper I linked to.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 11:27 AM)
If they're so ordinary, why did you choose such a relatively obscure reference?
If it's so obscure, why was it so easy to find?
If it's so obscure, why was it so easy to find?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 11:27 AM)
No, I've made claims that are consistent with the observations. You're the one making claims that are contrary to observations.
Yeah like "Stellar mass objects can't capture smaller ones".
Yeah like "Stellar mass objects can't capture smaller ones".QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 11:27 AM)
Hey, you made the claim they can be captured. Prove it. How does it work?
It's quickly becoming obvious that you haven't a clue!
As i've already said, there's two possible scenarios outlined in the paper - insitu incorporation, and three body interactions leading to capture (not to mention the fact that i've already mentioned one if the mechanisms involved in a three body capture.
It's quickly becoming obvious that you haven't a clue!
As i've already said, there's two possible scenarios outlined in the paper - insitu incorporation, and three body interactions leading to capture (not to mention the fact that i've already mentioned one if the mechanisms involved in a three body capture.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 11:27 AM)
And you've been unable to answer the questions, which leads me to believe that you're lying, and that you haven't actually read the paper.
This is a blatant, obvious, and transparent lie, especially to snyone who takes the time to read the paper.
This is a blatant, obvious, and transparent lie, especially to snyone who takes the time to read the paper.
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 24 2008, 01:27 AM)
You may be, but I never was.
Really? The whole cosmic ray collision thing wasn't about individual collisions?
What was it about?
Really? The whole cosmic ray collision thing wasn't about individual collisions?
What was it about?
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 24 2008, 01:48 AM)
Twaddle. How many times have I said it now? There's two scenarios proposed in the paper I linked to.
And neither one makes good sense in context.
That's the magic of Google.
That's the magic of Google.
Yeah like "Stellar mass objects can't capture smaller ones".
I never said that, but (believe it or not) in reality, that's often (but not always) the case.
Pish. If this was the case, then we'd find them everywhere, all the time. Where's all the supposed telltale Hawking radiation? Why is there any normal matter in the universe? Wasn't all matter dense enough to form singularities at one point?
Pish. If this was the case, then we'd find them everywhere, all the time. Where's all the supposed telltale Hawking radiation? Why is there any normal matter in the universe? Wasn't all matter dense enough to form singularities at one point?
...and three body interactions leading to capture (not to mention the fact that i've already mentioned one if the mechanisms involved in a three body capture.
Finally! "Three body interactions." There's your key. However, this only works if the bodies are in the right proximity and the relative velocity of the micro black holes are already close to capture. That means that for them to have been captured by the sun or earth at all, there must be lots of them floating around within and in proximity to the solar system, at relatively similar velocities to the system. They'd have to be everywhere. Wouldn't the outer planets and Kuiper belt objects tend to orbit the sun more slowly than expected?
Most of the captured ones would have highly eliptical orbits where they'd miss the particular body entirely. Some might enter and exit it repeatedly.
They'd have to be stable too (so much for Hawking radiation).
The paper generally hypothesizes hydrogen atom sized micro black holes. Wouldn't the gravity of so many heavy objects, buzzng around and through the asteroids tend to throw their orbits out of whack? Wouldn't you expect to detect some of the holes being punctured into the earth?
Anyway, in order for them to settle into the interior of the sun and planets (as the paper suggests) they'd have to fairly rapidly consume mass. (even three body captures don't result in "at rest" conditions). And therefore, if we had lots of wild, stable black holes buzzing around, through and settling within the earth, the earth would necessarily collapse into a black hole itself, in relatively short order.
Funny thing, that's what I think might be happening in all that mysteriously dark, dark matter!
You only say that because you just now felt challenged enough to read it, in order to respond to my questions.
And neither one makes good sense in context.
QUOTE
If it's so obscure, why was it so easy to find?
That's the magic of Google.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If it's so obscure, why was it so easy to find? |
That's the magic of Google.
Yeah like "Stellar mass objects can't capture smaller ones".
I never said that, but (believe it or not) in reality, that's often (but not always) the case.
QUOTE
As i've already said, there's two possible scenarios outlined in the paper - insitu incorporation,..
Pish. If this was the case, then we'd find them everywhere, all the time. Where's all the supposed telltale Hawking radiation? Why is there any normal matter in the universe? Wasn't all matter dense enough to form singularities at one point?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As i've already said, there's two possible scenarios outlined in the paper - insitu incorporation,.. |
Pish. If this was the case, then we'd find them everywhere, all the time. Where's all the supposed telltale Hawking radiation? Why is there any normal matter in the universe? Wasn't all matter dense enough to form singularities at one point?
...and three body interactions leading to capture (not to mention the fact that i've already mentioned one if the mechanisms involved in a three body capture.
Finally! "Three body interactions." There's your key. However, this only works if the bodies are in the right proximity and the relative velocity of the micro black holes are already close to capture. That means that for them to have been captured by the sun or earth at all, there must be lots of them floating around within and in proximity to the solar system, at relatively similar velocities to the system. They'd have to be everywhere. Wouldn't the outer planets and Kuiper belt objects tend to orbit the sun more slowly than expected?
Most of the captured ones would have highly eliptical orbits where they'd miss the particular body entirely. Some might enter and exit it repeatedly.
They'd have to be stable too (so much for Hawking radiation).
The paper generally hypothesizes hydrogen atom sized micro black holes. Wouldn't the gravity of so many heavy objects, buzzng around and through the asteroids tend to throw their orbits out of whack? Wouldn't you expect to detect some of the holes being punctured into the earth?
Anyway, in order for them to settle into the interior of the sun and planets (as the paper suggests) they'd have to fairly rapidly consume mass. (even three body captures don't result in "at rest" conditions). And therefore, if we had lots of wild, stable black holes buzzing around, through and settling within the earth, the earth would necessarily collapse into a black hole itself, in relatively short order.
Funny thing, that's what I think might be happening in all that mysteriously dark, dark matter!
QUOTE
This is a blatant, obvious, and transparent lie, especially to snyone who takes the time to read the paper.
You only say that because you just now felt challenged enough to read it, in order to respond to my questions.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 04:19 PM)
You only say that becuase you just now felt challenged enough to read it, in order to respond to my questions.
Liar.
Liar.
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 18 2008, 05:38 PM)
And he uses the same formula for momentum/velocity I was trying to get you to consider.
Eat crow evil-doer.
Formula appears on page 3. You're a liar, and it's provable.
Eat crow evil-doer.
Formula appears on page 3. You're a liar, and it's provable.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 02:54 PM)
Really? The whole cosmic ray collision thing wasn't about individual collisions?
What was it about?
Irrelevant.
Unless you're going to claim all the darkmatter in the universe resides in one black hole?
What was it about?
Irrelevant.
Unless you're going to claim all the darkmatter in the universe resides in one black hole?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 04:19 PM)
And neither one makes good sense in context.
ONly in your world.
ONly in your world.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 04:19 PM)
Pish. If this was the case, then we'd find them everywhere, all the time. Where's all the supposed telltale Hawking radiation? Why is there any normal matter in the universe? Wasn't all matter dense enough to form singularities at one point?
You're the one claiming that these are responsible for Dark Matter.
You tell me.
Besides, didn't you also say that Hawking was wrong, bit now your using an (assumed) absence of observations of Hawking Radiation to say that MBH's can't be Dark Matter...
And you complain about me arguing both sides of the coin.
You're the one claiming that these are responsible for Dark Matter.
You tell me.
Besides, didn't you also say that Hawking was wrong, bit now your using an (assumed) absence of observations of Hawking Radiation to say that MBH's can't be Dark Matter...
And you complain about me arguing both sides of the coin.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 04:19 PM)
Finally! "Three body interactions." There's your key. However, this only works if the bodies are in the right proximity and the relative velocity of the micro black holes are already close to capture. That means that for them to have been captured by the sun or earth at all, there must be lots of them floating around within and in proximity to the solar system, at relatively similar velocities to the system. They'd have to be everywhere. Wouldn't the outer planets and Kuiper belt objects tend to orbit the sun more slowly than expected?
Are you just ignoring the fact that RPenner showed that there were tens of thousands of these things per solar volume, if your assertions were there. You're arguing against your own hypothesis here.
Are you just ignoring the fact that RPenner showed that there were tens of thousands of these things per solar volume, if your assertions were there. You're arguing against your own hypothesis here.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 04:19 PM)
They'd have to be stable too (so much for Hawking radiation).
The paper discusses primodial black holes that are massive enough to have survived the hawking radiation they've emitted.
The paper discusses primodial black holes that are massive enough to have survived the hawking radiation they've emitted.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 04:19 PM)
The paper generally hypothesizes hydrogen atom sized micro black holes. Wouldn't the gravity of so many heavy objects, buzzng around and through the asteroids tend to throw their orbits out of whack? Wouldn't you expect to detect some of the holes being punctured into the earth?
Why yes, you would, I guess that Primordial black holes aren't the good candidates for dark matter that you seem to think they are.
Why yes, you would, I guess that Primordial black holes aren't the good candidates for dark matter that you seem to think they are.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 24 2008, 04:19 PM)
Anyway, in order for them to settle into the interior of the sun and planets (as the paper suggests) they'd have to fairly rapidly consume mass. (even three body captures don't result in "at rest" conditions). And therefore, if we had lots of wild, stable black holes buzzing around, through and settling within the earth, the earth would necessarily collapse into a black hole itself, in relatively short order.
Funny thing, that's what I think might be happening in all that mysteriously dark, dark matter!
This is my point - according to your assertions, about the nature of dark matter, and the stability of micro blackholes, we shouldn't be here. And yet we are, how do you explain this apparent discrepancy - oh yeah, that's right, some how, mystreriously, the sun has been lucky enough to avoid capturing one.
Funny thing, that's what I think might be happening in all that mysteriously dark, dark matter!
This is my point - according to your assertions, about the nature of dark matter, and the stability of micro blackholes, we shouldn't be here. And yet we are, how do you explain this apparent discrepancy - oh yeah, that's right, some how, mystreriously, the sun has been lucky enough to avoid capturing one.
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 24 2008, 03:49 AM)
This is my point - according to your assertions, about the nature of dark matter, and the stability of micro blackholes, we shouldn't be here. And yet we are, how do you explain this apparent discrepancy - oh yeah, that's right, some how, mystreriously, the sun has been lucky enough to avoid capturing one.
Dear Trippy,
With over 100 million G2 stars similar to Sol (G2V) in our galaxy alone, moreover an estimated galactic total of between 200 - 400 Billion stars.
If ubavontuba is correct the milky-way should be producing nova events via "captured" MBH's with a rapidity not unlike popcorn formation in a hot pan of butter, but only if ubavontuba is correct.
Dear Trippy,
With over 100 million G2 stars similar to Sol (G2V) in our galaxy alone, moreover an estimated galactic total of between 200 - 400 Billion stars.
If ubavontuba is correct
the milky-way should be producing nova events via "captured" MBH's with a rapidity not unlike popcorn formation in a hot pan of butter, but only if ubavontuba is correct. QUOTE (Occular Ingestion+Mar 24 2008, 08:15 PM)
Dear Trippy,
With over 100 million G2 stars similar to Sol (G2V) in our galaxy alone, moreover an estimated galactic total of between 200 - 400 Billion stars.
If ubavontuba is correct the milky-way should be producing nova events via "captured" MBH's with a rapidity not unlike popcorn formation in a hot pan of butter, but only if ubavontuba is correct.
This is my point, well part of it.
We should also (as detailed in the paper I cited) see some form of divergence from the main branch on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.
So, in spite of the fact that in our galaxy alone, there's over 100 million G2 stars, and 'associated' (for lack of a better word) with each G2 star is 5*10^54 2 TeV Black holes - and yet there is prescisely NO evidence for any such divergence - in spite of the fact that with the numbers being talked about, the probability of a merger occuring approaches 1 (if we give him the benefit of the doubt that our sun is some how special and has managed to avoid any such interactions during its 4.5 billion years).
With over 100 million G2 stars similar to Sol (G2V) in our galaxy alone, moreover an estimated galactic total of between 200 - 400 Billion stars.
If ubavontuba is correct
the milky-way should be producing nova events via "captured" MBH's with a rapidity not unlike popcorn formation in a hot pan of butter, but only if ubavontuba is correct. This is my point, well part of it.
We should also (as detailed in the paper I cited) see some form of divergence from the main branch on the Hertzsprung-Russell diagram.
So, in spite of the fact that in our galaxy alone, there's over 100 million G2 stars, and 'associated' (for lack of a better word) with each G2 star is 5*10^54 2 TeV Black holes - and yet there is prescisely NO evidence for any such divergence - in spite of the fact that with the numbers being talked about, the probability of a merger occuring approaches 1 (if we give him the benefit of the doubt that our sun is some how special and has managed to avoid any such interactions during its 4.5 billion years).
QUOTE (Ubavontuba in my feedback+)
Why don't you let AlphaNumeric fight his own battles?
Besides, what are you afraid of? If you're so smart, why don't you present your argument for AlphaNumeric's viewpoint (that gravity is a force in GR) in the forum?
Are you afraid you might "learn something for a change?"
Your patently dishonest implication aside, I've already presented my arguments for gravity being a force in GR. Everything from Einstein calling it a force to the continuously accepted definition of the fundamental forces to a simple explanation by which the seeming contradiction between curved space-time in GR and gravity being a force can be resolved. It is not reflective of my intelligence AT ALL that you either refuse to accept such simple logic, or prove incapable of understanding it.
I might also point out that your whole argument on the subject changed from claiming that gravity is not a CLASSICAL FORCE in GR which I pointed out is, in fact the case (unless you seem to believe Einstein had psychic powers which allowed him to foresee the discovery of quantum mechanics and thus describe gravity in non-classical means to you privately, when no-one else was listening), to claiming that it is not a force at all in GR, which fails to account for the three points I listed above.
YOU have nothing to teach me or AN. You have nothing to teach Trippy. You're just an amateur who doesn't know half as much as needed to work with physics, and thinks he knows twice as much as needed. I already demonstrably know more about physics than you, and likely always will. So drink another beer, dear Schizo, pop another anti-psychotic pill, and take a break from your arm-waving prophecies of doom stemming from the LHC and your idiotic assertions of the apparent contradictions of your betters. It'd do you some good.
Besides, what are you afraid of? If you're so smart, why don't you present your argument for AlphaNumeric's viewpoint (that gravity is a force in GR) in the forum?
Are you afraid you might "learn something for a change?"
