QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 2 2007, 11:19 PM)
No, that's not even remotely implied in anything I've said.
What I have said is that in one of the steps in calculating the probability of two cosmic ray protons colliding head on, I used the figure of the cross sectional area perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Then properly define it. What is the absorption cross section of a relativistic particle?
What I have said is that in one of the steps in calculating the probability of two cosmic ray protons colliding head on, I used the figure of the cross sectional area perpendicular to the direction of travel.
Then properly define it. What is the absorption cross section of a relativistic particle?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 12:16 AM)
And what would it's relative momentum be, relative to an observer originally co-moving with just one pre-collision particle?
Oh man... As it's created by 2 particles of equal mass and energy colliding head on it would be at rest in the lab frame, but we've already established it's impossible so can we please stop with the scaremongering?
Oh man... As it's created by 2 particles of equal mass and energy colliding head on it would be at rest in the lab frame, but we've already established it's impossible so can we please stop with the scaremongering?
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 2 2007, 11:23 PM)
Asking vague questions is one thing. Being obtuse for the sake of being inflammatory is quite another. Just how much room for misunderstanding can there be in "perpendicular to the direction of motion"?
Perhaps more than you might imagine.
Perhaps more than you might imagine.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 2 2007, 11:40 PM)
Has the previous several months (if not a years) worth of discussion and constant correction from myself, Rpenner and others not already answered that?
How can that be when you and Rpenner have gradually conceded and corroborated my points, consecutively?
Do you remember when I used to explain the separation of the conservation of momentum versus the conservation of energy to you? Now, you've explained it to Trippy! (although it apparently didn't stick)
Where? I only see that you've conceded every point up to the LHC capture model.
More important, is Trippy correct in his collision models? Can we have you on record?
Note to Trippy: See? I told you he wouldn't ignore me if he thought he had something to say!
How can that be when you and Rpenner have gradually conceded and corroborated my points, consecutively?
Do you remember when I used to explain the separation of the conservation of momentum versus the conservation of energy to you? Now, you've explained it to Trippy! (although it apparently didn't stick)
QUOTE
Every time I've asked you what actual relativity and QFT you've done, you either avoid the question or meekly admit that it's none. Hence it's a bit laughable when you start talking about what the EFE do or don't say since you've gotten such things wrong on so many occasions yourself.
Where? I only see that you've conceded every point up to the LHC capture model.
More important, is Trippy correct in his collision models? Can we have you on record?
Note to Trippy: See? I told you he wouldn't ignore me if he thought he had something to say!
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 2 2007, 11:45 PM)
Get a freaking grip, stop grasping for straws and admit you were WRONG.
I know you are, but what about me?
I know you are, but what about me?
Look - I've just shown that the LHC doesn't have enough energy to produce black holes. Are we still talking about that?
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 3 2007, 12:08 AM)
I'm fed up of saying this. You do a calculation in quantum field theory and you get particles emitted. The system is an idealised black hole in a vacuum (it can either be a schwarzschild hole or one from a collapsed body) the only source of energy for the particles is the hole.
That's the supposition. I'm only asking: Is it a correct supposition?
By definition of the conservation of energy. Does that necessarily apply?
By definition of the conservation of energy. Does that necessarily apply?
I have to admit I haven't checked to see if black holes could form in the LHC. I've just kind of taken it on trust, So why are we even having this discussion? Black holes less than the planck mass can't form. The particles would just scatter off each other.
Some say they can, others say they can't. It's widely anticipated they might.
That's the supposition. I'm only asking: Is it a correct supposition?
QUOTE
it is by definition.
By definition of the conservation of energy. Does that necessarily apply?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| it is by definition. |
By definition of the conservation of energy. Does that necessarily apply?
I have to admit I haven't checked to see if black holes could form in the LHC. I've just kind of taken it on trust, So why are we even having this discussion? Black holes less than the planck mass can't form. The particles would just scatter off each other.
Some say they can, others say they can't. It's widely anticipated they might.
[vaguely amusing insults about as subtle as a brick to the back of the head removed in the intrests of self preservation]
[Exceedingly long string of profanity removed in the intrests of self preservation]
[Exceedingly long string of profanity removed in the intrests of self preservation]
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 01:11 PM)
It seems it prejudices your judgement.
No, it doesn't (Although I expect that you will continue to argue that soemthing I have said somewhere implies that it does, even though I have stated repeatedly that this is complete and total *****).
No, it doesn't (Although I expect that you will continue to argue that soemthing I have said somewhere implies that it does, even though I have stated repeatedly that this is complete and total *****).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 01:11 PM)
But then you do...
No, I form an opinion based on what they have said. I examine the evidence, and form a hypothesis.
The evidence is that Alphanumeric has stated that I am "More patient with Ub" then he is. This invokes the question more patient at what. All I have attempted to do is explain to you how the known laws of physics disagree with what you claim. The implication of his statement, taken in that context is that I am correct (Even if just in principle).
Rpenner has explicitly stated that I am correct in principle, but he is unwilling to say that my figures are correct until I provide him with some working, which I have explicitly stated at this time requires more effort then I am willing to exert. So your claim that Alphanumeric and Rpenner are unwilling to back me up because they don't want to say say taht I am wrong is totally bunk.
Add to that the fact that both Rpenner and Alphanumeric have corrected me at least once in situations where it could have been interpreted as being in their best interests to keep silent. Once in a thread with Farsight where I was arguing with Farsight over the constancy of the speed of light - Rpenner stepped in and pointed out that Farsight was technically more correct in something that he was saying then I was, and once in the 0.9r=1 thread where I took on an un-neccessarily complex proof to demonstrate to someone that numbers such as π-√2 were in fact completely definable.
No, I form an opinion based on what they have said. I examine the evidence, and form a hypothesis.
The evidence is that Alphanumeric has stated that I am "More patient with Ub" then he is. This invokes the question more patient at what. All I have attempted to do is explain to you how the known laws of physics disagree with what you claim. The implication of his statement, taken in that context is that I am correct (Even if just in principle).
Rpenner has explicitly stated that I am correct in principle, but he is unwilling to say that my figures are correct until I provide him with some working, which I have explicitly stated at this time requires more effort then I am willing to exert. So your claim that Alphanumeric and Rpenner are unwilling to back me up because they don't want to say say taht I am wrong is totally bunk.
Add to that the fact that both Rpenner and Alphanumeric have corrected me at least once in situations where it could have been interpreted as being in their best interests to keep silent. Once in a thread with Farsight where I was arguing with Farsight over the constancy of the speed of light - Rpenner stepped in and pointed out that Farsight was technically more correct in something that he was saying then I was, and once in the 0.9r=1 thread where I took on an un-neccessarily complex proof to demonstrate to someone that numbers such as π-√2 were in fact completely definable.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 01:11 PM)
I read it. AlphNumeric never gives up, unless he's unable to post a relevant response. Just look at how he badgered Zephir (as an example).
I've been much more successful at maintaining civility than either you or AlphaNumeric.
You assume too much about my personality (and by extension, Alphanumerics).
I've been much more successful at maintaining civility than either you or AlphaNumeric.
You assume too much about my personality (and by extension, Alphanumerics).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 01:11 PM)
I've admitted being wrong quite a few times.
And yet you have never admitted you were wrong about the conservation of energy in freely falling objects (among other things).
And yet you have never admitted you were wrong about the conservation of energy in freely falling objects (among other things).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 01:11 PM)
However, you seem to believe the whole oxygen atom would contribute significant portions of its momentum. How does that work?
I have never said this either. Again, you're synthesizing things and claiming that I have said them. What I stated was that I did not believe that the Oxygen atom was completely unaffected by the cosmic ray proton. I have never made any attempt to describe the degree of influence the cosmic ray proton has on the Oxygen atom.
Q
I have never said this either. Again, you're synthesizing things and claiming that I have said them. What I stated was that I did not believe that the Oxygen atom was completely unaffected by the cosmic ray proton. I have never made any attempt to describe the degree of influence the cosmic ray proton has on the Oxygen atom.
Q
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 01:11 PM)
uantify it then. As I recall, you once stated it'd be trapped by the oxygen atom. Another time, you suggested it'd absorb the whole atom, and yet another it'd bounce away. Clarification, please.
You recall wrongly. I have never claimed any of these things.
You recall wrongly. I have never claimed any of these things.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 01:11 PM)
Whatever. It'd still be at rest.
As I said. Only in it's own reference frame.
As I said. Only in it's own reference frame.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 01:11 PM)
Liar. That's not the frame you were referencing:
I just did again.
Again. More unjustified and unjustifiable claims.
What I said was that the Oxygen atom and the center of mass were moving RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER in the reference frame of the center of mass, the center of mass is stationary, but the oxygen atom is moving. In the reference frame of an observer co moving with the oxygen atom, the center of mass is moving, and the oxygen atom is not. This is the point that I was trying to illustrate, but in your psuedo religous zeal to find a flaw you deliberately overlook this and twist my words out of context.