Your patently dishonest implication aside, I've already presented my arguments for gravity being a force in GR. Everything from Einstein calling it a force to the continuously accepted definition of the fundamental forces to a simple explanation by which the seeming contradiction between curved space-time in GR and gravity being a force can be resolved. It is not reflective of my intelligence AT ALL that you either refuse to accept such simple logic, or prove incapable of understanding it.
I might also point out that your whole argument on the subject changed from claiming that gravity is not a CLASSICAL FORCE in GR which I pointed out is, in fact the case (unless you seem to believe Einstein had psychic powers which allowed him to foresee the discovery of quantum mechanics and thus describe gravity in non-classical means to you privately, when no-one else was listening), to claiming that it is not a force at all in GR, which fails to account for the three points I listed above.
YOU have nothing to teach me or AN. You have nothing to teach Trippy. You're just an amateur who doesn't know half as much as needed to work with physics, and thinks he knows twice as much as needed. I already demonstrably know more about physics than you, and likely always will. So drink another beer, dear Schizo, pop another anti-psychotic pill, and take a break from your arm-waving prophecies of doom stemming from the LHC and your idiotic assertions of the apparent contradictions of your betters. It'd do you some good.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 23 2008, 09:41 AM)
No. They're insisting that our sun/earth should've captured one. They're apparenty too afraid to discuss the apparent darkness of the dark matter itself.
I meant no insult. I've only reponded to you at your own insistence. I told you before that I'd rather not, simply for the reason that I knew it'd get ugly. Your beliefs are apparently quite dear to you.
I gave them all the consideration I felt they required.
Brevity... smart-alecky, it's all subjective. I just don't feel the need to wear out my keyboard with every response.
Yes, I have. You just refuse to listen to a different point of view.
Again, it's about the equivalence principal in general relativity. Why are you not getting this?
The comparison is irrelevant. Again, it's about energy density, not volume.
(shaking my head) You just don't get it. A steep gravity gradient doesn't imply a large gravitational field.
Why not?
Field size isn't the issue.
I understand what you're saying, but you're wrong. Again, it's about mass/energy density, not total mass/energy.
What science? Aren't you the one that told me to ignore "mainstream science?" In mainstream science, black hole and micro black hole hypotheses are old news. It's always been about density.
See? You just can't even imagine for one second that there might be a valid alternative point of view. That's why I think it's better we disengage, before more feelings are hurt.
Okay. Good luck to you.
How many citations from how many physicists would it take for you to believe that black hole mechanics are all about density?
Cool. I hope you make a million!
And you continually forget that I too have stated all along that'd it'd be messy. That still doesn't change the underlying physics though.
When did I associate energy density with "diffuse matter clouds?" What are you talking about?
So, you prefer succinctness over full explanations?
Okay then, how about this....
Uba, you are lying and you know it.
Succinct enough for you, uba? I have rarely in my life said such things to anyone.....so it tells you how far along the path of disingenuousness and dishonesty I think you have fallen since our first exchanges so long ago. Sad to see it.
Yes, you know perfectly well that the CLOUDS of micro-holes discussion wasn't ONLY about the Earth/LHC context. You know perfectly well, as all observers here do also, that the 'speed distribution' discussion took on the actual context which YOU LATER introduced, when you depended on 'dark matter' and 'dark galaxies' as some sort of 'support' for YOUR idea of 'clouds' of micro-holes...which 'support' YOU sought as some sort of explanations/evidence for your ERRONEOUS stance when WE pointed out that IF you were correct, then all galaxies must be inundated with micro-holes of velocity distributions such that SOME of those innumerable micro-holes in YOUR 'clouds of micro-holes' MUST be captured by practically every star OVER THE BILLIONS OF YEARS till now.
You are lying and misdirecting about that NOW....by trying to introduce YOUR OWN MISREPRESENTATIONS and LIES about what OTHERS are saying in THAT context.
It won't work. You are too transparent now.
There was a time when I allowed for 'unintentional' misunderstanding on your part; but no longer. Since you have demonstrated that there is nothing 'unintentional' about your dishonest aspersions on others when YOU are CORNERED BY YOUR OWN INCONSISTENT ARGUMENTS.
Another blatant example is YOUR CONTINUING aspersions on ME when it comes to EXTREME/CUMULATIVE gravity strength PER SE (macro-mass) and EXTREME gravity GRADIENTS (IRRESPECTIVE OF MASS).
THAT distinction I made MANY TIME....but you STILL misrepresent that I have NOT done so. That is another reason why I have no choice in branding you a liar.....something I am ever loathe to do to anyone if I can possibly avoid it. But in your case I cannot avoid it any longer...and so muct agree with those who have been calling you a liar for some time now. Pity you have now irretrievably proved them right all along.
You STILL confuse the MEANING of my LONE NEUTRON (micro-mass) and NEUTRON AGGREGATION (Neutron star MACRO-mass) example.
The meaning is NOT about density....it is ABOUT THE BEHAVIOUR of BOTH the GRADIENT aspect and the TOTAL STRENGTH aspect when the SCALE of such things WHEN COMPETING FORCES/ASPECTS are taken into account (like CHARGE, ESCAPE VELOCITIES, DYNAMIC TURBULENCE and QUANTUM DISRUPTIONS etc).
The WHOLE POINT about that difference in SCALE being that CERTAIN COMPETING FORCES/ASPECTS that CAN NOT 'overcome' a NEUTRON STAR'S gravity strength AND/OR gravity 'gradient' near its surface ACTUALLY CAN AND WILL OVERCOME a LONE NEUTRON'S gravity strength AND ALSO its near-surface gravity GRADIENT. Note: I am not talking of 'black' gradients here....just so you don't again confuse/misdirect things here (as usual)! hehehe.
The xample should tell you that BOTH STRENGTH AND GRADIENT PROFILE will be OVERCOME when MICRO-MASSED particles are micro-LONE instead of MACRO-AGGREGATIONS.
The reason I now am certain of your dishonesty and evasion tactics is that YOU STILL continue to ignore all these OTHER OVERWHELMING COMPETING FORCES/ASPECTS that EFFECTIVELY make ANY MICRO-MASSED gravity features PUNY and VULNERABLE to IMMEDIATE DISRUPTION in ABSOLUTE TERMS BOTH in gravity strength AND near-surface gradients!
You STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED WHY 'only density' is relevant....and NOT all these OTHER STRONGER FORCES/ASPECTS that make MICRO-MASSES unable to form and sustain 'black' states of GRAVITY STRENGTH/GRADIENT EFFECTS!
Until you do, it is YOU that is confused, deluded, wilfully evasive and dishonestly casting aspersions on OTHERS to misdirect from your own incompetence and incomprehension where others inputs are treated by you so cavalierly time and time again.
Oh, so NOW that you HAVE got it right (that I disagreed with BOTH you and others) you have the further dishonesty to lie and dodge by trying to use my own INDEPENDENT, INFORMED, HONEST and SCIENTIFICALLY SUBSTANTIATED healthy questioning of orthodoxy as a sneaky way of CO-OPTING my impartial view/attitude and trying to ABUSE IT as implying it somehow 'justifies' YOUR OWN UNinformed//dishonest/confused IGNORANCE of BOTH the orthodoxy AND MY OWN perfectly suppported disagreements with BOTHYOU AND OTHERS. Talk about sneaky lies and deceit, that takes the cake, uba.
Are you a politician/creationist zealot? I only ask since I have encountered such behaviour as yours in people of that ilk.
You KEEP SAYING THINGS WITHOUT BACKING THEM UP PROPERLY AND FULLY (but with just MORE meaningless quips and arrogant/dismissive 'statements of fact' that aren't anything of the kind!....and then proceed to LIE ABOUT WHAT OTHERS HAVE ARGUED. You keep trying to 're-write history' here, as if you think people here are too dumb or easily distracted to understand and remember what YOU have said/misunderstood/lied about. Not very respectful of other people's intellect/integrity here, are you, uba?...else you wouldn't be doing what you are attempting to do all the time now.
Basically, you have demonstrated you have NOT THE LEAST COMPREHENSION about:
- SCALE EFFECTS in natural interactions;
- DIFFERENCES between LONE and CUMULATIVE STRENGTH AND GRADIENT gravity 'reach/effect' from/to SUB-Planck domains;
- COMPARATIVE effectiveness of the various COMPETING forces/factors in 'particle' and in AGGREGATE EXTREME BODY;
- the CHARGE, TRANSIENCE, QUANTUM SCALE AND DYNAMIC TURBULENCE that makes micro-holes IMPOSSIBLE to form/persist in 'free particle collisions' involving ONLY micro-massed IN-ABSOLUTE-TERMS-PUNY gravity forces (strength AND gradient) that are at the mercy of MAGNITUDES GREATER FORCES tending to EXPLODE/SPLATTER such free-particle collisions to give RESONANCE PRODUCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE FORCES/FACTORS that are MUCH MORE DETERMINING than gravity/density of PARTICLE SCALE ENERGY/MASS FEATURES/EVENTS.
Therefore, uba, while you may continue to dishonestly misrepresent/miscontextualise and otherwise TWIST others arguments, you remain ever in the position of liar and dishonest interlocutor unless you actually present (and not just evade/misdirect etc) actual physical/logical arguments to support your contentions. And I don't care WHAT science you resort to; whether orthodox or novel...JUST AS LONG AS IT ACTUALLY REFUTES LOGICALLY AND SELF-CONSISTENTLY what I and others have put to you that ALREADY AND OFTEN REFUTED YOUR OWN STANCES (all of which stances from you have depended on 'having it both ways' SPECULATIONS AND PLAIN INSULTING QUIPS/MISDIRECTIONS in lieu of SUBSTANCE THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. So far, sad to say, NOT ONE THING you have presented has survived, mainly because nothing you have put forward has made ANY SENSE EVEN IN YOUR OWN SCENARIOS.....which scenarios have ALL BEEN BASED ON 'WANTING IT BOTH WAYS' STANCES which you cannot support EITHER WAY!
These arguments of yours across all these LHC/MICRO-HOLE discussion threads would have to be the greatest demonstration of the WANTING IT BOTH WAYS method of 'doing/debating science' that I have ever come across ANYWHERE. Congratulations, uba....you have made me argue BOTH SIDES of YOUR scenarios and found BOTH SIDES 'WANTING". I am no longer surprised at how some here treat you and your so-called debating. You have no one but yourself to blame.
Good luck with life, uba.......you will need it if you are so dishonest/obtuse that even I myself am forced to come down on the 'side' of the 'less tolerant' types here! hehehe.
No more discussion with you, mate....you obviously don't understand or care about what people are actually saying...you are only intersted in quipping dismissals without substance in science OR logic. I have enjoyed it nonetheless because it has occassioned my own rethinks of ALL 'sides' of all the relevant physics/context/issues.
Thanks for that at least, uba!
I won't be wasting my time here any more....since all the aspects have been covered and we are now at the 'terminal' stage where all you are doing is repeating meaningless and unsupported ASSERTIONS about 'density only' and lying about what others have argued.
Cheers anyway, uba, everyone....and get out into the sunshine and away from the dishonesty and disgrace which uba seems intent on infusing here ad nauseum.
PS: uba...it is not about the money....or I would have stayed in Sydney and died a rich man INSTEAD of doing my current work in many fields FOR THE LOVE AND DUTY of it to science and future generations. Any PATENTING I am considering is aimed at KEEPING CONTROL AWAY FROM EXPLOITATIVE INDIVIDUALS/GROUPS/GOVERNMENTS who would otherwise have MONOPOLY CONTROL at the detriment of the end-user. See, uba....others DO have scruples and principles about GLOBAL SURVIVAL and HARMONY and NON-PROFIT ENDEAVOURS.....it is not just you incompetent SCAREMONGERS who NEVER OFFER/DO ANYTHING CONCRETE to improve matters that have a right to opinions and understand ALL the necessary scientific/logical aspects of all the important things we should be doing. So your "hope you make a million" etc cowardly underhanded attempts at 'quipilly' belittling/cheapening what I am doing is just more of your UNINFORMED/DISHONEST CONFUSIONS and SNEAKY BACK-DOOR INSINUATION and DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATIONS of my perfectly honourable and unselfish efforts endeavours in MANY areas of science/technology with a view to INTEGRATED, SELF-SUSTAINING and GLOBALLY AFFORDABLE/AVSILABLE SOLUTIONS for MOST of the INTERCONNECTED (and so far heretofore 'considered' INTRACTABLE singly AND collectively!) GLOBAL PROBLEMS that need REAL WORK on MANY LEVELS and FACTORS to bring together the necessary scientific/technical solutions. Big ask? Not really....just takes commitment and perspiration/inspiration AND DIVERSE KNOWLEDGE properly applied by those interested IN THE LONG TERM/PERMANENT SOLUTIONS as distinct from political/costly-exploitable 'quick fixes'. Something that is not YET 'totally dead' in the human race at large or its diverse individual characters of all kinds and creeds. But I'm an optimist, not an uninformed scaremonger....so I see solutions where YOU, uba, see nothing but your own uninformed ego lying to yourself. Good luck with that, mate! I have more important things to do that put up with any more of your empty 'style' over substance' antics here. hehehe. I'll leave you with the last (probably dishoinest) word. I won't be engaging you again. Good bye and thanks for the intellectual stimulation if nothing else!
RC.
.
I meant no insult. I've only reponded to you at your own insistence. I told you before that I'd rather not, simply for the reason that I knew it'd get ugly. Your beliefs are apparently quite dear to you.
I gave them all the consideration I felt they required.
Brevity... smart-alecky, it's all subjective. I just don't feel the need to wear out my keyboard with every response.
Yes, I have. You just refuse to listen to a different point of view.
Again, it's about the equivalence principal in general relativity. Why are you not getting this?
The comparison is irrelevant. Again, it's about energy density, not volume.
(shaking my head) You just don't get it. A steep gravity gradient doesn't imply a large gravitational field.
Why not?
Field size isn't the issue.
I understand what you're saying, but you're wrong. Again, it's about mass/energy density, not total mass/energy.
What science? Aren't you the one that told me to ignore "mainstream science?" In mainstream science, black hole and micro black hole hypotheses are old news. It's always been about density.
See? You just can't even imagine for one second that there might be a valid alternative point of view. That's why I think it's better we disengage, before more feelings are hurt.
Okay. Good luck to you.
How many citations from how many physicists would it take for you to believe that black hole mechanics are all about density?
Cool. I hope you make a million!
And you continually forget that I too have stated all along that'd it'd be messy. That still doesn't change the underlying physics though.
When did I associate energy density with "diffuse matter clouds?" What are you talking about?
So, you prefer succinctness over full explanations?
Okay then, how about this....
Uba, you are lying and you know it.
Succinct enough for you, uba? I have rarely in my life said such things to anyone.....so it tells you how far along the path of disingenuousness and dishonesty I think you have fallen since our first exchanges so long ago. Sad to see it.
Yes, you know perfectly well that the CLOUDS of micro-holes discussion wasn't ONLY about the Earth/LHC context. You know perfectly well, as all observers here do also, that the 'speed distribution' discussion took on the actual context which YOU LATER introduced, when you depended on 'dark matter' and 'dark galaxies' as some sort of 'support' for YOUR idea of 'clouds' of micro-holes...which 'support' YOU sought as some sort of explanations/evidence for your ERRONEOUS stance when WE pointed out that IF you were correct, then all galaxies must be inundated with micro-holes of velocity distributions such that SOME of those innumerable micro-holes in YOUR 'clouds of micro-holes' MUST be captured by practically every star OVER THE BILLIONS OF YEARS till now.
You are lying and misdirecting about that NOW....by trying to introduce YOUR OWN MISREPRESENTATIONS and LIES about what OTHERS are saying in THAT context.
It won't work. You are too transparent now.
There was a time when I allowed for 'unintentional' misunderstanding on your part; but no longer. Since you have demonstrated that there is nothing 'unintentional' about your dishonest aspersions on others when YOU are CORNERED BY YOUR OWN INCONSISTENT ARGUMENTS.
Another blatant example is YOUR CONTINUING aspersions on ME when it comes to EXTREME/CUMULATIVE gravity strength PER SE (macro-mass) and EXTREME gravity GRADIENTS (IRRESPECTIVE OF MASS).
THAT distinction I made MANY TIME....but you STILL misrepresent that I have NOT done so. That is another reason why I have no choice in branding you a liar.....something I am ever loathe to do to anyone if I can possibly avoid it. But in your case I cannot avoid it any longer...and so muct agree with those who have been calling you a liar for some time now. Pity you have now irretrievably proved them right all along.
You STILL confuse the MEANING of my LONE NEUTRON (micro-mass) and NEUTRON AGGREGATION (Neutron star MACRO-mass) example.
The meaning is NOT about density....it is ABOUT THE BEHAVIOUR of BOTH the GRADIENT aspect and the TOTAL STRENGTH aspect when the SCALE of such things WHEN COMPETING FORCES/ASPECTS are taken into account (like CHARGE, ESCAPE VELOCITIES, DYNAMIC TURBULENCE and QUANTUM DISRUPTIONS etc).
The WHOLE POINT about that difference in SCALE being that CERTAIN COMPETING FORCES/ASPECTS that CAN NOT 'overcome' a NEUTRON STAR'S gravity strength AND/OR gravity 'gradient' near its surface ACTUALLY CAN AND WILL OVERCOME a LONE NEUTRON'S gravity strength AND ALSO its near-surface gravity GRADIENT. Note: I am not talking of 'black' gradients here....just so you don't again confuse/misdirect things here (as usual)! hehehe.
The xample should tell you that BOTH STRENGTH AND GRADIENT PROFILE will be OVERCOME when MICRO-MASSED particles are micro-LONE instead of MACRO-AGGREGATIONS.
The reason I now am certain of your dishonesty and evasion tactics is that YOU STILL continue to ignore all these OTHER OVERWHELMING COMPETING FORCES/ASPECTS that EFFECTIVELY make ANY MICRO-MASSED gravity features PUNY and VULNERABLE to IMMEDIATE DISRUPTION in ABSOLUTE TERMS BOTH in gravity strength AND near-surface gradients!
You STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED WHY 'only density' is relevant....and NOT all these OTHER STRONGER FORCES/ASPECTS that make MICRO-MASSES unable to form and sustain 'black' states of GRAVITY STRENGTH/GRADIENT EFFECTS!
Until you do, it is YOU that is confused, deluded, wilfully evasive and dishonestly casting aspersions on OTHERS to misdirect from your own incompetence and incomprehension where others inputs are treated by you so cavalierly time and time again.
Oh, so NOW that you HAVE got it right (that I disagreed with BOTH you and others) you have the further dishonesty to lie and dodge by trying to use my own INDEPENDENT, INFORMED, HONEST and SCIENTIFICALLY SUBSTANTIATED healthy questioning of orthodoxy as a sneaky way of CO-OPTING my impartial view/attitude and trying to ABUSE IT as implying it somehow 'justifies' YOUR OWN UNinformed//dishonest/confused IGNORANCE of BOTH the orthodoxy AND MY OWN perfectly suppported disagreements with BOTHYOU AND OTHERS. Talk about sneaky lies and deceit, that takes the cake, uba.
Are you a politician/creationist zealot? I only ask since I have encountered such behaviour as yours in people of that ilk.
You KEEP SAYING THINGS WITHOUT BACKING THEM UP PROPERLY AND FULLY (but with just MORE meaningless quips and arrogant/dismissive 'statements of fact' that aren't anything of the kind!....and then proceed to LIE ABOUT WHAT OTHERS HAVE ARGUED. You keep trying to 're-write history' here, as if you think people here are too dumb or easily distracted to understand and remember what YOU have said/misunderstood/lied about. Not very respectful of other people's intellect/integrity here, are you, uba?...else you wouldn't be doing what you are attempting to do all the time now.
Basically, you have demonstrated you have NOT THE LEAST COMPREHENSION about:
- SCALE EFFECTS in natural interactions;
- DIFFERENCES between LONE and CUMULATIVE STRENGTH AND GRADIENT gravity 'reach/effect' from/to SUB-Planck domains;
- COMPARATIVE effectiveness of the various COMPETING forces/factors in 'particle' and in AGGREGATE EXTREME BODY;
- the CHARGE, TRANSIENCE, QUANTUM SCALE AND DYNAMIC TURBULENCE that makes micro-holes IMPOSSIBLE to form/persist in 'free particle collisions' involving ONLY micro-massed IN-ABSOLUTE-TERMS-PUNY gravity forces (strength AND gradient) that are at the mercy of MAGNITUDES GREATER FORCES tending to EXPLODE/SPLATTER such free-particle collisions to give RESONANCE PRODUCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE FORCES/FACTORS that are MUCH MORE DETERMINING than gravity/density of PARTICLE SCALE ENERGY/MASS FEATURES/EVENTS.
Therefore, uba, while you may continue to dishonestly misrepresent/miscontextualise and otherwise TWIST others arguments, you remain ever in the position of liar and dishonest interlocutor unless you actually present (and not just evade/misdirect etc) actual physical/logical arguments to support your contentions. And I don't care WHAT science you resort to; whether orthodox or novel...JUST AS LONG AS IT ACTUALLY REFUTES LOGICALLY AND SELF-CONSISTENTLY what I and others have put to you that ALREADY AND OFTEN REFUTED YOUR OWN STANCES (all of which stances from you have depended on 'having it both ways' SPECULATIONS AND PLAIN INSULTING QUIPS/MISDIRECTIONS in lieu of SUBSTANCE THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. So far, sad to say, NOT ONE THING you have presented has survived, mainly because nothing you have put forward has made ANY SENSE EVEN IN YOUR OWN SCENARIOS.....which scenarios have ALL BEEN BASED ON 'WANTING IT BOTH WAYS' STANCES which you cannot support EITHER WAY!
These arguments of yours across all these LHC/MICRO-HOLE discussion threads would have to be the greatest demonstration of the WANTING IT BOTH WAYS method of 'doing/debating science' that I have ever come across ANYWHERE. Congratulations, uba....you have made me argue BOTH SIDES of YOUR scenarios and found BOTH SIDES 'WANTING". I am no longer surprised at how some here treat you and your so-called debating. You have no one but yourself to blame.
Good luck with life, uba.......you will need it if you are so dishonest/obtuse that even I myself am forced to come down on the 'side' of the 'less tolerant' types here! hehehe.
No more discussion with you, mate....you obviously don't understand or care about what people are actually saying...you are only intersted in quipping dismissals without substance in science OR logic. I have enjoyed it nonetheless because it has occassioned my own rethinks of ALL 'sides' of all the relevant physics/context/issues.
Thanks for that at least, uba!
I won't be wasting my time here any more....since all the aspects have been covered and we are now at the 'terminal' stage where all you are doing is repeating meaningless and unsupported ASSERTIONS about 'density only' and lying about what others have argued.
Cheers anyway, uba, everyone....and get out into the sunshine and away from the dishonesty and disgrace which uba seems intent on infusing here ad nauseum.
PS: uba...it is not about the money....or I would have stayed in Sydney and died a rich man INSTEAD of doing my current work in many fields FOR THE LOVE AND DUTY of it to science and future generations. Any PATENTING I am considering is aimed at KEEPING CONTROL AWAY FROM EXPLOITATIVE INDIVIDUALS/GROUPS/GOVERNMENTS who would otherwise have MONOPOLY CONTROL at the detriment of the end-user. See, uba....others DO have scruples and principles about GLOBAL SURVIVAL and HARMONY and NON-PROFIT ENDEAVOURS.....it is not just you incompetent SCAREMONGERS who NEVER OFFER/DO ANYTHING CONCRETE to improve matters that have a right to opinions and understand ALL the necessary scientific/logical aspects of all the important things we should be doing. So your "hope you make a million" etc cowardly underhanded attempts at 'quipilly' belittling/cheapening what I am doing is just more of your UNINFORMED/DISHONEST CONFUSIONS and SNEAKY BACK-DOOR INSINUATION and DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATIONS of my perfectly honourable and unselfish efforts endeavours in MANY areas of science/technology with a view to INTEGRATED, SELF-SUSTAINING and GLOBALLY AFFORDABLE/AVSILABLE SOLUTIONS for MOST of the INTERCONNECTED (and so far heretofore 'considered' INTRACTABLE singly AND collectively!) GLOBAL PROBLEMS that need REAL WORK on MANY LEVELS and FACTORS to bring together the necessary scientific/technical solutions. Big ask? Not really....just takes commitment and perspiration/inspiration AND DIVERSE KNOWLEDGE properly applied by those interested IN THE LONG TERM/PERMANENT SOLUTIONS as distinct from political/costly-exploitable 'quick fixes'. Something that is not YET 'totally dead' in the human race at large or its diverse individual characters of all kinds and creeds. But I'm an optimist, not an uninformed scaremonger....so I see solutions where YOU, uba, see nothing but your own uninformed ego lying to yourself. Good luck with that, mate! I have more important things to do that put up with any more of your empty 'style' over substance' antics here. hehehe. I'll leave you with the last (probably dishoinest) word. I won't be engaging you again. Good bye and thanks for the intellectual stimulation if nothing else!
RC.
.
Woah.
Ubavontuba broke RC.
Dude, that takes some doing.
Ubavontuba broke RC.
Dude, that takes some doing.
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 25 2008, 01:34 AM)
Woah.
Ubavontuba broke RC.
Dude, that takes some doing.
(...)
(...)
(...)
(stunned silence)
Ubavontuba broke RC.
Dude, that takes some doing.
(...)
(...)
(...)
(stunned silence)
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 24 2008, 08:35 PM)
(stunned silence)
Uh... Ditto...
Wow...
Uh... Ditto...
Wow...
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 24 2008, 03:36 AM)
Liar.
How else might you explain it?
When did I state I had a problem with the formula?
How else might you explain it?
QUOTE
Formula appears on page 3. You're a liar, and it's provable.
When did I state I had a problem with the formula?
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 24 2008, 03:39 AM)
Irrelevant.
Unless you're going to claim all the darkmatter in the universe resides in one black hole?
How did you make that association?
Unless you're going to claim all the darkmatter in the universe resides in one black hole?
How did you make that association?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 05:59 PM)
How else might you explain it?
When did I state I had a problem with the formula?
Irrelevant.
Although there is another (correct) and more simple explanation.
After your dishonesty with the conservation of energy, why would I (or anyone else) bother doing an indepth explanation of anything for you?
To use one of your own catch phrases - Do you have anything useful to add to this discussion?
Edit: And as far as you having a problem with the formula, does the phrase "Momentum doesn't work like that" ring any bells?
I was only ever trying to get you to consider that particular formula (or at least the relativistic version of it).
When did I state I had a problem with the formula?
Irrelevant.
Although there is another (correct) and more simple explanation.
After your dishonesty with the conservation of energy, why would I (or anyone else) bother doing an indepth explanation of anything for you?
To use one of your own catch phrases - Do you have anything useful to add to this discussion?
Edit: And as far as you having a problem with the formula, does the phrase "Momentum doesn't work like that" ring any bells?
I was only ever trying to get you to consider that particular formula (or at least the relativistic version of it).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 06:01 PM)
How did you make that association?
Because uh, somehow you made the jump from talking about dark matter as a whole to discussing singular objects...
So one can only assume that either the question was irrelevant, or you think dark matter exists as one particle somewhere.
Because uh, somehow you made the jump from talking about dark matter as a whole to discussing singular objects...
So one can only assume that either the question was irrelevant, or you think dark matter exists as one particle somewhere.
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 24 2008, 03:49 AM)
ONly in your world.
Try finding more references to back this one up. It's really quite weak.
HINT: This concept is definitely not supported by mainstream physics.
Talk about being a liar! When did I say primordial black holes are responsible for dark matter? Never.
Talk about being a liar! When did I say primordial black holes are responsible for dark matter? Never.
Besides, didn't you also say that Hawking was wrong, bit now your using an (assumed) absence of observations of Hawking Radiation to say that MBH's can't be Dark Matter...
I was using it as a sarcastic device (in a sarcastic paragraph) to demonstrate the paradoxes this creates in your own arguments. By opening with, "Pish." I meant it's all crap piled on crap.
Sorry, I forgot to denote the sarcasm.
Sorry, I forgot to denote the sarcasm.
Are you just ignoring the fact that RPenner showed that there were tens of thousands of these things per solar volume, if your assertions were there. You're arguing against your own hypothesis here.
Rpenner said, there's tens of thousands of atom sized (or larger) black holes, per solar volume, zipping around everywhere? When? I'll have to chastise him for that!
But what about the ones that are only just now small enough to evaporate suddenly? ...how about the ones that just now reached the critical limit? ..how about now?
What? You think they all came in standard sizes, perhaps?
(sarcasm) And the Lord said, "Let these black holes be the ones that last one billion years." and he saw that they were good. Then the Lord said, "Let these be of a size to last 10 billion years." and he saw that they too were good. Then the Lord said, "Let these ones last until they are the size of hydrgen atoms when I make man, to confound the self-named 'Trippy.'" and he saw that they were good.(/sarcasm)
Heck, this doesn't even take into account the effects of distance. What about the ones that evaporated a billion years ago, a billion light years away!
But what about the ones that are only just now small enough to evaporate suddenly? ...how about the ones that just now reached the critical limit? ..how about now?