- An observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass sees the oxygen atom almost at rest, but the cosmic ray proton moving at a large fraction of c. The pair collide, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and is now also almost at rest.
-Trippy
I just did again.
Again. More unjustified and unjustifiable claims.
What I said was that the Oxygen atom and the center of mass were moving RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER in the reference frame of the center of mass, the center of mass is stationary, but the oxygen atom is moving. In the reference frame of an observer co moving with the oxygen atom, the center of mass is moving, and the oxygen atom is not. This is the point that I was trying to illustrate, but in your psuedo religous zeal to find a flaw you deliberately overlook this and twist my words out of context.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 01:11 PM)
Now you're just trying to spin it. This is clearly a lie.
Only in your mind, and because you have persisted with these unfounded accusations, I am going to report your post.
Only in your mind, and because you have persisted with these unfounded accusations, I am going to report your post.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 01:11 PM)
No such thing. There is only acceleration. Whether it accelerates behind you or in front of you is irrelevant. If I'm moving with something and it accelerates rearward, it certainly didn't slow down relative to me. Only an object [I]not already moving with me can "slow down," relative to me.
Maybe you think the cars on the other side of the road are moving slower relative to you than the ones in your own lane? I'd advise you not to test it.
Once again you demonstrate that you fail to grasp basic physics.
Velocity is a vector.
Acceleration is a vector.
Speed is a Scalar, it only has a magnitude (but no sign).
Velocity and acceleration have signs, they can be negative.
Anything that changes from being zero to being large and negative has decreased.
You're still confusing velocity and speed.
Velocity can change while speed remains constant.
I stand by my statement. I'll even expand it. You lied and you lied and you lied again!
Maybe you think the cars on the other side of the road are moving slower relative to you than the ones in your own lane? I'd advise you not to test it.
Once again you demonstrate that you fail to grasp basic physics.
Velocity is a vector.
Acceleration is a vector.
Speed is a Scalar, it only has a magnitude (but no sign).
Velocity and acceleration have signs, they can be negative.
Anything that changes from being zero to being large and negative has decreased.
You're still confusing velocity and speed.
Velocity can change while speed remains constant.
I stand by my statement. I'll even expand it. You lied and you lied and you lied again!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 01:11 PM)
False.
This is your misunderstanding.
This is your misunderstanding.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 3 2007, 12:20 AM)
Oh man... As it's created by 2 particles of equal mass and energy colliding head on it would be at rest in the lab frame, but we've already established it's impossible so can we please stop with the scaremongering?
It's not scaremongering. It's examining the facts. It's not my fault if the facts are scary.
It's not scaremongering. It's examining the facts. It's not my fault if the facts are scary.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 3 2007, 12:37 AM)
Look - I've just shown that the LHC doesn't have enough energy to produce black holes. Are we still talking about that?
Yes. Your opinion notwithstanding, it's anticipated by many physicists.
Yes. Your opinion notwithstanding, it's anticipated by many physicists.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 12:46 AM)
That's the supposition. I'm only asking: Is it a correct supposition?
It's not a supposition. It's the direct result of the calculation. Have you read a review of QFT in curved space?
Conservation of energy always applies, and it's not by definition of COE it's by definition of energy.
Conservation of energy always applies, and it's not by definition of COE it's by definition of energy.
Some say they can, others say they can't. It's widely anticipated they might.
I think a more accurate reflection of the views of most physicists is that it's overwhelmingly more likely they won't.
It's not a supposition. It's the direct result of the calculation. Have you read a review of QFT in curved space?
QUOTE
By definition of the conservation of energy. Does that necessarily apply?
Conservation of energy always applies, and it's not by definition of COE it's by definition of energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| By definition of the conservation of energy. Does that necessarily apply? |
Conservation of energy always applies, and it's not by definition of COE it's by definition of energy.
Some say they can, others say they can't. It's widely anticipated they might.
I think a more accurate reflection of the views of most physicists is that it's overwhelmingly more likely they won't.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 12:58 AM)
Yes. Your opinion notwithstanding, it's anticipated by many physicists.
From what I can gather it's a fairly dubious calculation. The accepted view is that black holes less than a lot more than 14TeV cannot be formed.
From what I can gather it's a fairly dubious calculation. The accepted view is that black holes less than a lot more than 14TeV cannot be formed.
I can still give the directions to that library.....lol
Sorry trying to add humor bad timing
Sorry trying to add humor bad timing
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 3 2007, 12:50 AM)
[vaguely amusing insults about as subtle as a brick to the back of the head removed in the intrests of self preservation]
[Exceedingly long string of profanity removed in the intrests of self preservation]
Not amusing or appreciated. I hope the moderators don't buy into your scheme to thwart their warnings.
Whatever. You don't see it, and I can't make you see it.
Whatever. You don't see it, and I can't make you see it.
No, I form an opinion based on what they have said. I examine the evidence, and form a hypothesis.
The evidence is that Alphanumeric has stated that I am "More patient with Ub" then he is. This invokes the question more patient at what. All I have attempted to do is explain to you how the known laws of physics disagree with what you claim. The implication of his statement, taken in that context is that I am correct (Even if just in principle).
In what principle? Why don't you ask him if he concurs?
No he hasn't. He merely vaguely stated you believe in universal physics.
No he hasn't. He merely vaguely stated you believe in universal physics.
but he is unwilling to say that my figures are correct until I provide him with some working,
Your descriptions are readily understandable in context. He's just dodging.
Yet they'll readily attack me for the same lack of figures. How interesting is that?
Yet they'll readily attack me for the same lack of figures. How interesting is that?
Add to that the fact that both Rpenner and Alphanumeric have corrected me at least once in situations where it could have been interpreted as being in their best interests to keep silent.
Ah, but I hold a special place in their vindictive hearts for they've only had to concede to my claims, and I not theirs.
If only they'd be so honest here.
If only they'd be so honest here.
You assume too much about my personality (and by extension, Alphanumerics).
Your opening statement to this post is evidence enough.
Because it's not clear that I am, especially in regards to Hawking radiation. I'll admit that I might be though.
Because it's not clear that I am, especially in regards to Hawking radiation. I'll admit that I might be though.
I have never said this either. Again, you're synthesizing things and claiming that I have said them. What I stated was that I did not believe that the Oxygen atom was completely unaffected by the cosmic ray proton. I have never made any attempt to describe the degree of influence the cosmic ray proton has on the Oxygen atom.
Yes you have. You even quantified it (something like 450m/s to 200m/s).
Right. Just like your "center of mass" reference frame never existed. Give me a break.
Right. Just like your "center of mass" reference frame never existed. Give me a break.
As I said. Only in it's own reference frame.
That's not what you said. Didn't you read the quotation?
Spin it all you want. It's very clear what you said. Sheesh! Talk about an unwillingness to admit fault!
You stated: An observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass ...[after] The pair collide, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and is now also almost at rest.
You DID NOT STATE: the Oxygen atom and the center of mass were moving [b]RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER
Spin it all you want. It's very clear what you said. Sheesh! Talk about an unwillingness to admit fault!
You stated: An observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass ...[after] The pair collide, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and is now also almost at rest.
You DID NOT STATE: the Oxygen atom and the center of mass were moving [b]RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER
Only in your mind, and because you have persisted with these unfounded accusations, I am going to report your post.
Go ahead. I've clearly backed my assertions.
"Slower" is a magnitude of speed, therefore it can have no sign. Acceleration is relative. It isn't negative in separating a co-moving two particle system.
"Slower" is a magnitude of speed, therefore it can have no sign. Acceleration is relative. It isn't negative in separating a co-moving two particle system.
This is your misunderstanding.
Whatever.
[Exceedingly long string of profanity removed in the intrests of self preservation]
Not amusing or appreciated. I hope the moderators don't buy into your scheme to thwart their warnings.
QUOTE
No, it doesn't (Although I expect that you will continue to argue that soemthing I have said somewhere implies that it does, even though I have stated repeatedly that this is complete and total *****).
Whatever. You don't see it, and I can't make you see it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, it doesn't (Although I expect that you will continue to argue that soemthing I have said somewhere implies that it does, even though I have stated repeatedly that this is complete and total *****). |
Whatever. You don't see it, and I can't make you see it.
No, I form an opinion based on what they have said. I examine the evidence, and form a hypothesis.
The evidence is that Alphanumeric has stated that I am "More patient with Ub" then he is. This invokes the question more patient at what. All I have attempted to do is explain to you how the known laws of physics disagree with what you claim. The implication of his statement, taken in that context is that I am correct (Even if just in principle).
In what principle? Why don't you ask him if he concurs?
QUOTE
Rpenner has explicitly stated that I am correct in principle,
No he hasn't. He merely vaguely stated you believe in universal physics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Rpenner has explicitly stated that I am correct in principle, |
No he hasn't. He merely vaguely stated you believe in universal physics.
but he is unwilling to say that my figures are correct until I provide him with some working,
Your descriptions are readily understandable in context. He's just dodging.