What? You think they all came in standard sizes, perhaps?
(sarcasm) And the Lord said, "Let these black holes be the ones that last one billion years." and he saw that they were good. Then the Lord said, "Let these be of a size to last 10 billion years." and he saw that they too were good. Then the Lord said, "Let these ones last until they are the size of hydrgen atoms when I make man, to confound the self-named 'Trippy.'" and he saw that they were good.(/sarcasm)
Heck, this doesn't even take into account the effects of distance. What about the ones that evaporated a billion years ago, a billion light years away!
Why yes, you would, I guess that Primordial black holes aren't the good candidates for dark matter that you seem to think they are.
Lying again! I never said that!
And likewise, (sarcasm) it mysteriously never did capture another star. How do you suppose it escaped that fate? (/sarcasm)
Try finding more references to back this one up. It's really quite weak.
HINT: This concept is definitely not supported by mainstream physics.
QUOTE
You're the one claiming that these are responsible for Dark Matter.
You tell me.
You tell me.
Talk about being a liar! When did I say primordial black holes are responsible for dark matter? Never.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're the one claiming that these are responsible for Dark Matter. You tell me. |
Talk about being a liar! When did I say primordial black holes are responsible for dark matter? Never.
Besides, didn't you also say that Hawking was wrong, bit now your using an (assumed) absence of observations of Hawking Radiation to say that MBH's can't be Dark Matter...
I was using it as a sarcastic device (in a sarcastic paragraph) to demonstrate the paradoxes this creates in your own arguments. By opening with, "Pish." I meant it's all crap piled on crap.
QUOTE
And you complain about me arguing both sides of the coin.
Sorry, I forgot to denote the sarcasm.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And you complain about me arguing both sides of the coin. |
Sorry, I forgot to denote the sarcasm.
Are you just ignoring the fact that RPenner showed that there were tens of thousands of these things per solar volume, if your assertions were there. You're arguing against your own hypothesis here.
Rpenner said, there's tens of thousands of atom sized (or larger) black holes, per solar volume, zipping around everywhere? When? I'll have to chastise him for that!
QUOTE
The paper discusses primodial black holes that are massive enough to have survived the hawking radiation they've emitted.
But what about the ones that are only just now small enough to evaporate suddenly? ...how about the ones that just now reached the critical limit? ..how about now?
What? You think they all came in standard sizes, perhaps?
(sarcasm) And the Lord said, "Let these black holes be the ones that last one billion years." and he saw that they were good. Then the Lord said, "Let these be of a size to last 10 billion years." and he saw that they too were good. Then the Lord said, "Let these ones last until they are the size of hydrgen atoms when I make man, to confound the self-named 'Trippy.'" and he saw that they were good.(/sarcasm)
Heck, this doesn't even take into account the effects of distance. What about the ones that evaporated a billion years ago, a billion light years away!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The paper discusses primodial black holes that are massive enough to have survived the hawking radiation they've emitted. |
But what about the ones that are only just now small enough to evaporate suddenly? ...how about the ones that just now reached the critical limit? ..how about now?
What? You think they all came in standard sizes, perhaps?
(sarcasm) And the Lord said, "Let these black holes be the ones that last one billion years." and he saw that they were good. Then the Lord said, "Let these be of a size to last 10 billion years." and he saw that they too were good. Then the Lord said, "Let these ones last until they are the size of hydrgen atoms when I make man, to confound the self-named 'Trippy.'" and he saw that they were good.(/sarcasm)
Heck, this doesn't even take into account the effects of distance. What about the ones that evaporated a billion years ago, a billion light years away!
Why yes, you would, I guess that Primordial black holes aren't the good candidates for dark matter that you seem to think they are.
Lying again! I never said that!
QUOTE
This is my point - according to your assertions, about the nature of dark matter, and the stability of micro blackholes, we shouldn't be here. And yet we are, how do you explain this apparent discrepancy - oh yeah, that's right, some how, mystreriously, the sun has been lucky enough to avoid capturing one.
And likewise, (sarcasm) it mysteriously never did capture another star. How do you suppose it escaped that fate? (/sarcasm)
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 24 2008, 06:15 PM)
QUOTE (Ubavontuba in my feedback+)
Why don't you let AlphaNumeric fight his own battles?
Besides, what are you afraid of? If you're so smart, why don't you present your argument for AlphaNumeric's viewpoint (that gravity is a force in GR) in the forum?
Are you afraid you might "learn something for a change?"
Your patently dishonest implication aside, I've already presented my arguments for gravity being a force in GR.
All of which I easily shot down.
Only in the generic sense.
Only in the generic sense.
to the continuously accepted definition of the fundamental forces
Which isn't even a GR claim!
I don't recall this. Show it to me again. Are you (like AlphaNumeric and rpenner) suggesting that showing gravity is a force outside of GR somehow proves it's a force in GR?
I don't recall this. Show it to me again. Are you (like AlphaNumeric and rpenner) suggesting that showing gravity is a force outside of GR somehow proves it's a force in GR?
It is not reflective of my intelligence AT ALL that you either refuse to accept such simple logic, or prove incapable of understanding it.
It is reflective of your intelligence that you either refuse to accept all of the references I provided and even all of the references AlphaNumeric provided (which actually backed my assertions), or you're just incapable of understanding them.
How can it be a "classical force in GR," when it's not even a force in GR! The correct phrasing is: It's a classical theory of gravity. (duh)
How can it be a "classical force in GR," when it's not even a force in GR! The correct phrasing is: It's a classical theory of gravity. (duh)
YOU have nothing to teach me or AN. You have nothing to teach Trippy. You're just an amateur who doesn't know half as much as needed to work with physics, and thinks he knows twice as much as needed. I already demonstrably know more about physics than you, and likely always will.
Then you better start demonstrating it, 'cause so far, you've lost every single physics argument with me. You have to resort to childish name-calling, baby crap, to even continue!
See? You make my case for me!
Besides, what are you afraid of? If you're so smart, why don't you present your argument for AlphaNumeric's viewpoint (that gravity is a force in GR) in the forum?
Are you afraid you might "learn something for a change?"
Your patently dishonest implication aside, I've already presented my arguments for gravity being a force in GR.
All of which I easily shot down.
QUOTE
Everything from Einstein calling it a force
Only in the generic sense.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Everything from Einstein calling it a force |
Only in the generic sense.
to the continuously accepted definition of the fundamental forces
Which isn't even a GR claim!
QUOTE
to a simple explanation by which the seeming contradiction between curved space-time in GR and gravity being a force can be resolved.
I don't recall this. Show it to me again. Are you (like AlphaNumeric and rpenner) suggesting that showing gravity is a force outside of GR somehow proves it's a force in GR?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| to a simple explanation by which the seeming contradiction between curved space-time in GR and gravity being a force can be resolved. |
I don't recall this. Show it to me again. Are you (like AlphaNumeric and rpenner) suggesting that showing gravity is a force outside of GR somehow proves it's a force in GR?
It is not reflective of my intelligence AT ALL that you either refuse to accept such simple logic, or prove incapable of understanding it.
It is reflective of your intelligence that you either refuse to accept all of the references I provided and even all of the references AlphaNumeric provided (which actually backed my assertions), or you're just incapable of understanding them.
QUOTE
I might also point out that your whole argument on the subject changed from claiming that gravity is not a CLASSICAL FORCE in GR which I pointed out is, in fact the case (unless you seem to believe Einstein had psychic powers which allowed him to foresee the discovery of quantum mechanics and thus describe gravity in non-classical means to you privately, when no-one else was listening), to claiming that it is not a force at all in GR, which fails to account for the three points I listed above.
How can it be a "classical force in GR," when it's not even a force in GR! The correct phrasing is: It's a classical theory of gravity. (duh)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I might also point out that your whole argument on the subject changed from claiming that gravity is not a CLASSICAL FORCE in GR which I pointed out is, in fact the case (unless you seem to believe Einstein had psychic powers which allowed him to foresee the discovery of quantum mechanics and thus describe gravity in non-classical means to you privately, when no-one else was listening), to claiming that it is not a force at all in GR, which fails to account for the three points I listed above. |
How can it be a "classical force in GR," when it's not even a force in GR! The correct phrasing is: It's a classical theory of gravity. (duh)
YOU have nothing to teach me or AN. You have nothing to teach Trippy. You're just an amateur who doesn't know half as much as needed to work with physics, and thinks he knows twice as much as needed. I already demonstrably know more about physics than you, and likely always will.
Then you better start demonstrating it, 'cause so far, you've lost every single physics argument with me. You have to resort to childish name-calling, baby crap, to even continue!
QUOTE
So drink another beer, dear Schizo, pop another anti-psychotic pill, and take a break from your arm-waving prophecies of doom stemming from the LHC and your idiotic assertions of the apparent contradictions of your betters. It'd do you some good.
See? You make my case for me!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 06:51 PM)
And likewise, (sarcasm) it mysteriously never did capture another star. How do you suppose it escaped that fate? (/sarcasm)
I've already explained this to you how many times now you idiot?
It's a matter of numbers. The sun doesn't exist in an environment where it's likely to capture another star.
It's been pointed out to you repeatedly how this 'rebuttal' (and I use the term loosely) is not only a fallacy, but completely irrelevant to the comment.
I've already explained this to you how many times now you idiot?
It's a matter of numbers. The sun doesn't exist in an environment where it's likely to capture another star.
It's been pointed out to you repeatedly how this 'rebuttal' (and I use the term loosely) is not only a fallacy, but completely irrelevant to the comment.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 06:51 PM)
Talk about being a liar! When did I say primordial black holes are responsible for dark matter? Never.
Caught lying again.
Caught lying again.
QUOTE (Ubavontuba+Mar 11 2008, 07:18 PM)
think there's sufficient doubt to warrant a thorough re-evaluation. I also think the apparent stability of dark matter is potentially problematical to the Hawking radiation hypothesis.
Besides, it should be plainly obvious from the context of my next sentence (see there you are again, being dishonest and twisting the meaning of my words in the way you split my sentences) that I was referring to MBH's (although technically, PBH's ARE MBH's, the only distinction is when they were formed.
Besides, it should be plainly obvious from the context of my next sentence (see there you are again, being dishonest and twisting the meaning of my words in the way you split my sentences) that I was referring to MBH's (although technically, PBH's ARE MBH's, the only distinction is when they were formed.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 06:51 PM)
But what about the ones that are only just now small enough to evaporate suddenly? ...how about the ones that just now reached the critical limit? ..how about now?
What? You think they all came in standard sizes, perhaps?
(sarcasm) And the Lord said, "Let these black holes be the ones that last one billion years." and he saw that they were good. Then the Lord said, "Let these be of a size to last 10 billion years." and he saw that they too were good. Then the Lord said, "Let these ones last until they are the size of hydrgen atoms when I make man, to confound the self-named 'Trippy.'" and he saw that they were good.(/sarcasm)
Heck, this doesn't even take into account the effects of distance. What about the ones that evaporated a billion years ago, a billion light years away!
Don't be an idiot.
Nothing I've said implies this.
Black holes are expected o emit Hakwing Radiation at a rate that increases as mass decreases, we would therfore not expect that blackholes below a certain mass would survive longer then 13.5 billion odd years (or however long the Universe has been around).
That previouse post of yours was just irrelevant stupidity, and another dishonest attempt to twist something i've said out of context.
And you wonder why no-one takes your arguments seriously.
If you can't make a point honestly, go away.
What? You think they all came in standard sizes, perhaps?
(sarcasm) And the Lord said, "Let these black holes be the ones that last one billion years." and he saw that they were good. Then the Lord said, "Let these be of a size to last 10 billion years." and he saw that they too were good. Then the Lord said, "Let these ones last until they are the size of hydrgen atoms when I make man, to confound the self-named 'Trippy.'" and he saw that they were good.(/sarcasm)
Heck, this doesn't even take into account the effects of distance. What about the ones that evaporated a billion years ago, a billion light years away!
Don't be an idiot.
Nothing I've said implies this.
Black holes are expected o emit Hakwing Radiation at a rate that increases as mass decreases, we would therfore not expect that blackholes below a certain mass would survive longer then 13.5 billion odd years (or however long the Universe has been around).
That previouse post of yours was just irrelevant stupidity, and another dishonest attempt to twist something i've said out of context.
And you wonder why no-one takes your arguments seriously.
If you can't make a point honestly, go away.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Mar 24 2008, 11:10 PM)
So, you prefer succinctness over full explanations?
Okay then, how about this....
Uba, you are lying and you know it.
Succinct enough for you, uba? I have rarely in my life said such things to anyone.....so it tells you how far along the path of disingenuousness and dishonesty I think you have fallen since our first exchanges so long ago. Sad to see it.
I am not a liar. I tell the truth as I see it. I may be in error, but I DO NOT LIE.
I did (quite fairly, I might add) warn you not to continue this discussion, for fear of causing just such a rift as this.
That's equivalent to stating that all matter must be evenly disbursed throughout the universe! (obviously, not the case)
That's equivalent to stating that all matter must be evenly disbursed throughout the universe! (obviously, not the case)
You are lying and misdirecting about that NOW....by trying to introduce YOUR OWN MISREPRESENTATIONS and LIES about what OTHERS are saying in THAT context.
How so?
Good. I've always tried to be tranparent.
Good. I've always tried to be tranparent.
There was a time when I allowed for 'unintentional' misunderstanding on your part; but no longer. Since you have demonstrated that there is nothing 'unintentional' about your dishonest aspersions on others when YOU are CORNERED BY YOUR OWN INCONSISTENT ARGUMENTS.
Cornered? How?
You may have attempted to make that distinction, but then you revert back to confusing them in your claims.
You may have attempted to make that distinction, but then you revert back to confusing them in your claims.
You STILL confuse the MEANING of my LONE NEUTRON (micro-mass) and NEUTRON AGGREGATION (Neutron star MACRO-mass) example.
The meaning is NOT about density....it is ABOUT THE BEHAVIOUR of BOTH the GRADIENT aspect and the TOTAL STRENGTH aspect when the SCALE of such things WHEN COMPETING FORCES/ASPECTS are taken into account (like CHARGE, ESCAPE VELOCITIES, DYNAMIC TURBULENCE and QUANTUM DISRUPTIONS etc).
The scale is irrelevant. I already told you that.
If you aren't talking of "black gradients," then you can't be talking about anything, because other than black gradients, neutron stars have the strongest hypothesized gravity gradients.
If you aren't talking of "black gradients," then you can't be talking about anything, because other than black gradients, neutron stars have the strongest hypothesized gravity gradients.
The xample should tell you that BOTH STRENGTH AND GRADIENT PROFILE will be OVERCOME when MICRO-MASSED particles are micro-LONE instead of MACRO-AGGREGATIONS.
But the discussion is about micro black holes, and you're excluding them!
Or, maybe you just don't understand, since it's apparent that you've forgotten the subject matter entirely (micro black holes being created in the LHC, not micro mass, non-black, gravity features).
Or, maybe you just don't understand, since it's apparent that you've forgotten the subject matter entirely (micro black holes being created in the LHC, not micro mass, non-black, gravity features).
You STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED WHY 'only density' is relevant....and NOT all these OTHER STRONGER FORCES/ASPECTS that make MICRO-MASSES unable to form and sustain 'black' states of GRAVITY STRENGTH/GRADIENT EFFECTS!
Sure I have, you've just refused to accept the explanations.
And you'll remain petulent and angry, until you calm down and while considering my side, present coherent arguments for yours.
So far, all you've done is demand that I agree with you. I don't have to do that, no matter how much it upsets you.
And you'll remain petulent and angry, until you calm down and while considering my side, present coherent arguments for yours.
So far, all you've done is demand that I agree with you. I don't have to do that, no matter how much it upsets you.
Oh, so NOW that you HAVE got it right (that I disagreed with BOTH you and others) you have the further dishonesty to lie and dodge by trying to use my own INDEPENDENT, INFORMED, HONEST and SCIENTIFICALLY SUBSTANTIATED healthy questioning of orthodoxy as a sneaky way of CO-OPTING my impartial view/attitude and trying to ABUSE IT as implying it somehow 'justifies' YOUR OWN UNinformed//dishonest/confused IGNORANCE of BOTH the orthodoxy AND MY OWN perfectly suppported disagreements with BOTHYOU AND OTHERS. Talk about sneaky lies and deceit, that takes the cake, uba.
So what you're saying is that I should believe your crackpot hypothesis over the cummulative science of the world? You don't think much of yourself, do you?
You also claim your hypothesis is substantiated. How is it substantiated?
That's just mean-spirited derision. I think it's obvious that's not the case.
That's just mean-spirited derision. I think it's obvious that's not the case.
You KEEP SAYING THINGS WITHOUT BACKING THEM UP PROPERLY AND FULLY (but with just MORE meaningless quips and arrogant/dismissive 'statements of fact' that aren't anything of the kind!....and then proceed to LIE ABOUT WHAT OTHERS HAVE ARGUED. You keep trying to 're-write history' here, as if you think people here are too dumb or easily distracted to understand and remember what YOU have said/misunderstood/lied about. Not very respectful of other people's intellect/integrity here, are you, uba?...else you wouldn't be doing what you are attempting to do all the time now.
Ask rpenner how consistent I've been. He knows.
Ha!
Ha!
- DIFFERENCES between LONE and CUMULATIVE STRENGTH AND GRADIENT gravity 'reach/effect' from/to SUB-Planck domains;
Double Ha! (Ha! Ha!)
Gravity isn't competitive!
Gravity isn't competitive!
- the CHARGE, TRANSIENCE, QUANTUM SCALE AND DYNAMIC TURBULENCE that makes micro-holes IMPOSSIBLE to form/persist in 'free particle collisions' involving ONLY micro-massed IN-ABSOLUTE-TERMS-PUNY gravity forces (strength AND gradient) that are at the mercy of MAGNITUDES GREATER FORCES tending to EXPLODE/SPLATTER such free-particle collisions to give RESONANCE PRODUCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE FORCES/FACTORS that are MUCH MORE DETERMINING than gravity/density of PARTICLE SCALE ENERGY/MASS FEATURES/EVENTS.
That's your hypothesis. Might you be wrong?
I have, repeatedly. Did you miss it?
I have, repeatedly. Did you miss it?
So far, sad to say, NOT ONE THING you have presented has survived, mainly because nothing you have put forward has made ANY SENSE EVEN IN YOUR OWN SCENARIOS.....which scenarios have ALL BEEN BASED ON 'WANTING IT BOTH WAYS' STANCES which you cannot support EITHER WAY!
Apparently, you haven't been reading. So far, I've won every point. Even the dissasociated points (like gravity not being a force in GR).
I guess the truth hurts, when it's contrary to your own tightly held beliefs.
I guess the truth hurts, when it's contrary to your own tightly held beliefs.
Good luck with life, uba.......you will need it if you are so dishonest/obtuse that even I myself am forced to come down on the 'side' of the 'less tolerant' types here! hehehe.
I'm getting along fine, thank you.
Okay. Good luck to you.
Okay. Good luck to you.
....you obviously don't understand or care about what people are actually saying...you are only intersted in quipping dismissals without substance in science OR logic. I have enjoyed it nonetheless because it has occassioned my own rethinks of ALL 'sides' of all the relevant physics/context/issues.
I care. I've substantiated my claims with numerous references. How many have you used?
You're welcome.
You're welcome.
I won't be wasting my time here any more....since all the aspects have been covered and we are now at the 'terminal' stage where all you are doing is repeating meaningless and unsupported ASSERTIONS about 'density only' and lying about what others have argued.
So disagreeing with you is unacceptable, is that it?
Actually, I think you've disgraced yourself splendily, with this last post of yours.
Actually, I think you've disgraced yourself splendily, with this last post of yours.
PS: uba...it is not about the money....or I would have stayed in Sydney and died a rich man INSTEAD of doing my current work in many fields FOR THE LOVE AND DUTY of it to science and future generations. Any PATENTING I am considering is aimed at KEEPING CONTROL AWAY FROM EXPLOITATIVE INDIVIDUALS/GROUPS/GOVERNMENTS who would otherwise have MONOPOLY CONTROL at the detriment of the end-user. See, uba....others DO have scruples and principles about GLOBAL SURVIVAL and HARMONY and NON-PROFIT ENDEAVOURS.....it is not just you incompetent SCAREMONGERS who NEVER OFFER/DO ANYTHING CONCRETE to improve matters that have a right to opinions and understand ALL the necessary scientific/logical aspects of all the important things we should be doing. So your "hope you make a million" etc cowardly underhanded attempts at 'quipilly' belittling/cheapening what I am doing is just more of your UNINFORMED/DISHONEST CONFUSIONS and SNEAKY BACK-DOOR INSINUATION and DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATIONS of my perfectly honourable and unselfish efforts endeavours in MANY areas of science/technology with a view to INTEGRATED, SELF-SUSTAINING and GLOBALLY AFFORDABLE/AVSILABLE SOLUTIONS for MOST of the INTERCONNECTED (and so far heretofore 'considered' INTRACTABLE singly AND collectively!) GLOBAL PROBLEMS that need REAL WORK on MANY LEVELS and FACTORS to bring together the necessary scientific/technical solutions.
Wow. It was meant as a salutation... an acknowledgement of your efforts... a wish for success. I had no way of knowing you'd feel this way about it. How would it be if I said, "Good luck, I hope no exploitative individuals/groups/governments get their grubby hands on it!"
Is that better?
I'm just doing the best I can with what I have. I don't expect to win. But I can't not try at all. I really do feel it's potentially dangerous.
Okay then, how about this....
Uba, you are lying and you know it.
Succinct enough for you, uba? I have rarely in my life said such things to anyone.....so it tells you how far along the path of disingenuousness and dishonesty I think you have fallen since our first exchanges so long ago. Sad to see it.
I am not a liar. I tell the truth as I see it. I may be in error, but I DO NOT LIE.
I did (quite fairly, I might add) warn you not to continue this discussion, for fear of causing just such a rift as this.
QUOTE
Yes, you know perfectly well that the CLOUDS of micro-holes discussion wasn't ONLY about the Earth/LHC context. You know perfectly well, as all observers here do also, that the 'speed distribution' discussion took on the actual context which YOU LATER introduced, when you depended on 'dark matter' and 'dark galaxies' as some sort of 'support' for YOUR idea of 'clouds' of micro-holes...which 'support' YOU sought as some sort of explanations/evidence for your ERRONEOUS stance when WE pointed out that IF you were correct, then all galaxies must be inundated with micro-holes of velocity distributions such that SOME of those innumerable micro-holes in YOUR 'clouds of micro-holes' MUST be captured by practically every star OVER THE BILLIONS OF YEARS till now.
That's equivalent to stating that all matter must be evenly disbursed throughout the universe! (obviously, not the case)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, you know perfectly well that the CLOUDS of micro-holes discussion wasn't ONLY about the Earth/LHC context. You know perfectly well, as all observers here do also, that the 'speed distribution' discussion took on the actual context which YOU LATER introduced, when you depended on 'dark matter' and 'dark galaxies' as some sort of 'support' for YOUR idea of 'clouds' of micro-holes...which 'support' YOU sought as some sort of explanations/evidence for your ERRONEOUS stance when WE pointed out that IF you were correct, then all galaxies must be inundated with micro-holes of velocity distributions such that SOME of those innumerable micro-holes in YOUR 'clouds of micro-holes' MUST be captured by practically every star OVER THE BILLIONS OF YEARS till now. |
That's equivalent to stating that all matter must be evenly disbursed throughout the universe! (obviously, not the case)
You are lying and misdirecting about that NOW....by trying to introduce YOUR OWN MISREPRESENTATIONS and LIES about what OTHERS are saying in THAT context.
How so?
QUOTE
It won't work. You are too transparent now.
Good. I've always tried to be tranparent.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It won't work. You are too transparent now. |
Good. I've always tried to be tranparent.
There was a time when I allowed for 'unintentional' misunderstanding on your part; but no longer. Since you have demonstrated that there is nothing 'unintentional' about your dishonest aspersions on others when YOU are CORNERED BY YOUR OWN INCONSISTENT ARGUMENTS.
Cornered? How?
QUOTE
Another blatant example is YOUR CONTINUING aspersions on ME when it comes to EXTREME/CUMULATIVE gravity strength PER SE (macro-mass) and EXTREME gravity GRADIENTS (IRRESPECTIVE OF MASS).
THAT distinction I made MANY TIME....but you STILL misrepresent that I have NOT done so. That is another reason why I have no choice in branding you a liar.....something I am ever loathe to do to anyone if I can possibly avoid it. But in your case I cannot avoid it any longer...and so muct agree with those who have been calling you a liar for some time now. Pity you have now irretrievably proved them right all along.
THAT distinction I made MANY TIME....but you STILL misrepresent that I have NOT done so. That is another reason why I have no choice in branding you a liar.....something I am ever loathe to do to anyone if I can possibly avoid it. But in your case I cannot avoid it any longer...and so muct agree with those who have been calling you a liar for some time now. Pity you have now irretrievably proved them right all along.
You may have attempted to make that distinction, but then you revert back to confusing them in your claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Another blatant example is YOUR CONTINUING aspersions on ME when it comes to EXTREME/CUMULATIVE gravity strength PER SE (macro-mass) and EXTREME gravity GRADIENTS (IRRESPECTIVE OF MASS). THAT distinction I made MANY TIME....but you STILL misrepresent that I have NOT done so. That is another reason why I have no choice in branding you a liar.....something I am ever loathe to do to anyone if I can possibly avoid it. But in your case I cannot avoid it any longer...and so muct agree with those who have been calling you a liar for some time now. Pity you have now irretrievably proved them right all along. |
You may have attempted to make that distinction, but then you revert back to confusing them in your claims.
You STILL confuse the MEANING of my LONE NEUTRON (micro-mass) and NEUTRON AGGREGATION (Neutron star MACRO-mass) example.
The meaning is NOT about density....it is ABOUT THE BEHAVIOUR of BOTH the GRADIENT aspect and the TOTAL STRENGTH aspect when the SCALE of such things WHEN COMPETING FORCES/ASPECTS are taken into account (like CHARGE, ESCAPE VELOCITIES, DYNAMIC TURBULENCE and QUANTUM DISRUPTIONS etc).
The scale is irrelevant. I already told you that.
QUOTE
The WHOLE POINT about that difference in SCALE being that CERTAIN COMPETING FORCES/ASPECTS that CAN NOT 'overcome' a NEUTRON STAR'S gravity strength AND/OR gravity 'gradient' near its surface ACTUALLY CAN AND WILL OVERCOME a LONE NEUTRON'S gravity strength AND ALSO its near-surface gravity GRADIENT. Note: I am not talking of 'black' gradients here....just so you don't again confuse/misdirect things here (as usual)! hehehe.
If you aren't talking of "black gradients," then you can't be talking about anything, because other than black gradients, neutron stars have the strongest hypothesized gravity gradients.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The WHOLE POINT about that difference in SCALE being that CERTAIN COMPETING FORCES/ASPECTS that CAN NOT 'overcome' a NEUTRON STAR'S gravity strength AND/OR gravity 'gradient' near its surface ACTUALLY CAN AND WILL OVERCOME a LONE NEUTRON'S gravity strength AND ALSO its near-surface gravity GRADIENT. Note: I am not talking of 'black' gradients here....just so you don't again confuse/misdirect things here (as usual)! hehehe. |
If you aren't talking of "black gradients," then you can't be talking about anything, because other than black gradients, neutron stars have the strongest hypothesized gravity gradients.
The xample should tell you that BOTH STRENGTH AND GRADIENT PROFILE will be OVERCOME when MICRO-MASSED particles are micro-LONE instead of MACRO-AGGREGATIONS.
But the discussion is about micro black holes, and you're excluding them!
QUOTE
The reason I now am certain of your dishonesty and evasion tactics is that YOU STILL continue to ignore all these OTHER OVERWHELMING COMPETING FORCES/ASPECTS that EFFECTIVELY make ANY MICRO-MASSED gravity features PUNY and VULNERABLE to IMMEDIATE DISRUPTION in ABSOLUTE TERMS BOTH in gravity strength AND near-surface gradients!
Or, maybe you just don't understand, since it's apparent that you've forgotten the subject matter entirely (micro black holes being created in the LHC, not micro mass, non-black, gravity features).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The reason I now am certain of your dishonesty and evasion tactics is that YOU STILL continue to ignore all these OTHER OVERWHELMING COMPETING FORCES/ASPECTS that EFFECTIVELY make ANY MICRO-MASSED gravity features PUNY and VULNERABLE to IMMEDIATE DISRUPTION in ABSOLUTE TERMS BOTH in gravity strength AND near-surface gradients! |
Or, maybe you just don't understand, since it's apparent that you've forgotten the subject matter entirely (micro black holes being created in the LHC, not micro mass, non-black, gravity features).
You STILL HAVE NOT EXPLAINED WHY 'only density' is relevant....and NOT all these OTHER STRONGER FORCES/ASPECTS that make MICRO-MASSES unable to form and sustain 'black' states of GRAVITY STRENGTH/GRADIENT EFFECTS!