QUOTE
which I have explicitly stated at this time requires more effort then I am willing to exert. So your claim that Alphanumeric and Rpenner are unwilling to back me up because they don't want to say say taht I am wrong is totally bunk.
Yet they'll readily attack me for the same lack of figures. How interesting is that?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| which I have explicitly stated at this time requires more effort then I am willing to exert. So your claim that Alphanumeric and Rpenner are unwilling to back me up because they don't want to say say taht I am wrong is totally bunk. |
Yet they'll readily attack me for the same lack of figures. How interesting is that?
Add to that the fact that both Rpenner and Alphanumeric have corrected me at least once in situations where it could have been interpreted as being in their best interests to keep silent.
Ah, but I hold a special place in their vindictive hearts for they've only had to concede to my claims, and I not theirs.
QUOTE
Once in a thread with Farsight where I was arguing with Farsight over the constancy of the speed of light - Rpenner stepped in and pointed out that Farsight was technically more correct in something that he was saying then I was, and once in the 0.9r=1 thread where I took on an un-neccessarily complex proof to demonstrate to someone that numbers such as π-√2 were in fact completely definable.
If only they'd be so honest here.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once in a thread with Farsight where I was arguing with Farsight over the constancy of the speed of light - Rpenner stepped in and pointed out that Farsight was technically more correct in something that he was saying then I was, and once in the 0.9r=1 thread where I took on an un-neccessarily complex proof to demonstrate to someone that numbers such as π-√2 were in fact completely definable. |
If only they'd be so honest here.
You assume too much about my personality (and by extension, Alphanumerics).
Your opening statement to this post is evidence enough.
QUOTE
And yet you have never admitted you were wrong about the conservation of energy in freely falling objects (among other things).
Because it's not clear that I am, especially in regards to Hawking radiation. I'll admit that I might be though.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And yet you have never admitted you were wrong about the conservation of energy in freely falling objects (among other things). |
Because it's not clear that I am, especially in regards to Hawking radiation. I'll admit that I might be though.
I have never said this either. Again, you're synthesizing things and claiming that I have said them. What I stated was that I did not believe that the Oxygen atom was completely unaffected by the cosmic ray proton. I have never made any attempt to describe the degree of influence the cosmic ray proton has on the Oxygen atom.
Yes you have. You even quantified it (something like 450m/s to 200m/s).
QUOTE
You recall wrongly. I have never claimed any of these things.
Right. Just like your "center of mass" reference frame never existed. Give me a break.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You recall wrongly. I have never claimed any of these things. |
Right. Just like your "center of mass" reference frame never existed. Give me a break.
As I said. Only in it's own reference frame.
That's not what you said. Didn't you read the quotation?
QUOTE
Again. More unjustified and unjustifiable claims.
What I said was that the Oxygen atom and the center of mass were moving RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER in the reference frame of the center of mass, the center of mass is stationary, but the oxygen atom is moving. In the reference frame of an observer co moving with the oxygen atom, the center of mass is moving, and the oxygen atom is not. This is the point that I was trying to illustrate, but in your psuedo religous zeal to find a flaw you deliberately overlook this and twist my words out of context.
What I said was that the Oxygen atom and the center of mass were moving RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER in the reference frame of the center of mass, the center of mass is stationary, but the oxygen atom is moving. In the reference frame of an observer co moving with the oxygen atom, the center of mass is moving, and the oxygen atom is not. This is the point that I was trying to illustrate, but in your psuedo religous zeal to find a flaw you deliberately overlook this and twist my words out of context.
Spin it all you want. It's very clear what you said. Sheesh! Talk about an unwillingness to admit fault!
You stated: An observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass ...[after] The pair collide, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and is now also almost at rest.
You DID NOT STATE: the Oxygen atom and the center of mass were moving [b]RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Again. More unjustified and unjustifiable claims. What I said was that the Oxygen atom and the center of mass were moving RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER in the reference frame of the center of mass, the center of mass is stationary, but the oxygen atom is moving. In the reference frame of an observer co moving with the oxygen atom, the center of mass is moving, and the oxygen atom is not. This is the point that I was trying to illustrate, but in your psuedo religous zeal to find a flaw you deliberately overlook this and twist my words out of context. |
Spin it all you want. It's very clear what you said. Sheesh! Talk about an unwillingness to admit fault!
You stated: An observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass ...[after] The pair collide, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and is now also almost at rest.
You DID NOT STATE: the Oxygen atom and the center of mass were moving [b]RELATIVE TO EACH OTHER
Only in your mind, and because you have persisted with these unfounded accusations, I am going to report your post.
Go ahead. I've clearly backed my assertions.
QUOTE
Once again you demonstrate that you fail to grasp basic physics.
Velocity is a vector.
Acceleration is a vector.
Speed is a Scalar, it only has a magnitude (but no sign).
Velocity and acceleration have signs, they can be negative.
Anything that changes from being zero to being large and negative has decreased.
You're still confusing velocity and speed.
Velocity can change while speed remains constant.
I stand by my statement. I'll even expand it. You lied and you lied and you lied again!
Velocity is a vector.
Acceleration is a vector.
Speed is a Scalar, it only has a magnitude (but no sign).
Velocity and acceleration have signs, they can be negative.
Anything that changes from being zero to being large and negative has decreased.
You're still confusing velocity and speed.
Velocity can change while speed remains constant.
I stand by my statement. I'll even expand it. You lied and you lied and you lied again!
"Slower" is a magnitude of speed, therefore it can have no sign. Acceleration is relative. It isn't negative in separating a co-moving two particle system.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Once again you demonstrate that you fail to grasp basic physics. Velocity is a vector. Acceleration is a vector. Speed is a Scalar, it only has a magnitude (but no sign). Velocity and acceleration have signs, they can be negative. Anything that changes from being zero to being large and negative has decreased. You're still confusing velocity and speed. Velocity can change while speed remains constant. I stand by my statement. I'll even expand it. You lied and you lied and you lied again! |
"Slower" is a magnitude of speed, therefore it can have no sign. Acceleration is relative. It isn't negative in separating a co-moving two particle system.
This is your misunderstanding.
Whatever.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 1 2007, 11:20 PM)
An observer comoving with the cosmic ray proton sees the cosmic ray proton as being stationary, and the oxygen atom moving at 0.9999c The cosmic ray proton collides with the oxygen atom (I'll avoid using anything more descriptive because apprently you think I mean it literaly), energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and the singularity is now, from the perspective of the formerly co-moving observer moving away from him at more or less the speed that the oxygen atom is.
An Observer comoving with the oxygen atom sees the oxygen atom as being stationary and the cosmic ray proton moving at 0.9999c the cosmic ray photon collides with the oxygen atom, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and the singularity is now moving at speeds comparable to the oxygen atom.
An observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass sees the oxygen atom almost at rest, but the cosmic ray proton moving at a large fraction of c. The pair collide, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and is now also almost at rest.
Where precisely is the inconsistency?
I'm sorry.
You're wrong Ubavontuba.
The Public record shows that I did in fact state that they (the center of mass and the oxygen atom) were moving relative to each other.
Although, I am willing to admit that I did not address the motion of the center of mass in the reference frame of the oxygen atom (a pointed which I later attempted to redress).
But implicit in the statement that the Observer co-moving with the center of mass observes the Oxygen atom to be moving is that an observer co-moving with the oxygen atom will observe the center of mass to be moving.
This does not implie that I believe it to be stationary, merely that in a moment of haste I neglected to address the motion of one part of the system in one part of the description.
An Observer comoving with the oxygen atom sees the oxygen atom as being stationary and the cosmic ray proton moving at 0.9999c the cosmic ray photon collides with the oxygen atom, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and the singularity is now moving at speeds comparable to the oxygen atom.
An observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass sees the oxygen atom almost at rest, but the cosmic ray proton moving at a large fraction of c. The pair collide, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and is now also almost at rest.
Where precisely is the inconsistency?
I'm sorry.
You're wrong Ubavontuba.
The Public record shows that I did in fact state that they (the center of mass and the oxygen atom) were moving relative to each other.
Although, I am willing to admit that I did not address the motion of the center of mass in the reference frame of the oxygen atom (a pointed which I later attempted to redress).
But implicit in the statement that the Observer co-moving with the center of mass observes the Oxygen atom to be moving is that an observer co-moving with the oxygen atom will observe the center of mass to be moving.
This does not implie that I believe it to be stationary, merely that in a moment of haste I neglected to address the motion of one part of the system in one part of the description.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 02:41 PM)
Not amusing or appreciated. I hope the moderators don't buy into your scheme to thwart their warnings.
What, you think that I actually genuinely included Profanity and abuse in my original post and then removed it?
Or are you saying that I should be warned for stating that I have an overwhelming desire to direct profanity and abuse at you.
What, you think that I actually genuinely included Profanity and abuse in my original post and then removed it?