Sure I have, you've just refused to accept the explanations.
QUOTE
Until you do, it is YOU that is confused, deluded, wilfully evasive and dishonestly casting aspersions on OTHERS to misdirect from your own incompetence and incomprehension where others inputs are treated by you so cavalierly time and time again.
And you'll remain petulent and angry, until you calm down and while considering my side, present coherent arguments for yours.
So far, all you've done is demand that I agree with you. I don't have to do that, no matter how much it upsets you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Until you do, it is YOU that is confused, deluded, wilfully evasive and dishonestly casting aspersions on OTHERS to misdirect from your own incompetence and incomprehension where others inputs are treated by you so cavalierly time and time again. |
And you'll remain petulent and angry, until you calm down and while considering my side, present coherent arguments for yours.
So far, all you've done is demand that I agree with you. I don't have to do that, no matter how much it upsets you.
Oh, so NOW that you HAVE got it right (that I disagreed with BOTH you and others) you have the further dishonesty to lie and dodge by trying to use my own INDEPENDENT, INFORMED, HONEST and SCIENTIFICALLY SUBSTANTIATED healthy questioning of orthodoxy as a sneaky way of CO-OPTING my impartial view/attitude and trying to ABUSE IT as implying it somehow 'justifies' YOUR OWN UNinformed//dishonest/confused IGNORANCE of BOTH the orthodoxy AND MY OWN perfectly suppported disagreements with BOTHYOU AND OTHERS. Talk about sneaky lies and deceit, that takes the cake, uba.
So what you're saying is that I should believe your crackpot hypothesis over the cummulative science of the world? You don't think much of yourself, do you?
You also claim your hypothesis is substantiated. How is it substantiated?
QUOTE
Are you a politician/creationist zealot? I only ask since I have encountered such behaviour as yours in people of that ilk.
That's just mean-spirited derision. I think it's obvious that's not the case.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you a politician/creationist zealot? I only ask since I have encountered such behaviour as yours in people of that ilk. |
That's just mean-spirited derision. I think it's obvious that's not the case.
You KEEP SAYING THINGS WITHOUT BACKING THEM UP PROPERLY AND FULLY (but with just MORE meaningless quips and arrogant/dismissive 'statements of fact' that aren't anything of the kind!....and then proceed to LIE ABOUT WHAT OTHERS HAVE ARGUED. You keep trying to 're-write history' here, as if you think people here are too dumb or easily distracted to understand and remember what YOU have said/misunderstood/lied about. Not very respectful of other people's intellect/integrity here, are you, uba?...else you wouldn't be doing what you are attempting to do all the time now.
Ask rpenner how consistent I've been. He knows.
QUOTE
Basically, you have demonstrated you have NOT THE LEAST COMPREHENSION about:
- SCALE EFFECTS in natural interactions;
- SCALE EFFECTS in natural interactions;
Ha!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Basically, you have demonstrated you have NOT THE LEAST COMPREHENSION about: - SCALE EFFECTS in natural interactions; |
Ha!
- DIFFERENCES between LONE and CUMULATIVE STRENGTH AND GRADIENT gravity 'reach/effect' from/to SUB-Planck domains;
Double Ha! (Ha! Ha!)
QUOTE
- COMPARATIVE effectiveness of the various COMPETING forces/factors in 'particle' and in AGGREGATE EXTREME BODY;
Gravity isn't competitive!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| - COMPARATIVE effectiveness of the various COMPETING forces/factors in 'particle' and in AGGREGATE EXTREME BODY; |
Gravity isn't competitive!
- the CHARGE, TRANSIENCE, QUANTUM SCALE AND DYNAMIC TURBULENCE that makes micro-holes IMPOSSIBLE to form/persist in 'free particle collisions' involving ONLY micro-massed IN-ABSOLUTE-TERMS-PUNY gravity forces (strength AND gradient) that are at the mercy of MAGNITUDES GREATER FORCES tending to EXPLODE/SPLATTER such free-particle collisions to give RESONANCE PRODUCTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE FORCES/FACTORS that are MUCH MORE DETERMINING than gravity/density of PARTICLE SCALE ENERGY/MASS FEATURES/EVENTS.
That's your hypothesis. Might you be wrong?
QUOTE
Therefore, uba, while you may continue to dishonestly misrepresent/miscontextualise and otherwise TWIST others arguments, you remain ever in the position of liar and dishonest interlocutor unless you actually present (and not just evade/misdirect etc) actual physical/logical arguments to support your contentions. And I don't care WHAT science you resort to; whether orthodox or novel...JUST AS LONG AS IT ACTUALLY REFUTES LOGICALLY AND SELF-CONSISTENTLY what I and others have put to you that ALREADY AND OFTEN REFUTED YOUR OWN STANCES (all of which stances from you have depended on 'having it both ways' SPECULATIONS AND PLAIN INSULTING QUIPS/MISDIRECTIONS in lieu of SUBSTANCE THAT MAKES ANY SENSE.
I have, repeatedly. Did you miss it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Therefore, uba, while you may continue to dishonestly misrepresent/miscontextualise and otherwise TWIST others arguments, you remain ever in the position of liar and dishonest interlocutor unless you actually present (and not just evade/misdirect etc) actual physical/logical arguments to support your contentions. And I don't care WHAT science you resort to; whether orthodox or novel...JUST AS LONG AS IT ACTUALLY REFUTES LOGICALLY AND SELF-CONSISTENTLY what I and others have put to you that ALREADY AND OFTEN REFUTED YOUR OWN STANCES (all of which stances from you have depended on 'having it both ways' SPECULATIONS AND PLAIN INSULTING QUIPS/MISDIRECTIONS in lieu of SUBSTANCE THAT MAKES ANY SENSE. |
I have, repeatedly. Did you miss it?
So far, sad to say, NOT ONE THING you have presented has survived, mainly because nothing you have put forward has made ANY SENSE EVEN IN YOUR OWN SCENARIOS.....which scenarios have ALL BEEN BASED ON 'WANTING IT BOTH WAYS' STANCES which you cannot support EITHER WAY!
Apparently, you haven't been reading. So far, I've won every point. Even the dissasociated points (like gravity not being a force in GR).
QUOTE
These arguments of yours across all these LHC/MICRO-HOLE discussion threads would have to be the greatest demonstration of the WANTING IT BOTH WAYS method of 'doing/debating science' that I have ever come across ANYWHERE. Congratulations, uba....you have made me argue BOTH SIDES of YOUR scenarios and found BOTH SIDES 'WANTING". I am no longer surprised at how some here treat you and your so-called debating. You have no one but yourself to blame.
I guess the truth hurts, when it's contrary to your own tightly held beliefs.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| These arguments of yours across all these LHC/MICRO-HOLE discussion threads would have to be the greatest demonstration of the WANTING IT BOTH WAYS method of 'doing/debating science' that I have ever come across ANYWHERE. Congratulations, uba....you have made me argue BOTH SIDES of YOUR scenarios and found BOTH SIDES 'WANTING". I am no longer surprised at how some here treat you and your so-called debating. You have no one but yourself to blame. |
I guess the truth hurts, when it's contrary to your own tightly held beliefs.
Good luck with life, uba.......you will need it if you are so dishonest/obtuse that even I myself am forced to come down on the 'side' of the 'less tolerant' types here! hehehe.
I'm getting along fine, thank you.
QUOTE
No more discussion with you, mate
Okay. Good luck to you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No more discussion with you, mate |
Okay. Good luck to you.
....you obviously don't understand or care about what people are actually saying...you are only intersted in quipping dismissals without substance in science OR logic. I have enjoyed it nonetheless because it has occassioned my own rethinks of ALL 'sides' of all the relevant physics/context/issues.
I care. I've substantiated my claims with numerous references. How many have you used?
QUOTE
Thanks for that at least, uba!
You're welcome.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Thanks for that at least, uba! |
You're welcome.
I won't be wasting my time here any more....since all the aspects have been covered and we are now at the 'terminal' stage where all you are doing is repeating meaningless and unsupported ASSERTIONS about 'density only' and lying about what others have argued.
So disagreeing with you is unacceptable, is that it?
QUOTE
Cheers anyway, uba, everyone....and get out into the sunshine and away from the dishonesty and disgrace which uba seems intent on infusing here ad nauseum.
Actually, I think you've disgraced yourself splendily, with this last post of yours.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Cheers anyway, uba, everyone....and get out into the sunshine and away from the dishonesty and disgrace which uba seems intent on infusing here ad nauseum. |
Actually, I think you've disgraced yourself splendily, with this last post of yours.
PS: uba...it is not about the money....or I would have stayed in Sydney and died a rich man INSTEAD of doing my current work in many fields FOR THE LOVE AND DUTY of it to science and future generations. Any PATENTING I am considering is aimed at KEEPING CONTROL AWAY FROM EXPLOITATIVE INDIVIDUALS/GROUPS/GOVERNMENTS who would otherwise have MONOPOLY CONTROL at the detriment of the end-user. See, uba....others DO have scruples and principles about GLOBAL SURVIVAL and HARMONY and NON-PROFIT ENDEAVOURS.....it is not just you incompetent SCAREMONGERS who NEVER OFFER/DO ANYTHING CONCRETE to improve matters that have a right to opinions and understand ALL the necessary scientific/logical aspects of all the important things we should be doing. So your "hope you make a million" etc cowardly underhanded attempts at 'quipilly' belittling/cheapening what I am doing is just more of your UNINFORMED/DISHONEST CONFUSIONS and SNEAKY BACK-DOOR INSINUATION and DELIBERATE MISREPRESENTATIONS of my perfectly honourable and unselfish efforts endeavours in MANY areas of science/technology with a view to INTEGRATED, SELF-SUSTAINING and GLOBALLY AFFORDABLE/AVSILABLE SOLUTIONS for MOST of the INTERCONNECTED (and so far heretofore 'considered' INTRACTABLE singly AND collectively!) GLOBAL PROBLEMS that need REAL WORK on MANY LEVELS and FACTORS to bring together the necessary scientific/technical solutions.
Wow. It was meant as a salutation... an acknowledgement of your efforts... a wish for success. I had no way of knowing you'd feel this way about it. How would it be if I said, "Good luck, I hope no exploitative individuals/groups/governments get their grubby hands on it!"
Is that better?
QUOTE
Big ask? Not really....just takes commitment and perspiration/inspiration AND DIVERSE KNOWLEDGE properly applied by those interested IN THE LONG TERM/PERMANENT SOLUTIONS as distinct from political/costly-exploitable 'quick fixes'. Something that is not YET 'totally dead' in the human race at large or its diverse individual characters of all kinds and creeds. But I'm an optimist, not an uninformed scaremonger....so I see solutions where YOU, uba, see nothing but your own uninformed ego lying to yourself. Good luck with that, mate! I have more important things to do that put up with any more of your empty 'style' over substance' antics here. hehehe. I'll leave you with the last (probably dishoinest) word. I won't be engaging you again. Good bye and thanks for the intellectual stimulation if nothing else!
I'm just doing the best I can with what I have. I don't expect to win. But I can't not try at all. I really do feel it's potentially dangerous.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 06:51 PM)
Try finding more references to back this one up. It's really quite weak.
HINT: This concept is definitely not supported by mainstream physics.
Here's a better idea.
Why don't you cite a paper that refutes the idea that black holes can be captured.
See, again, I notice you're being very cagey with your words, and non specific.
Which idea isn't supported by mainstream?
The idea that a MBH can't be captured?
Or the idea that a star that does must evolve towards the Eddington limit and leave the main sequence?
Get real Ubavontuba.
And start living up to your own standards of proof.
(And here's a clue, I'm not just saying this because I can't find another reference to back up my assertions, I haven't looked any further, and at this stage, you have yet to convince me that I should).
HINT: This concept is definitely not supported by mainstream physics.
Here's a better idea.
Why don't you cite a paper that refutes the idea that black holes can be captured.
See, again, I notice you're being very cagey with your words, and non specific.
Which idea isn't supported by mainstream?
The idea that a MBH can't be captured?
Or the idea that a star that does must evolve towards the Eddington limit and leave the main sequence?
Get real Ubavontuba.
And start living up to your own standards of proof.
(And here's a clue, I'm not just saying this because I can't find another reference to back up my assertions, I haven't looked any further, and at this stage, you have yet to convince me that I should).
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 25 2008, 01:34 AM)
Woah.
Ubavontuba broke RC.
Dude, that takes some doing.
Yeah. I tried to warn him off. It makes me sad.
Ubavontuba broke RC.
Dude, that takes some doing.
Yeah. I tried to warn him off. It makes me sad.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 08:33 PM)
Yeah. I tried to warn him off. It makes me sad.
Yeah, because he so totally cuffed you to your chair, held a gun to your head and forced you to reply.
Yeah, because he so totally cuffed you to your chair, held a gun to your head and forced you to reply.
QUOTE (Trippy+Mar 25 2008, 07:44 AM)
Yeah, because he so totally cuffed you to your chair, held a gun to your head and forced you to reply.
So why didn't he pull the trigger?
So why didn't he pull the trigger?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 01:17 AM)
All of which I easily shot down.
Bullsh*t. You NEVER rebutted any of them, you just linked to pages which describe gravity as the curvature of space, to which I responded with the afore-mentioned simple explanation.
In the generic sense, heat is a force. As is sound. Gravity is a force in the specific sense: The definition of fundamental forces.
In the generic sense, heat is a force. As is sound. Gravity is a force in the specific sense: The definition of fundamental forces.
Which isn't even a GR claim!
Nor is it DENIED by GR, liar.
Of course not. If you remembered all of the valid arguments against your claims, you'd likely have quit posting and gone back to school by now.
Of course not. If you remembered all of the valid arguments against your claims, you'd likely have quit posting and gone back to school by now.
Show it to me again. Are you (like AlphaNumeric and rpenner) suggesting that showing gravity is a force outside of GR somehow proves it's a force in GR?
Go read it again, in the last thread we argued in. I'm not going to link to something you already know how to find! It's a fundamental force, period. Both within and without GR. I've shown how it can be both a force and the curvature of space. Unless you think there's some intrinsic reason why matter naturally moves towards areas of high curvature in space. Of course, then you'll have to re-write GR, but then it wouldn't be GR, would it?
More bullsh*t. None of them "backed your assertion" that gravity is not a force in GR. All of them (every single friggan one, dimwit) claimed that gravity is TREATED differently than the other three forces: as the curvature of space.
OH MY GOD!!! I actually understood them!!! Better than you, to boot...
More bullsh*t. None of them "backed your assertion" that gravity is not a force in GR. All of them (every single friggan one, dimwit) claimed that gravity is TREATED differently than the other three forces: as the curvature of space.
OH MY GOD!!! I actually understood them!!! Better than you, to boot...
How can it be a "classical force in GR," when it's not even a force in GR! The correct phrasing is: It's a classical theory of gravity. (duh)
Then why did you claim it's not classical? Do you think there's some hidden message in GR which only you can uncover which quantizes gravity? Or perhaps it's neither classical nor quantized? Maybe it's a new type of force... Is that it?
More complete Bullsh*t. Simply claiming you've won an argument doesn't mean you've actually won it. Only a complete m0r0n would think so. (Gasp! another naughty word!)
More complete Bullsh*t. Simply claiming you've won an argument doesn't mean you've actually won it. Only a complete m0r0n would think so. (Gasp! another naughty word!)
You have to resort to childish name-calling, baby crap, to even continue!
Well, for that matter, so did RealityCheck, one of the longest-tempered people on this forum! Hell, I dressed him down twice in two different threads and he STILL addresses me civilly. How wrong and dishonest must you have been to set him off so? And why don't you try to show that my argument hinges upon these insults? Or was that just another piece of bullsh*t, flying forth?
Recognizing your inherent mental instability proves you right, eh? Quite ironic, really, considering that such a claim actually does more to harm your credibility than help it.
Not to mention your own propensity for insults. Don't even pretend you don't engage in them, or I'll post a list of every single one.
Tell me something, why is it that you have actual physicists, intelligent amateurs, not-so-intelligent amateurs, cranks, and pretty much everybody who knows the first thing about GR on one side, and you (just you) on the other? Why is it that I have a feedback score approaching 100, when yours is approaching -50? Why is my feedback rating over 75% and yours under 50%? I'm offensive. I'm insulting. I'm judgmental, I'm all over this forum (instead of sticking to one or two threads, like you) and I've interacted with just about every member over 600 posts and every newbie in the past several months. I should have far far lower feedback than you, if we were on the same level.
But we're not. I accept mainstream physics and mainstream interpretations of those physics, and I maintain a respectable level of objectivity.
You know, there's an old saying in the south of the US. "If one man calls you a dog, ignore him. If a second man calls you a dog, fight him. But when a third man calls you a dog, buy a flea collar."
RealityCheck is now the third one to have called you a liar, uba.
Bullsh*t. You NEVER rebutted any of them, you just linked to pages which describe gravity as the curvature of space, to which I responded with the afore-mentioned simple explanation.
QUOTE
Only in the generic sense.
In the generic sense, heat is a force. As is sound. Gravity is a force in the specific sense: The definition of fundamental forces.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Only in the generic sense. |
In the generic sense, heat is a force. As is sound. Gravity is a force in the specific sense: The definition of fundamental forces.
Which isn't even a GR claim!
Nor is it DENIED by GR, liar.
QUOTE
I don't recall this.
Of course not. If you remembered all of the valid arguments against your claims, you'd likely have quit posting and gone back to school by now.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I don't recall this. |
Of course not. If you remembered all of the valid arguments against your claims, you'd likely have quit posting and gone back to school by now.
Show it to me again. Are you (like AlphaNumeric and rpenner) suggesting that showing gravity is a force outside of GR somehow proves it's a force in GR?
Go read it again, in the last thread we argued in. I'm not going to link to something you already know how to find! It's a fundamental force, period. Both within and without GR. I've shown how it can be both a force and the curvature of space. Unless you think there's some intrinsic reason why matter naturally moves towards areas of high curvature in space. Of course, then you'll have to re-write GR, but then it wouldn't be GR, would it?
QUOTE
It is reflective of your intelligence that you either refuse to accept all of the references I provided and even all of the references AlphaNumeric provided (which actually backed my assertions), or you're just incapable of understanding them.
More bullsh*t. None of them "backed your assertion" that gravity is not a force in GR. All of them (every single friggan one, dimwit) claimed that gravity is TREATED differently than the other three forces: as the curvature of space.
OH MY GOD!!! I actually understood them!!! Better than you, to boot...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It is reflective of your intelligence that you either refuse to accept all of the references I provided and even all of the references AlphaNumeric provided (which actually backed my assertions), or you're just incapable of understanding them. |
More bullsh*t. None of them "backed your assertion" that gravity is not a force in GR. All of them (every single friggan one, dimwit) claimed that gravity is TREATED differently than the other three forces: as the curvature of space.
OH MY GOD!!! I actually understood them!!! Better than you, to boot...
How can it be a "classical force in GR," when it's not even a force in GR! The correct phrasing is: It's a classical theory of gravity. (duh)
Then why did you claim it's not classical? Do you think there's some hidden message in GR which only you can uncover which quantizes gravity? Or perhaps it's neither classical nor quantized? Maybe it's a new type of force... Is that it?
QUOTE
Then you better start demonstrating it, 'cause so far, you've lost every single physics argument with me.
More complete Bullsh*t. Simply claiming you've won an argument doesn't mean you've actually won it. Only a complete m0r0n would think so. (Gasp! another naughty word!)
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then you better start demonstrating it, 'cause so far, you've lost every single physics argument with me. |
More complete Bullsh*t. Simply claiming you've won an argument doesn't mean you've actually won it. Only a complete m0r0n would think so. (Gasp! another naughty word!)
You have to resort to childish name-calling, baby crap, to even continue!
Well, for that matter, so did RealityCheck, one of the longest-tempered people on this forum! Hell, I dressed him down twice in two different threads and he STILL addresses me civilly. How wrong and dishonest must you have been to set him off so? And why don't you try to show that my argument hinges upon these insults? Or was that just another piece of bullsh*t, flying forth?
QUOTE
See? You make my case for me!
Recognizing your inherent mental instability proves you right, eh? Quite ironic, really, considering that such a claim actually does more to harm your credibility than help it.
Not to mention your own propensity for insults. Don't even pretend you don't engage in them, or I'll post a list of every single one.
Tell me something, why is it that you have actual physicists, intelligent amateurs, not-so-intelligent amateurs, cranks, and pretty much everybody who knows the first thing about GR on one side, and you (just you) on the other? Why is it that I have a feedback score approaching 100, when yours is approaching -50? Why is my feedback rating over 75% and yours under 50%? I'm offensive. I'm insulting. I'm judgmental, I'm all over this forum (instead of sticking to one or two threads, like you) and I've interacted with just about every member over 600 posts and every newbie in the past several months. I should have far far lower feedback than you, if we were on the same level.
But we're not. I accept mainstream physics and mainstream interpretations of those physics, and I maintain a respectable level of objectivity.
You know, there's an old saying in the south of the US. "If one man calls you a dog, ignore him. If a second man calls you a dog, fight him. But when a third man calls you a dog, buy a flea collar."
RealityCheck is now the third one to have called you a liar, uba.
Hey BDW, although ubavontuba is clearly deficient in the brain dept and absolutely deserves to be humanely shot through the head, at least he's not as mind-numbingly insane as some real anti LHC idiots like Eric James etc.
QUOTE (Moomin+Mar 25 2008, 09:53 AM)
Hey BDW, although ubavontuba is clearly deficient in the brain dept and absolutely deserves to be humanely shot through the head, at least he's not as mind-numbingly insane as some real anti LHC idiots like Eric James etc.
The guy at Fermilabs? I wasn't aware that he'd expressed any... "concerns" over the LHC.
Or do you mean the christian dude on BBC radio?
Regardless, I'm beginning to think uba ranks up there with Kent Hovind and Zecharia Sitchin. And that Ramtha woman, whatever her name is.
The guy at Fermilabs? I wasn't aware that he'd expressed any... "concerns" over the LHC.
Or do you mean the christian dude on BBC radio?
Regardless, I'm beginning to think uba ranks up there with Kent Hovind and Zecharia Sitchin. And that Ramtha woman, whatever her name is.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+Mar 25 2008, 04:01 PM)
The guy at Fermilabs? I wasn't aware that he'd expressed any... "concerns" over the LHC.
Or do you mean the christian dude on BBC radio?
Regardless, I'm beginning to think uba ranks up there with Kent Hovind and Zecharia Sitchin. And that Ramtha woman, whatever her name is.
Outrageous! .... this total ***** is in fact "Eric" - ubavontuba .. so sorry Mr James.
Or do you mean the christian dude on BBC radio?
Regardless, I'm beginning to think uba ranks up there with Kent Hovind and Zecharia Sitchin. And that Ramtha woman, whatever her name is.
Outrageous! .... this total ***** is in fact "Eric" - ubavontuba .. so sorry Mr James.
QUOTE (Moomin+Mar 25 2008, 11:25 AM)
Outrageous! .... this total ***** is in fact "Eric" - ubavontuba .. so sorry Mr James.
You must mean the Christian radio guy.
There's no way Uba could get a job at fermilabs. Except maybe as a janitor.
Or a comic to entertain the scientists.
You must mean the Christian radio guy.
There's no way Uba could get a job at fermilabs. Except maybe as a janitor.
Or a comic to entertain the scientists.
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
here's no way Uba could get a job at fermilabs. Except maybe as a janitor.
Please, don't mention janitors.
Please, don't mention janitors.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 06:51 PM)
Rpenner said, there's tens of thousands of atom sized (or larger) black holes, per solar volume, zipping around everywhere? When? I'll have to chastise him for that!
No, he didn't, and neither did I (not that you're in a position to chastise anybody for anything, especially after this goof).
Rpenner's calculation was based on the average density of dark matter in the universe, and your assertion that this dark matter is made up of stable micro black holes.
The paper discusses blackholes with a mass of approximately 10^15g. Many orders of magnitude larger then any blackhole you've maintained is stable and responsible for dark matter.
The atom sized comment, which you've seen fit to take out of context, is in reference to it's event horizon, unless you're going to try and maintain that each molecule of water weighs 2 billion Metric Tons?
No, he didn't, and neither did I (not that you're in a position to chastise anybody for anything, especially after this goof).
Rpenner's calculation was based on the average density of dark matter in the universe, and your assertion that this dark matter is made up of stable micro black holes.
The paper discusses blackholes with a mass of approximately 10^15g. Many orders of magnitude larger then any blackhole you've maintained is stable and responsible for dark matter.
The atom sized comment, which you've seen fit to take out of context, is in reference to it's event horizon, unless you're going to try and maintain that each molecule of water weighs 2 billion Metric Tons?
Hello all
If energy was the sole criteria for the formation of micro black holes then we should be more worried about high intensity pulsed lasers than LHC.
Current pulsed lasers have about 9 joules (if my math is correct) of energy but a 14TeV particle has about 2.24 micro-joules of energy.
Just some more data to make a decision with.
If energy was the sole criteria for the formation of micro black holes then we should be more worried about high intensity pulsed lasers than LHC.
Current pulsed lasers have about 9 joules (if my math is correct) of energy but a 14TeV particle has about 2.24 micro-joules of energy.
Just some more data to make a decision with.
QUOTE (TheDoc+Mar 25 2008, 06:28 PM)
QUOTE (BigDumbWeirdo+)
here's no way Uba could get a job at fermilabs. Except maybe as a janitor.
Please, don't mention janitors.
Please, don't mention janitors.
.
Hi Trippy, everyone!
Just want to demonstrate for you and other participants/observers just how 'far gone' I think uba is......simply by using his last responses to me as examplars of EITHER his HOPELESS INCOMPREHENSION OR his DELIBERATE DISHONESTY....as follows.....
Hi Trippy, everyone!
Just want to demonstrate for you and other participants/observers just how 'far gone' I think uba is......simply by using his last responses to me as examplars of EITHER his HOPELESS INCOMPREHENSION OR his DELIBERATE DISHONESTY....as follows.....
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 07:14 AM)
I am not a liar. I tell the truth as I see it. I may be in error, but I DO NOT LIE.
I did (quite fairly, I might add) warn you not to continue this discussion, for fear of causing just such a rift as this.
No one I have ever met can be so obtuse as to 'honestly' CONSISTENTLY MISCONSTRUE AND/OR MISREPRESENT what I have been telling uba in so MANY WAYS in order to give him EVERY CHANCE to understand without confusion. What has he shown/offered in return?....he has shown an INVETERATE TENDENCY towards political ingenuousnes, diversionary misdirections and misrepresentations, quips and insults, irrelevant confusions on HIS part, and personal aspersions on others' intellectual capabilities. No, he LIES like a trouper.....and no amount of "I don't mean to lie on purpose" protestations of innocence from him will retrieve the situation. Even I have a limit when it comes to suffering such insults to BOTH the science AND the intelligence/integrity.
And what "rift"? I merely recognise him as the "liar" that he has demonstrated himself to be....and will then move on with my own more concrete efforts in trying to solve REAL GLOBAL problems.....and not just waste time and life and intellect on flogging the dead horse of NON-EXISTENT ones like uba is wasting himself on (which is his right and choice, of course).
That's equivalent to stating that all matter must be evenly disbursed throughout the universe! (obviously, not the case)
This is a perfect example of uba's wilful misrepresentation of others arguments so as to set up HOIS OWN 'manufactured' strawman argument to 'shoot down'.
It does not even enter his mind that I long ago and many times EXPLAINED to him that ANY 'cloud' of purely gravitationally-interacting bodies/particles will result in BOTH 'mergers' AND 'expulsions'.
So what does he do? He ASSUMES/CONFUSES/IGNORES what I already explained, and comes back with his OWN 'withering reply' on some IRRELEVANCE.MISCONSTRUCTION that HE himself 'set up'.
I ask you......how dishonest, scientifically/logically bankrupt and/or 'conveniently obtuse' can uba get when cornered? Yes...THAT dishonest. hehehe.
How so?
His ‘innocent’ act and his ‘convenient obtuseness’ will waste no more of my time. If he can’t face the many self-evident instances of where he has been cornered (even by his OWN arguments’blatantly wanting it both ways’!), then there’s no hope for his intellect/integrity;and I won’t waste my time on an irretrievably lost mind/character by ‘leading him’ to what he should have found himself all throughout these threads. Best of luck to his wifully chosen state of mind/character, I say.
Good. I've always tried to be tranparent.
Pity about the ‘apparent connotations’ of that term when attached to what uba has perpetrating here so far.
Cornered? How?
Again, I won’t waste my time on this obvious ploy. When his honour finally demands it (if ever), he should have no trouble finding all the instances of it as he can stomach. No need for me or others to rub his nose in it more than has been done already....else we might be accused of cruelty.
You may have attempted to make that distinction, but then you revert back to confusing them in your claims.
See? His almost-favourite ploy.....his OWN CONFUSIONS of what he is told are then used to dishonestly impute confusion in others....and then he claims ‘innocence’ of wilful lying and misrepresentation. Classic example from the ‘uba book of debating tactics’. No further comment necessary there.