Or are you saying that I should be warned for stating that I have an overwhelming desire to direct profanity and abuse at you.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 02:41 PM)
Whatever. You don't see it, and I can't make you see it.
You have yet to demonstrate a flaw in my logic, or my numbers. If you're so familiar with these ideas, and convinced I'm wrong, why don't you do the calculations for yourself to prove it?
You have yet to demonstrate a flaw in my logic, or my numbers. If you're so familiar with these ideas, and convinced I'm wrong, why don't you do the calculations for yourself to prove it?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 02:41 PM)
In what principle? Why don't you ask him if he concurs?
You don't know what the phrase "Correct in principle" meanse? Correct in principle means (in this case) that the theory, science, and principles I am applying have been applied correctly, and that if my final numbers are wrong it's because my numbers are wrong to start off with, or I make a bad step feeding them into my calculator, or screw up doing something like solving γv for v.
You don't know what the phrase "Correct in principle" meanse? Correct in principle means (in this case) that the theory, science, and principles I am applying have been applied correctly, and that if my final numbers are wrong it's because my numbers are wrong to start off with, or I make a bad step feeding them into my calculator, or screw up doing something like solving γv for v.
QUOTE (Rpenner+Oct 30 2007, 06:50 AM)
There's no reason (given) to be offensive. Trippy is right on the subject of collisions in space happening with the local physics being exactly the same as on Earth... ...But I have not checked all of Trippy's math and therefore can only commit to a nuanced response as above.
That's funny, because I thought that these statements in this post here were pretty straight forward and said that I was correct in principle.
No he hasn't. He merely vaguely stated you believe in universal physics.
That's funny, because I thought that these statements in this post here were pretty straight forward and said that I was correct in principle.
No he hasn't. He merely vaguely stated you believe in universal physics.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 02:41 PM)
Your descriptions are readily understandable in context. He's just dodging.
He's agreed that the descriptions are correct, then stated that he is unwilling to comment on the specific numbers until I provide (full) workings.
He's agreed that the descriptions are correct, then stated that he is unwilling to comment on the specific numbers until I provide (full) workings.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 02:41 PM)
Yet they'll readily attack me for the same lack of figures. How interesting is that?
I have provided numbers, and described how I derived them, you have not provided any numbers, nor have you even alluded to any derivations.
I have provided numbers, and described how I derived them, you have not provided any numbers, nor have you even alluded to any derivations.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 02:41 PM)
Ah, but I hold a special place in their vindictive hearts for they've only had to concede to my claims, and I not theirs.
Tripe.
Tripe.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 02:41 PM)
If only they'd be so honest here.
Tripe.
Tripe.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 02:41 PM)
Your opening statement to this post is evidence enough.
Tripe. I expressed a desire to direct these things at you, something I have done more then once. The funny thing is that when I said "I'm finding it really hard to maintain civility because I'm finding your posts inflammatory" you apologized, and then stated that that was not your intention. And now you're saying that you hope that I get a warning for expressing the exact same thing?
Tripe. I expressed a desire to direct these things at you, something I have done more then once. The funny thing is that when I said "I'm finding it really hard to maintain civility because I'm finding your posts inflammatory" you apologized, and then stated that that was not your intention. And now you're saying that you hope that I get a warning for expressing the exact same thing?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 02:41 PM)
Because it's not clear that I am, especially in regards to Hawking radiation. I'll admit that I might be though.
You're wrong on more counts then just that.
You're wrong on more counts then just that.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 02:41 PM)
Yes you have. You even quantified it (something like 450m/s to 200m/s).
Bull. I've addressed that in a seperate post, and demonstrated your assertions to be false. Also, the numbers that you referred to, 450 m/s was the figure that I used for the pre collision velocity of the Oxygen atom. 200 m/s was the figure that I calculated for the residual velocity of the black hole. Nowhere have I endeavoured to calculate the velocity of the Oxygen atom after the collision. Nowhere have I endeavoured to calulate it's change in energy, velocity, or momentum. I have simply stated that it is not my belief that the Oxygen atom remains unaffected by the collision.
Bull. I've addressed that in a seperate post, and demonstrated your assertions to be false. Also, the numbers that you referred to, 450 m/s was the figure that I used for the pre collision velocity of the Oxygen atom. 200 m/s was the figure that I calculated for the residual velocity of the black hole. Nowhere have I endeavoured to calculate the velocity of the Oxygen atom after the collision. Nowhere have I endeavoured to calulate it's change in energy, velocity, or momentum. I have simply stated that it is not my belief that the Oxygen atom remains unaffected by the collision.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 02:41 PM)
Go ahead. I've clearly backed my assertions.
I'm going to ignore the rest of the post, except for this snippet, because I have clearly addressed your misconceptions in a seperate post. You have not backed your assertions, all you have done is display that you have been taking my words out of context and twisting them. This is blatant dishonesty and has no place on a physics forum.
I'm going to ignore the rest of the post, except for this snippet, because I have clearly addressed your misconceptions in a seperate post. You have not backed your assertions, all you have done is display that you have been taking my words out of context and twisting them. This is blatant dishonesty and has no place on a physics forum.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 3 2007, 12:59 AM)
It's not a supposition. It's the direct result of the calculation. Have you read a review of QFT in curved space?
I understand what you're saying. I'm only asking: Is the calculation complete? Might there be more to it?
Perhaps you're right. What about virtual particles? Where do they come from then?
What about naked singularities? They'd kind of tie known physics in knots, right?
Perhaps you're right. What about virtual particles? Where do they come from then?
What about naked singularities? They'd kind of tie known physics in knots, right?
I think a more accurate reflection of the views of most physicists is that it's overwhelmingly more likely they won't.
Has anyone taken a pole?
I understand what you're saying. I'm only asking: Is the calculation complete? Might there be more to it?
QUOTE
Conservation of energy always applies, and it's not by definition of COE it's by definition of energy.
Perhaps you're right. What about virtual particles? Where do they come from then?
What about naked singularities? They'd kind of tie known physics in knots, right?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Conservation of energy always applies, and it's not by definition of COE it's by definition of energy. |
Perhaps you're right. What about virtual particles? Where do they come from then?
What about naked singularities? They'd kind of tie known physics in knots, right?
I think a more accurate reflection of the views of most physicists is that it's overwhelmingly more likely they won't.
Has anyone taken a pole?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 02:26 AM)
I understand what you're saying. I'm only asking: Is the calculation complete? Might there be more to it?
The answer to your question is 'complete enough.' If they were perfect then we wouldn't have the information paradox, but there's enough theoretical evidence pointing to the reality of Hawking radiation.
I presume you aren't asking because you don't know. Virtual particles don't have any part in Hawking radiation.
I presume you aren't asking because you don't know. Virtual particles don't have any part in Hawking radiation.
What about naked singularities? They'd kind of tie known physics in knots, right?
I know very little about naked singularites. An interesting point about particle creation phenomenon is that they tend to need a horizon of some sort. It means you can't define the solutions to the wave equation continuously over the whole space which is what gives rise to the particles.
*snigger* I think you mean "poll"
I did a bit of googling. Nothing too rigorous, but enough to get a feel.
The answer to your question is 'complete enough.' If they were perfect then we wouldn't have the information paradox, but there's enough theoretical evidence pointing to the reality of Hawking radiation.
QUOTE
Perhaps you're right. What about virtual particles? Where do they come from then?
I presume you aren't asking because you don't know. Virtual particles don't have any part in Hawking radiation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Perhaps you're right. What about virtual particles? Where do they come from then? |
I presume you aren't asking because you don't know. Virtual particles don't have any part in Hawking radiation.
What about naked singularities? They'd kind of tie known physics in knots, right?
I know very little about naked singularites. An interesting point about particle creation phenomenon is that they tend to need a horizon of some sort. It means you can't define the solutions to the wave equation continuously over the whole space which is what gives rise to the particles.
QUOTE
Has anyone taken a pole?
*snigger* I think you mean "poll"
I did a bit of googling. Nothing too rigorous, but enough to get a feel.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 3 2007, 01:58 AM)
I'm sorry.
You're wrong Ubavontuba.
The Public record shows that I did in fact state that they (the center of mass and the oxygen atom) were moving relative to each other.
That's not what the disagreement is about. It's that you stated the center of mass is "almost at rest" after the collision versus "at rest" (relative to "an observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass").
Irrelevant distraction.
Irrelevant distraction.
But implicit in the statement that the Observer co-moving with the center of mass observes the Oxygen atom to be moving is that an observer co-moving with the oxygen atom will observe the center of mass to be moving.
Irrelevant distraction.
Pretty soon you might be spinning so fast you'll drag spacetime around with you and erase all of your errors in the resultant time warp.
You're wrong Ubavontuba.
The Public record shows that I did in fact state that they (the center of mass and the oxygen atom) were moving relative to each other.
That's not what the disagreement is about. It's that you stated the center of mass is "almost at rest" after the collision versus "at rest" (relative to "an observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass").