The scale is irrelevant. I already told you that.
See?....AGAIN he just ‘tells’ me things....BUT WHERE IS HIS SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS for what he “tells” me? I have repeatedly and in many ways explained to him HOW AND WHY black micro-holes cannot form/persist, citing the scientific evidence of ALL the competing forces that would immediately OVERWHELM any puny ‘gravitional’ EFFECTS/STRENGTH/GRADIENTS etc in MICRO-MASSED ‘events’ such as free-particle collisions. But has uba REFUTED my own supported refutations?....NO HE HAS NOT....he merely and repeatedly “tells me” things that he expects me to ‘believe’ without any supporting arguments to counter my own proving where what he “tells” me is WRONG according to ANY consistent view of the totality/range of forceds/factors I have pointed out that will militate AGAINST formation/persistence of STILL TOTALLY UNOBSERVED/PROVEN and therefore STILL IMAGINARY ‘micro-black-holes’.
So there it is....uba “tells” me that “scale is irrelevant” and that “density” is the only determinant for forming/persistence of IMAGINARY ‘micro-holes’....and I am supposed to just ‘believe’ him and ignore the fact that he has ignored my arguments proving what he “tells” me is wrong ANY way he looks at it (even in his usual ‘want it both ways’ arguments! hehehe). How far removed from science and reality can he get?
If you aren't talking of "black gradients," then you can't be talking about anything, because other than black gradients, neutron stars have the strongest hypothesized gravity gradients.
Sigh. First I poinrted out that BOTH the IMAGINARY ‘black micro-holes’ AND its putative EVENT HORIZON’s ‘sharp gradient’ would be BELOW PLANCK scale and thus not in ‘persistent interaction’ with our scale of energy features. Then when uba wants ‘density’ to be the determinant factor, I point out that PARTICLE micro-massed feartures are NOT the same as MACRO-black features in REACH both in STRENGTH and in GRADIENT/HORIZON effectiveness against the OVERWHELMING OTHER FORCES which would prevent MICRO-HOLES from forming/persisting....and that ONLY IN MACRO-MASS scales would ‘black’ gravity forces be able to counterct/withstand the competing forces/factors I pointed out. Then I give him an example of the SCALE effect of gravity compared to OTHER FORCES etc, and HE STILL DOES NOT ‘get’ IT. If the micro-hole CANNOT FORM in the first place due to the forces acting AGAINST its formation REGARDLESS OF A LONE PARTICLE’S GRAVITY/GRADIENTS effects/reach, then how can anyone give an example BETTER AND MORE RELEVANT THAN a Lone Neutron and a Neutron Star to show where COMPETING (charge etc) forces COUNTERACTS EVEN A NEUTRON STARS’ TREMENDOUS GRAVITY/GRADIENTS!....so how much chance would a LONE PARTICLE’S gravity even BEGIN to ‘form/maintain’ stability/blackness against such NON-GRAVITATIONAL yet OVERWHELMING forces AT THAT SCALE?
But the discussion is about micro black holes, and you're excluding them!
See? Uba ‘sectionalises’ the argument to date, conveniently ‘excising’ it from all that has gone before. The argument is COMPREHENSIVE AND ONGOING....but uba treats it as if THAT was all that was going on, totally IGNORING THE ONGOING CONTEXT for what I explain to him. He REFUSES to accept the point about SCALE BEING DETERMINING in the comparative cases of MICRO-MASSED and MACRO-MASSED events/forces/effects/outcomes. What hope is there, if the SCALE/REACH and COMPETING/OVERWHELMING forces/dynamics considerations do not ‘get through’ to him?
Or, maybe you just don't understand, since it's apparent that you've forgotten the subject matter entirely (micro black holes being created in the LHC, not micro mass, non-black, gravity features).
By science and logic, IMAGINARY ‘micro-holes’ CANNOT BE USED AS CONCRETE EXAMPLES in any way to argue FOR those same IMAGINARY ‘micro-holes’ PROPERTIES/CAPABILITIES...otherwise there is CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (something which uba seems to accord equal logicsl/scientific weight to, in addition to ‘wanting it both ways’ arguments and his “telling” me things hoping I will just ‘believe’ him, of course!).
The example of lone neutron and neutron star properties/behaviour as to SCALE AND COMPETING FORCES BEHAVIOUR is the CONCRETE EXAMPLE for such issues. But uba will prefer IMAGINRY ‘PROOF’ to CONCRETE EVIDENCE of the scale/forces/behaviour DIFFERENCES attaching to PARTICLE MICRO-MASSED FEATURES and AGGREGATE MACRO-MASSED FEATURES. And he thinks his ‘imaginary proof’ is all the justification for his ‘telling’ me things in the hope I will just ‘believe’. Strange way to do/debate science/logics there!
Sure I have, you've just refused to accept the explanations.
All uba’s ‘explanations’ so far eventually reduce to ‘wanting it both ways’ arguments AND/OR ‘circular arguments’ AND/OR ‘just “telling” me things and hope I will just ‘believe’ him. Again, strange.
And you'll remain petulent and angry, until you calm down and while considering my side, present coherent arguments for yours.
So far, all you've done is demand that I agree with you. I don't have to do that, no matter how much it upsets you.
I have never ‘demanded’ uba agrees with ME. I have put the scientifc/logical refutations of HIS arrogant demands to ‘just agree’ with HIM just because HE ‘tells’ me things that are shot down almost immediately by the OBJECTIVE science/logic I put to him. And then he has the gall to accuse ME of ‘demanding’. I ask you, forum, how can MY presenting the objective argument refuting his unsupported/untenable stances ever be MISCONSTRUED as ‘demands for agreement’?....yet mote twisting and misrepresenting from uba in liue of PROPERLY CONSISTEN
I did (quite fairly, I might add) warn you not to continue this discussion, for fear of causing just such a rift as this.
No one I have ever met can be so obtuse as to 'honestly' CONSISTENTLY MISCONSTRUE AND/OR MISREPRESENT what I have been telling uba in so MANY WAYS in order to give him EVERY CHANCE to understand without confusion. What has he shown/offered in return?....he has shown an INVETERATE TENDENCY towards political ingenuousnes, diversionary misdirections and misrepresentations, quips and insults, irrelevant confusions on HIS part, and personal aspersions on others' intellectual capabilities. No, he LIES like a trouper.....and no amount of "I don't mean to lie on purpose" protestations of innocence from him will retrieve the situation. Even I have a limit when it comes to suffering such insults to BOTH the science AND the intelligence/integrity.
And what "rift"? I merely recognise him as the "liar" that he has demonstrated himself to be....and will then move on with my own more concrete efforts in trying to solve REAL GLOBAL problems.....and not just waste time and life and intellect on flogging the dead horse of NON-EXISTENT ones like uba is wasting himself on (which is his right and choice, of course).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 07:14 AM)
That's equivalent to stating that all matter must be evenly disbursed throughout the universe! (obviously, not the case)
This is a perfect example of uba's wilful misrepresentation of others arguments so as to set up HOIS OWN 'manufactured' strawman argument to 'shoot down'.
It does not even enter his mind that I long ago and many times EXPLAINED to him that ANY 'cloud' of purely gravitationally-interacting bodies/particles will result in BOTH 'mergers' AND 'expulsions'.
So what does he do? He ASSUMES/CONFUSES/IGNORES what I already explained, and comes back with his OWN 'withering reply' on some IRRELEVANCE.MISCONSTRUCTION that HE himself 'set up'.
I ask you......how dishonest, scientifically/logically bankrupt and/or 'conveniently obtuse' can uba get when cornered? Yes...THAT dishonest. hehehe.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 07:14 AM)
How so?
His ‘innocent’ act and his ‘convenient obtuseness’ will waste no more of my time. If he can’t face the many self-evident instances of where he has been cornered (even by his OWN arguments’blatantly wanting it both ways’!), then there’s no hope for his intellect/integrity;and I won’t waste my time on an irretrievably lost mind/character by ‘leading him’ to what he should have found himself all throughout these threads. Best of luck to his wifully chosen state of mind/character, I say.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 07:14 AM)
Good. I've always tried to be tranparent.
Pity about the ‘apparent connotations’ of that term when attached to what uba has perpetrating here so far.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 07:14 AM)
Cornered? How?
Again, I won’t waste my time on this obvious ploy. When his honour finally demands it (if ever), he should have no trouble finding all the instances of it as he can stomach. No need for me or others to rub his nose in it more than has been done already....else we might be accused of cruelty.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 07:14 AM)
You may have attempted to make that distinction, but then you revert back to confusing them in your claims.
See? His almost-favourite ploy.....his OWN CONFUSIONS of what he is told are then used to dishonestly impute confusion in others....and then he claims ‘innocence’ of wilful lying and misrepresentation. Classic example from the ‘uba book of debating tactics’. No further comment necessary there.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 07:14 AM)
The scale is irrelevant. I already told you that.
See?....AGAIN he just ‘tells’ me things....BUT WHERE IS HIS SUPPORTING ARGUMENTS for what he “tells” me? I have repeatedly and in many ways explained to him HOW AND WHY black micro-holes cannot form/persist, citing the scientific evidence of ALL the competing forces that would immediately OVERWHELM any puny ‘gravitional’ EFFECTS/STRENGTH/GRADIENTS etc in MICRO-MASSED ‘events’ such as free-particle collisions. But has uba REFUTED my own supported refutations?....NO HE HAS NOT....he merely and repeatedly “tells me” things that he expects me to ‘believe’ without any supporting arguments to counter my own proving where what he “tells” me is WRONG according to ANY consistent view of the totality/range of forceds/factors I have pointed out that will militate AGAINST formation/persistence of STILL TOTALLY UNOBSERVED/PROVEN and therefore STILL IMAGINARY ‘micro-black-holes’.
So there it is....uba “tells” me that “scale is irrelevant” and that “density” is the only determinant for forming/persistence of IMAGINARY ‘micro-holes’....and I am supposed to just ‘believe’ him and ignore the fact that he has ignored my arguments proving what he “tells” me is wrong ANY way he looks at it (even in his usual ‘want it both ways’ arguments! hehehe). How far removed from science and reality can he get?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 07:14 AM)
If you aren't talking of "black gradients," then you can't be talking about anything, because other than black gradients, neutron stars have the strongest hypothesized gravity gradients.
Sigh. First I poinrted out that BOTH the IMAGINARY ‘black micro-holes’ AND its putative EVENT HORIZON’s ‘sharp gradient’ would be BELOW PLANCK scale and thus not in ‘persistent interaction’ with our scale of energy features. Then when uba wants ‘density’ to be the determinant factor, I point out that PARTICLE micro-massed feartures are NOT the same as MACRO-black features in REACH both in STRENGTH and in GRADIENT/HORIZON effectiveness against the OVERWHELMING OTHER FORCES which would prevent MICRO-HOLES from forming/persisting....and that ONLY IN MACRO-MASS scales would ‘black’ gravity forces be able to counterct/withstand the competing forces/factors I pointed out. Then I give him an example of the SCALE effect of gravity compared to OTHER FORCES etc, and HE STILL DOES NOT ‘get’ IT. If the micro-hole CANNOT FORM in the first place due to the forces acting AGAINST its formation REGARDLESS OF A LONE PARTICLE’S GRAVITY/GRADIENTS effects/reach, then how can anyone give an example BETTER AND MORE RELEVANT THAN a Lone Neutron and a Neutron Star to show where COMPETING (charge etc) forces COUNTERACTS EVEN A NEUTRON STARS’ TREMENDOUS GRAVITY/GRADIENTS!....so how much chance would a LONE PARTICLE’S gravity even BEGIN to ‘form/maintain’ stability/blackness against such NON-GRAVITATIONAL yet OVERWHELMING forces AT THAT SCALE?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 07:14 AM)
But the discussion is about micro black holes, and you're excluding them!
See? Uba ‘sectionalises’ the argument to date, conveniently ‘excising’ it from all that has gone before. The argument is COMPREHENSIVE AND ONGOING....but uba treats it as if THAT was all that was going on, totally IGNORING THE ONGOING CONTEXT for what I explain to him. He REFUSES to accept the point about SCALE BEING DETERMINING in the comparative cases of MICRO-MASSED and MACRO-MASSED events/forces/effects/outcomes. What hope is there, if the SCALE/REACH and COMPETING/OVERWHELMING forces/dynamics considerations do not ‘get through’ to him?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 07:14 AM)
Or, maybe you just don't understand, since it's apparent that you've forgotten the subject matter entirely (micro black holes being created in the LHC, not micro mass, non-black, gravity features).
By science and logic, IMAGINARY ‘micro-holes’ CANNOT BE USED AS CONCRETE EXAMPLES in any way to argue FOR those same IMAGINARY ‘micro-holes’ PROPERTIES/CAPABILITIES...otherwise there is CIRCULAR ARGUMENT (something which uba seems to accord equal logicsl/scientific weight to, in addition to ‘wanting it both ways’ arguments and his “telling” me things hoping I will just ‘believe’ him, of course!).
The example of lone neutron and neutron star properties/behaviour as to SCALE AND COMPETING FORCES BEHAVIOUR is the CONCRETE EXAMPLE for such issues. But uba will prefer IMAGINRY ‘PROOF’ to CONCRETE EVIDENCE of the scale/forces/behaviour DIFFERENCES attaching to PARTICLE MICRO-MASSED FEATURES and AGGREGATE MACRO-MASSED FEATURES. And he thinks his ‘imaginary proof’ is all the justification for his ‘telling’ me things in the hope I will just ‘believe’. Strange way to do/debate science/logics there!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 07:14 AM)
Sure I have, you've just refused to accept the explanations.
All uba’s ‘explanations’ so far eventually reduce to ‘wanting it both ways’ arguments AND/OR ‘circular arguments’ AND/OR ‘just “telling” me things and hope I will just ‘believe’ him. Again, strange.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Mar 25 2008, 07:14 AM)
And you'll remain petulent and angry, until you calm down and while considering my side, present coherent arguments for yours.
So far, all you've done is demand that I agree with you. I don't have to do that, no matter how much it upsets you.
I have never ‘demanded’ uba agrees with ME. I have put the scientifc/logical refutations of HIS arrogant demands to ‘just agree’ with HIM just because HE ‘tells’ me things that are shot down almost immediately by the OBJECTIVE science/logic I put to him. And then he has the gall to accuse ME of ‘demanding’. I ask you, forum, how can MY presenting the objective argument refuting his unsupported/untenable stances ever be MISCONSTRUED as ‘demands for agreement’?....yet mote twisting and misrepresenting from uba in liue of PROPERLY CONSISTEN