QUOTE
Although, I am willing to admit that I did not address the motion of the center of mass in the reference frame of the oxygen atom (a pointed which I later attempted to redress).
Irrelevant distraction.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Although, I am willing to admit that I did not address the motion of the center of mass in the reference frame of the oxygen atom (a pointed which I later attempted to redress). |
Irrelevant distraction.
But implicit in the statement that the Observer co-moving with the center of mass observes the Oxygen atom to be moving is that an observer co-moving with the oxygen atom will observe the center of mass to be moving.
Irrelevant distraction.
QUOTE
This does not implie that I believe it to be stationary, merely that in a moment of haste I neglected to address the motion of one part of the system in one part of the description.
Pretty soon you might be spinning so fast you'll drag spacetime around with you and erase all of your errors in the resultant time warp.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 03:38 PM)
That's not what the disagreement is about. It's that you stated the center of mass is "almost at rest" after the collision versus "at rest" (relative to "an observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass").
[irrelevant BS removed]
Again, you're twisting things out of context.
As proven in the quote I provided in my previous post on this misconception of yours was that from the perspective of someone co-moving with the center of mass, the oxygen atom is almost stationary.
The key phrase there is almost.
I also stated that an observer comoving with the Oxygen atom would see the Oxygen atom at rest. This is exactly the same as saying that an observer comoving with the cosmic ray proton would see the cosmic ray proton as being at rest. A key point in one of the arguments you invented in an endeavour to prove me wrong.
Are you now saying that this is no longer the case?
That an observer moving in the same direction at the same speed as the cosmic ray proton would not see it as stationary, and that by the same mechanism an observer moving in the same direction at the same speed as the oxygen atom would not see the oxygen atom as being stationary?
[irrelevant BS removed]
Again, you're twisting things out of context.
As proven in the quote I provided in my previous post on this misconception of yours was that from the perspective of someone co-moving with the center of mass, the oxygen atom is almost stationary.
The key phrase there is almost.
I also stated that an observer comoving with the Oxygen atom would see the Oxygen atom at rest. This is exactly the same as saying that an observer comoving with the cosmic ray proton would see the cosmic ray proton as being at rest. A key point in one of the arguments you invented in an endeavour to prove me wrong.
Are you now saying that this is no longer the case?
That an observer moving in the same direction at the same speed as the cosmic ray proton would not see it as stationary, and that by the same mechanism an observer moving in the same direction at the same speed as the oxygen atom would not see the oxygen atom as being stationary?
QUOTE (Trippy+ Nov 1 2007, 11:20 PM)
An observer comoving with the cosmic ray proton sees the cosmic ray proton as being stationary, and the oxygen atom moving at 0.9999c The cosmic ray proton collides with the oxygen atom (I'll avoid using anything more descriptive because apprently you think I mean it literaly), energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and the singularity is now, from the perspective of the formerly co-moving observer moving away from him at more or less the speed that the oxygen atom is.
An Observer comoving with the oxygen atom sees the oxygen atom as being stationary and the cosmic ray proton moving at 0.9999c the cosmic ray photon collides with the oxygen atom, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and the singularity is now moving at speeds comparable to the oxygen atom.
An observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass sees the oxygen atom almost at rest, but the cosmic ray proton moving at a large fraction of c. The pair collide, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and is now also almost at rest.
I suggest you take the time to read through this again, because I'm growing weary of quoting it.
I'm discussing three different reference frames, and three different observers.
The first is the co-moving with the cosmic ray proton.
The second is co-moving with the oxygen atom.
The third is co-moving with the center of mass.
Apparently you're the only person on this thread that is having any difficulty understanding anything that i'm saying.
An Observer comoving with the oxygen atom sees the oxygen atom as being stationary and the cosmic ray proton moving at 0.9999c the cosmic ray photon collides with the oxygen atom, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and the singularity is now moving at speeds comparable to the oxygen atom.
An observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass sees the oxygen atom almost at rest, but the cosmic ray proton moving at a large fraction of c. The pair collide, energy becomes mass, a singularity is formed, and is now also almost at rest.
I suggest you take the time to read through this again, because I'm growing weary of quoting it.
I'm discussing three different reference frames, and three different observers.
The first is the co-moving with the cosmic ray proton.
The second is co-moving with the oxygen atom.
The third is co-moving with the center of mass.
Apparently you're the only person on this thread that is having any difficulty understanding anything that i'm saying.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 3 2007, 02:21 AM)
What, you think that I actually genuinely included Profanity and abuse in my original post and then removed it?
Biblically speaking, implied threats and derrogation are just as bad as the real thing.
Yes.
Yes.
You have yet to demonstrate a flaw in my logic, or my numbers. If you're so familiar with these ideas, and convinced I'm wrong, why don't you do the calculations for yourself to prove it?
Well, it obviously doesn't matter. You think I haven't demonstrated any flaws in your logic.
He didn't say or imply that.
He didn't say or imply that.
and that if my final numbers are wrong it's because my numbers are wrong to start off with,
That's right, they're so-o-o-o wrong to start with.
Oh, brother.
Oh, brother.
That's funny, because I thought that these statements in this post here were pretty straight forward and said that I was correct in principle.
Merely in vague, universal physics terms.
No he didn't.
No he didn't.
then stated that he is unwilling to comment on the specific numbers until I provide (full) workings.
Which is funny, seeing that he has no problem commenting on my descriptions.
Whatever.
Whatever.
Tripe.
Whatever.
Truth.
Truth.
Tripe. I expressed a desire to direct these things at you, something I have done more then once. The funny thing is that when I said "I'm finding it really hard to maintain civility because I'm finding your posts inflammatory" you apologized, and then stated that that was not your intention. And now you're saying that you hope that I get a warning for expressing the exact same thing?
You don't see the difference between, "I'm having difficulty maintaing control." and "I'm not including a bunch of epithets and insults that I'd like to for the purpose of self-preservation." then?
You're probably right.
You're probably right.
Bull. I've addressed that in a seperate post, and demonstrated your assertions to be false. Also, the numbers that you referred to, 450 m/s was the figure that I used for the pre collision velocity of the Oxygen atom. 200 m/s was the figure that I calculated for the residual velocity of the black hole. Nowhere have I endeavoured to calculate the velocity of the Oxygen atom after the collision. Nowhere have I endeavoured to calulate it's change in energy, velocity, or momentum. I have simply stated that it is not my belief that the Oxygen atom remains unaffected by the collision.
Whatever. Believe what you want (you do anyway).
Of course you will, because it directly addressess your error.
"Slower" is a magnitude of speed, therefore it can have no sign. Acceleration is relative. It isn't negative in separating a co-moving, two particle system.
Of course you will, because it directly addressess your error.
"Slower" is a magnitude of speed, therefore it can have no sign. Acceleration is relative. It isn't negative in separating a co-moving, two particle system.
because I have clearly addressed your misconceptions in a seperate post. You have not backed your assertions, all you have done is display that you have been taking my words out of context and twisting them. This is blatant dishonesty and has no place on a physics forum.
That's not true. I've been very careful to quote you in context. You keep trying to change the context to cover your mistakes. Sorry, it won't work.
Biblically speaking, implied threats and derrogation are just as bad as the real thing.
QUOTE
Or are you saying that I should be warned for stating that I have an overwhelming desire to direct profanity and abuse at you.
Yes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Or are you saying that I should be warned for stating that I have an overwhelming desire to direct profanity and abuse at you. |
Yes.
You have yet to demonstrate a flaw in my logic, or my numbers. If you're so familiar with these ideas, and convinced I'm wrong, why don't you do the calculations for yourself to prove it?
Well, it obviously doesn't matter. You think I haven't demonstrated any flaws in your logic.
QUOTE
You don't know what the phrase "Correct in principle" meanse? Correct in principle means (in this case) that the theory, science, and principles I am applying have been applied correctly,
He didn't say or imply that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You don't know what the phrase "Correct in principle" meanse? Correct in principle means (in this case) that the theory, science, and principles I am applying have been applied correctly, |
He didn't say or imply that.
and that if my final numbers are wrong it's because my numbers are wrong to start off with,
That's right, they're so-o-o-o wrong to start with.
QUOTE
or I make a bad step feeding them into my calculator, or screw up doing something like solving γv for v.
Oh, brother.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| or I make a bad step feeding them into my calculator, or screw up doing something like solving γv for v. |
Oh, brother.
That's funny, because I thought that these statements in this post here were pretty straight forward and said that I was correct in principle.
Merely in vague, universal physics terms.
QUOTE
He's agreed that the descriptions are correct,
No he didn't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| He's agreed that the descriptions are correct, |
No he didn't.
then stated that he is unwilling to comment on the specific numbers until I provide (full) workings.
Which is funny, seeing that he has no problem commenting on my descriptions.
QUOTE
I have provided numbers, and described how I derived them, you have not provided any numbers, nor have you even alluded to any derivations.
Whatever.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have provided numbers, and described how I derived them, you have not provided any numbers, nor have you even alluded to any derivations. |
Whatever.
Tripe.
Whatever.
QUOTE
Tripe.
Truth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Tripe. |
Truth.
Tripe. I expressed a desire to direct these things at you, something I have done more then once. The funny thing is that when I said "I'm finding it really hard to maintain civility because I'm finding your posts inflammatory" you apologized, and then stated that that was not your intention. And now you're saying that you hope that I get a warning for expressing the exact same thing?
You don't see the difference between, "I'm having difficulty maintaing control." and "I'm not including a bunch of epithets and insults that I'd like to for the purpose of self-preservation." then?
QUOTE
You're wrong on more counts then just that.
You're probably right.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're wrong on more counts then just that. |
You're probably right.
Bull. I've addressed that in a seperate post, and demonstrated your assertions to be false. Also, the numbers that you referred to, 450 m/s was the figure that I used for the pre collision velocity of the Oxygen atom. 200 m/s was the figure that I calculated for the residual velocity of the black hole. Nowhere have I endeavoured to calculate the velocity of the Oxygen atom after the collision. Nowhere have I endeavoured to calulate it's change in energy, velocity, or momentum. I have simply stated that it is not my belief that the Oxygen atom remains unaffected by the collision.
Whatever. Believe what you want (you do anyway).
QUOTE
I'm going to ignore the rest of the post, except for this snippet,
Of course you will, because it directly addressess your error.
"Slower" is a magnitude of speed, therefore it can have no sign. Acceleration is relative. It isn't negative in separating a co-moving, two particle system.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm going to ignore the rest of the post, except for this snippet, |
Of course you will, because it directly addressess your error.
"Slower" is a magnitude of speed, therefore it can have no sign. Acceleration is relative. It isn't negative in separating a co-moving, two particle system.
because I have clearly addressed your misconceptions in a seperate post. You have not backed your assertions, all you have done is display that you have been taking my words out of context and twisting them. This is blatant dishonesty and has no place on a physics forum.
That's not true. I've been very careful to quote you in context. You keep trying to change the context to cover your mistakes. Sorry, it won't work.
QUOTE (slasher1975+Nov 2 2007, 08:16 PM)
I can still give the directions to that library.....lol
Sorry trying to add humor bad timing
Man, do I know that feeling. Sometimes you splash, sometimes you crash. 
Sorry trying to add humor bad timing
Man, do I know that feeling. Sometimes you splash, sometimes you crash.
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 3 2007, 02:37 AM)
The answer to your question is 'complete enough.' If they were perfect then we wouldn't have the information paradox, but there's enough theoretical evidence pointing to the reality of Hawking radiation.
I'm not so sure.
They're the basis for Hawking radiation. Didn't you ever read "A Brief History of Time?"
They're the basis for Hawking radiation. Didn't you ever read "A Brief History of Time?"
I know very little about naked singularites. An interesting point about particle creation phenomenon is that they tend to need a horizon of some sort. It means you can't define the solutions to the wave equation continuously over the whole space which is what gives rise to the particles.
I'n not familiar with this version.
Explain! Explain, as if to a child! -Galaxy Quest
You are correct. I am wrong (see Trippy?).
You are correct. I am wrong (see Trippy?).
I did a bit of googling. Nothing too rigorous, but enough to get a feel.
What are your (obviously anecdotal) results?
I'm not so sure.
QUOTE
I presume you aren't asking because you don't know. Virtual particles don't have any part in Hawking radiation.
They're the basis for Hawking radiation. Didn't you ever read "A Brief History of Time?"
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I presume you aren't asking because you don't know. Virtual particles don't have any part in Hawking radiation. |
They're the basis for Hawking radiation. Didn't you ever read "A Brief History of Time?"
I know very little about naked singularites. An interesting point about particle creation phenomenon is that they tend to need a horizon of some sort. It means you can't define the solutions to the wave equation continuously over the whole space which is what gives rise to the particles.
I'n not familiar with this version.
Explain! Explain, as if to a child! -Galaxy Quest
QUOTE
*snigger* I think you mean "poll"
You are correct. I am wrong (see Trippy?).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| *snigger* I think you mean "poll" |
You are correct. I am wrong (see Trippy?).
I did a bit of googling. Nothing too rigorous, but enough to get a feel.
What are your (obviously anecdotal) results?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 03:58 PM)
Whatever. Believe what you want (you do anyway).
That's not true. I've been very careful to quote you in context. You keep trying to change the context to cover your mistakes. Sorry, it won't work.
PURE UNADULTEREATED BULL****!!!!!
HERE is the post that you are BLATANTLY mis representing.
That's not true. I've been very careful to quote you in context. You keep trying to change the context to cover your mistakes. Sorry, it won't work.
PURE UNADULTEREATED BULL****!!!!!
HERE is the post that you are BLATANTLY mis representing.
QUOTE (Trippy+Oct 24 2007, 09:24 PM)
Ubavontuba.
Let's break this down real simple.
At which point do you disagree with what I'm saying:
1. We start with a particle, let us consider a Proton, with a total energy of 1150 TeV
2. Because the particle is a Proton, we know it's restmass (about 938 MeV) and can therefore calculate it's velocity (According to Fishbane, Gasiorowicz and Thornton, the total energy of the particle is equal to the energy due to it's mass, and the energy due to it's motion).
3. Although I haven't stated it, it should be intuitive that here I am talking relative to a stationary observer. (If you want to get picky, we can define stationary as relative to the earth, or relative to the fixed and distant stars. I don't really care either way).
4. Let us consider then an oxygen atom, trundling along minding it's own buisiness. According to NASA, the average velocity of an Oxygen atom is 480 m/s. The rest mass of an average atom of Oxygen is 15,015 MeV, and it is travelling at 0.0000016 c, which gives us a gamma value of 1.000000000001, and a kinetic energy equivalent to 0.038 ev What does this mean? To a good approximation (one in 1000 billion) the total energy of the Oxygen atom is 15,015 MeV.
5. Consider the proton again, with a total energy of 1150 TeV. The total energy of a particle is given by the equation E = μγc^2 (according to Fishbane, Gasiorowicz, and Thornton) rearranging this allows us to calculate the velocity of the proton, and it comes out at 0.9999c before the collision.
6. If we assume that all of the energy available to the Proton is converted into rest mass, we get rest mass of 1.2 million AMU.
7. The momentum of the Proton before the collision is p=mγv
p = 2.5 x10^-15 kgm/s So, the momentum of the black hole after the collision must also be 2.5 x10^-15 kgm/s.
8. Using the above equation we can see that γv = 1255020, which if I've done my math correctly works out at a residual velocity for the black hole of 239 m/s. The escape velocity of the earth is 11000 m/s. This represents 2% of the escape velocity. The black hole would need to radiate away (about) 98% of it's energy as Partons and secondary particles in order to acheive escape velocity (making it's rest mas one fiftieth of what I've calculated it).
If you have maths and references that say anything different, please, feel free to go into details. Otherwise admit you were wrong.
NOWEHERE in that &^$$#!!! post do I attempt to address the velocity of the (*^&%*&(I Oxygen atom after the collision!
Retract your erroneous statements.
You are BLATANTLY twisting what I say out of context.
Let's break this down real simple.
At which point do you disagree with what I'm saying:
1. We start with a particle, let us consider a Proton, with a total energy of 1150 TeV
2. Because the particle is a Proton, we know it's restmass (about 938 MeV) and can therefore calculate it's velocity (According to Fishbane, Gasiorowicz and Thornton, the total energy of the particle is equal to the energy due to it's mass, and the energy due to it's motion).
3. Although I haven't stated it, it should be intuitive that here I am talking relative to a stationary observer. (If you want to get picky, we can define stationary as relative to the earth, or relative to the fixed and distant stars. I don't really care either way).
4. Let us consider then an oxygen atom, trundling along minding it's own buisiness. According to NASA, the average velocity of an Oxygen atom is 480 m/s. The rest mass of an average atom of Oxygen is 15,015 MeV, and it is travelling at 0.0000016 c, which gives us a gamma value of 1.000000000001, and a kinetic energy equivalent to 0.038 ev What does this mean? To a good approximation (one in 1000 billion) the total energy of the Oxygen atom is 15,015 MeV.
5. Consider the proton again, with a total energy of 1150 TeV. The total energy of a particle is given by the equation E = μγc^2 (according to Fishbane, Gasiorowicz, and Thornton) rearranging this allows us to calculate the velocity of the proton, and it comes out at 0.9999c before the collision.
6. If we assume that all of the energy available to the Proton is converted into rest mass, we get rest mass of 1.2 million AMU.
7. The momentum of the Proton before the collision is p=mγv
p = 2.5 x10^-15 kgm/s So, the momentum of the black hole after the collision must also be 2.5 x10^-15 kgm/s.
8. Using the above equation we can see that γv = 1255020, which if I've done my math correctly works out at a residual velocity for the black hole of 239 m/s. The escape velocity of the earth is 11000 m/s. This represents 2% of the escape velocity. The black hole would need to radiate away (about) 98% of it's energy as Partons and secondary particles in order to acheive escape velocity (making it's rest mas one fiftieth of what I've calculated it).
If you have maths and references that say anything different, please, feel free to go into details. Otherwise admit you were wrong.
NOWEHERE in that &^$$#!!! post do I attempt to address the velocity of the (*^&%*&(I Oxygen atom after the collision!
Retract your erroneous statements.
You are BLATANTLY twisting what I say out of context.
Fascinating, that the FM don't even have to PM one another to know that extreme BS is happening, somewhere.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 3 2007, 02:57 AM)
Again, you're twisting things out of context.
As proven in the quote I provided in my previous post on this misconception of yours was that from the perspective of someone co-moving with the center of mass, the oxygen atom is almost stationary.
The key phrase there is almost.
That's not what the disagreement is about... Oh, wait up now. We've been down this road before. You're just refusing to acknowledge the proper context. You're still wrong (even if you won't admit it).
Irrelavant distraction.
Irrelavant distraction.
Are you now saying that this is no longer the case?
That an observer moving in the same direction at the same speed as the cosmic ray proton would not see it as stationary, and that by the same mechanism an observer moving in the same direction at the same speed as the oxygen atom would not see the oxygen atom as being stationary?
Irrelevant distraction.
One more time!
Relative to an observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass the center of mass is always at rest. It's never "almost at rest."
Then stop it.
Then stop it.
I'm discussing three different reference frames, and three different observers.
The first is the co-moving with the cosmic ray proton.
The second is co-moving with the oxygen atom.
The third is co-moving with the center of mass.
The latter is the only one in question.
No one else is commenting either way. There's no evidence anyone agrees with you. In fact considering the history of this forum, it's implied evidence to the contrary.
As proven in the quote I provided in my previous post on this misconception of yours was that from the perspective of someone co-moving with the center of mass, the oxygen atom is almost stationary.
The key phrase there is almost.
That's not what the disagreement is about... Oh, wait up now. We've been down this road before. You're just refusing to acknowledge the proper context. You're still wrong (even if you won't admit it).
QUOTE
I also stated that an observer comoving with the Oxygen atom would see the Oxygen atom at rest. This is exactly the same as saying that an observer comoving with the cosmic ray proton would see the cosmic ray proton as being at rest. A key point in one of the arguments you invented in an endeavour to prove me wrong.
Irrelavant distraction.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I also stated that an observer comoving with the Oxygen atom would see the Oxygen atom at rest. This is exactly the same as saying that an observer comoving with the cosmic ray proton would see the cosmic ray proton as being at rest. A key point in one of the arguments you invented in an endeavour to prove me wrong. |
Irrelavant distraction.
Are you now saying that this is no longer the case?
That an observer moving in the same direction at the same speed as the cosmic ray proton would not see it as stationary, and that by the same mechanism an observer moving in the same direction at the same speed as the oxygen atom would not see the oxygen atom as being stationary?
Irrelevant distraction.
One more time!
Relative to an observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass the center of mass is always at rest. It's never "almost at rest."
QUOTE
I suggest you take the time to read through this again, because I'm growing weary of quoting it.
Then stop it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I suggest you take the time to read through this again, because I'm growing weary of quoting it. |
Then stop it.
I'm discussing three different reference frames, and three different observers.
The first is the co-moving with the cosmic ray proton.
The second is co-moving with the oxygen atom.
The third is co-moving with the center of mass.
The latter is the only one in question.
QUOTE
Apparently you're the only person on this thread that is having any difficulty understanding anything that i'm saying.
No one else is commenting either way. There's no evidence anyone agrees with you. In fact considering the history of this forum, it's implied evidence to the contrary.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 2 2007, 10:41 PM)
That's not what the disagreement is about... Oh, wait up now. We've been down this road before. You're just refusing to acknowledge the proper context. You're still wrong (even if you won't admit it).
Irrelavant distraction.
Irrelevant distraction.
Then stop it.
The latter is the only one in question.
No one else is commenting either way. There's no evidence anyone agrees with you. In fact considering the history of this forum, it's implied evidence to the contrary.
Have you been using to much Minoxidil? Maybe IM? (No, not Instant Messenger, kids, Intramuscular Injection)
It is irrelevant, since you don't play well with others.
Irrelavant distraction.
Irrelevant distraction.
Then stop it.
The latter is the only one in question.
No one else is commenting either way. There's no evidence anyone agrees with you. In fact considering the history of this forum, it's implied evidence to the contrary.
Have you been using to much Minoxidil? Maybe IM? (No, not Instant Messenger, kids, Intramuscular Injection)
It is irrelevant, since you don't play well with others.
Trippy,
From what I've recently assessed from ubavontuba's willfully and might I say, woefully sad lack of both reasoning and education, I'd suspect he's probably a victim of some extreme brain trauma. i.e This idiot refers to oxygen atoms .... when any half-blown inbred, nil-taught third world, ignorant brain diseased dumpling knows that atmospheric oxygen exists mainly as molecular states O2 & O3.
From what I've recently assessed from ubavontuba's willfully and might I say, woefully sad lack of both reasoning and education, I'd suspect he's probably a victim of some extreme brain trauma. i.e This idiot refers to oxygen atoms .... when any half-blown inbred, nil-taught third world, ignorant brain diseased dumpling knows that atmospheric oxygen exists mainly as molecular states O2 & O3.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 04:41 PM)
One more time!
Relative to an observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass the center of mass is always at rest. It's never "almost at rest."
Care to put this to a test?
If I hold a shot gun to your head, and pull the trigger, then by your logic the center of the mass of the pellets in the shotgun should not move and you should be safe.
No, didn't think so.
Because you know as well as I do that the center of mass of the shotgun pellets moves relative to the person pulling trigger after the trigger is pulled (And individual pellets move relative to the center of mass).
Another example, Two cars driving towards each other, one travelling west at 90kph, and the other travelling east at 100kph. The center of mass of the system, the point at which the collision will occur, moves towards the slower moving car at some velocity that is proportional to the ratio of their masses, and the difference in velocities.
Are you still going to persist with this stupidity that the center of mass does not move?
Relative to an observer co-moving in the reference frame of the center of mass the center of mass is always at rest. It's never "almost at rest."
Care to put this to a test?
If I hold a shot gun to your head, and pull the trigger, then by your logic the center of the mass of the pellets in the shotgun should not move and you should be safe.
No, didn't think so.
Because you know as well as I do that the center of mass of the shotgun pellets moves relative to the person pulling trigger after the trigger is pulled (And individual pellets move relative to the center of mass).
Another example, Two cars driving towards each other, one travelling west at 90kph, and the other travelling east at 100kph. The center of mass of the system, the point at which the collision will occur, moves towards the slower moving car at some velocity that is proportional to the ratio of their masses, and the difference in velocities.
Are you still going to persist with this stupidity that the center of mass does not move?
QUOTE (Baby+Nov 3 2007, 04:55 PM)
Trippy,
From what I've recently assessed from ubavontuba's willfully and might I say, woefully sad lack of both reasoning and education, I'd suspect he's probably a victim of some extreme brain trauma. i.e This idiot refers to oxygen atoms .... when any half-blown inbred, nil-taught third world, ignorant brain diseased dumpling knows that atmospheric oxygen exists mainly as molecular states O2 & O3.
This is true, but I must confess that it was me that originally borached the idea of the proton colliding with an "Average atom of oxgygen" to simplify things.
From what I've recently assessed from ubavontuba's willfully and might I say, woefully sad lack of both reasoning and education, I'd suspect he's probably a victim of some extreme brain trauma. i.e This idiot refers to oxygen atoms .... when any half-blown inbred, nil-taught third world, ignorant brain diseased dumpling knows that atmospheric oxygen exists mainly as molecular states O2 & O3.
This is true, but I must confess that it was me that originally borached the idea of the proton colliding with an "Average atom of oxgygen" to simplify things.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 3 2007, 03:31 AM)
PURE UNADULTEREATED BULL****!!!!!
HERE is the post that you are BLATANTLY mis representing.
NOWEHERE in that &^$$#!!! post do I attempt to address the velocity of the (*^&%*&(I Oxygen atom after the collision!
It's implied, but it doesn't matter. You think "radiating partons and secondary particles" will make it go faster.
Okay. I retract... nope, that one's still corrrect. How about... nope that one still holds water. [shrug] Sorry.
Okay. I retract... nope, that one's still corrrect. How about... nope that one still holds water. [shrug] Sorry.
You are BLATANTLY twisting what I say out of context.
Not blatantly. Errors occur, but in regards to this I've made an effort to keep the context intact.
HERE is the post that you are BLATANTLY mis representing.
NOWEHERE in that &^$$#!!! post do I attempt to address the velocity of the (*^&%*&(I Oxygen atom after the collision!
It's implied, but it doesn't matter. You think "radiating partons and secondary particles" will make it go faster.
QUOTE
Retract your erroneous statements.
Okay. I retract... nope, that one's still corrrect. How about... nope that one still holds water. [shrug] Sorry.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Retract your erroneous statements. |
Okay. I retract... nope, that one's still corrrect. How about... nope that one still holds water. [shrug] Sorry.
You are BLATANTLY twisting what I say out of context.
Not blatantly. Errors occur, but in regards to this I've made an effort to keep the context intact.
uvontuba has deigned to give me a negative. I wish to thank him for the honor of his disregard.
His comment to me, "I'm glad you like reading my work. Join in anytime," was meant, I think, to be cutting and clever and to-the-point.
Alas. The point has been passed again. No brass ring today.
edit:
His comment to me, "I'm glad you like reading my work. Join in anytime," was meant, I think, to be cutting and clever and to-the-point.
Alas. The point has been passed again. No brass ring today.
edit:
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 3 2007, 04:00 AM)
This is true, but I must confess that it was me that originally borached the idea of the proton colliding with an "Average atom of oxgygen" to simplify things.
I totally understand. Although in future it might be prudent to simplify things to a greater extent with this sorrowful sack of ignorance.
I totally understand. Although in future it might be prudent to simplify things to a greater extent with this sorrowful sack of ignorance.
QUOTE (Sapo+Nov 3 2007, 03:34 AM)
Fascinating, that the FM don't even have to PM one another to know that extreme BS is happening, somewhere.
Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?
Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?
QUOTE (Baby+Nov 3 2007, 03:55 AM)
Trippy,
From what I've recently assessed from ubavontuba's willfully and might I say, woefully sad lack of both reasoning and education, I'd suspect he's probably a victim of some extreme brain trauma. i.e This idiot refers to oxygen atoms .... when any half-blown inbred, nil-taught third world, ignorant brain diseased dumpling knows that atmospheric oxygen exists mainly as molecular states O2 & O3.
[EDIT]
I see that Trippy's already addressed this. Good for you Trippy.
From what I've recently assessed from ubavontuba's willfully and might I say, woefully sad lack of both reasoning and education, I'd suspect he's probably a victim of some extreme brain trauma. i.e This idiot refers to oxygen atoms .... when any half-blown inbred, nil-taught third world, ignorant brain diseased dumpling knows that atmospheric oxygen exists mainly as molecular states O2 & O3.
[EDIT]
I see that Trippy's already addressed this. Good for you Trippy.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 2 2007, 11:05 PM)
Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?
Since your Majesty is here to define relevance, yes, I do. It has been pointed out to you often, by many here whom you should respect, that you are a crank and a crackpot. You will not listen to reason or logic, nor advance your claims by reason, or logic.
Your diaper smells, go change it.
Since your Majesty is here to define relevance, yes, I do. It has been pointed out to you often, by many here whom you should respect, that you are a crank and a crackpot. You will not listen to reason or logic, nor advance your claims by reason, or logic.
Your diaper smells, go change it.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 3 2007, 03:57 AM)
Care to put this to a test?
If I hold a shot gun to your head, and pull the trigger, then by your logic the center of the mass of the pellets in the shotgun should not move and you should be safe.
No, didn't think so.
Because you know as well as I do that the center of mass of the shotgun pellets moves relative to the person pulling trigger after the trigger is pulled (And individual pellets move relative to the center of mass).
That's not an isolated system. Also, I never said the individual parts can't move.
Here, the observer is not "co-moving with the center of mass," it's not an isolated system, and you're using the earth as a preferred reference frame again.
Here, the observer is not "co-moving with the center of mass," it's not an isolated system, and you're using the earth as a preferred reference frame again.
Are you still going to persist with this stupidity that the center of mass does not move?
Now you think Newton was stupid? It's a law. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's called, "The Conservation of Momentum."
Oh, sorry. Silly me. You didn't understand it before, what was I thinking that you might now?
If I hold a shot gun to your head, and pull the trigger, then by your logic the center of the mass of the pellets in the shotgun should not move and you should be safe.
No, didn't think so.
Because you know as well as I do that the center of mass of the shotgun pellets moves relative to the person pulling trigger after the trigger is pulled (And individual pellets move relative to the center of mass).
That's not an isolated system. Also, I never said the individual parts can't move.
QUOTE
Another example, Two cars driving towards each other, one travelling west at 90kph, and the other travelling east at 100kph. The center of mass of the system, the point at which the collision will occur, moves towards the slower moving car at some velocity that is proportional to the ratio of their masses, and the difference in velocities.
Here, the observer is not "co-moving with the center of mass," it's not an isolated system, and you're using the earth as a preferred reference frame again.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Another example, Two cars driving towards each other, one travelling west at 90kph, and the other travelling east at 100kph. The center of mass of the system, the point at which the collision will occur, moves towards the slower moving car at some velocity that is proportional to the ratio of their masses, and the difference in velocities. |
Here, the observer is not "co-moving with the center of mass," it's not an isolated system, and you're using the earth as a preferred reference frame again.
Are you still going to persist with this stupidity that the center of mass does not move?
Now you think Newton was stupid? It's a law. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's called, "The Conservation of Momentum."
Oh, sorry. Silly me. You didn't understand it before, what was I thinking that you might now?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 04:12 AM)
Ha!
The "single oxygen atom" comes directly from Trippy's reference!
However dunderhead, he was totally dumbing down to address you! Gaffaw Gaffaw Gaffaw Gaffaw
The "single oxygen atom" comes directly from Trippy's reference!
However dunderhead, he was totally dumbing down to address you! Gaffaw
Gaffaw Gaffaw Gaffaw
QUOTE (Sapo+Nov 3 2007, 04:03 AM)
uvontuba has deigned to give me a negative. I wish to thank him for the honor of his disregard.
I'm glad you feel so honored by me. Thanks.
It's the truth. Accept it or not, it's your choice.
I'm glad you feel so honored by me. Thanks.
QUOTE
His comment to me, "I'm glad you like reading my work. Join in anytime," was meant, I think, to be cutting and clever and to-the-point.
Alas. The point has been passed again. No brass ring today.
Alas. The point has been passed again. No brass ring today.
It's the truth. Accept it or not, it's your choice.
QUOTE (Sapo+Nov 3 2007, 04:21 AM)
Since your Majesty is here to define relevance, yes, I do. It has been pointed out to you often, by many here whom you should respect, that you are a crank and a crackpot. You will not listen to reason or logic, nor advance your claims by reason, or logic.
Actually those to whom you refer have generally found themselves eventually acknowledging and corroborating my claims. That (I suspect) is largely the reason they've grown quiet.
Actually those to whom you refer have generally found themselves eventually acknowledging and corroborating my claims. That (I suspect) is largely the reason they've grown quiet.
QUOTE (Baby+Nov 3 2007, 04:22 AM)
However, he was totally dumbing down to address you!
Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?
Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?
'Actually', they've lost patience, and don't wish to further bruise their foreheads. I have resorted to the use of mind-numbing drugs to assist me in my 'discussions' with you.
QUOTE (Sapo+Nov 3 2007, 04:41 AM)
'Actually', they've lost patience, and don't wish to further bruise their foreheads. I have resorted to the use of mind-numbing drugs to assist me in my 'discussions' with you.
Can't think of anything relevant then?
Can't think of anything relevant then?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 04:37 AM)
Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?
Yes,
Since high energy interactions far exceeding the capability of LHC are occurring trillions + times per second on/in/above the planet your stance is way short of credible.
Now go away and cry in the large 'black hole' you've dug for yourself, dimbecile.
No more be said ... this ridiculous thread is over!
Yes,
Since high energy interactions far exceeding the capability of LHC are occurring trillions + times per second on/in/above the planet your stance is way short of credible.
Now go away and cry in the large 'black hole' you've dug for yourself, dimbecile.
No more be said ... this ridiculous thread is over!
QUOTE (Baby+Nov 3 2007, 04:50 AM)
Yes,
Since high energy interactions far exceeding the capability of LHC are occurring trillions + times per second on/in/above the planet your stance is way short of credible.
This argument has been falsified.
Since high energy interactions far exceeding the capability of LHC are occurring trillions + times per second on/in/above the planet your stance is way short of credible.
This argument has been falsified.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 04:53 AM)
This argument has been falsified.
What if I said you're actually formed from around 10^27 particles which as point like entities can be thought of as micro black holes.
.... shove that in yer pipe and smoke it!
What if I said you're actually formed from around 10^27 particles which as point like entities can be thought of as micro black holes.
.... shove that in yer pipe and smoke it!
QUOTE (Baby+Nov 3 2007, 05:03 AM)
What if I said you're actually formed from around 10^27 particles which as point like entities can be thought of as micro black holes.
.... shove that in yer pipe and smoke it!
That's been explored. It's generally been discredited.
.... shove that in yer pipe and smoke it!
That's been explored. It's generally been discredited.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 05:07 AM)
That's been explored. It's generally been discredited.
Try telling that to Brian Greene.
Try telling that to Brian Greene.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 04:53 AM)
This argument has been falsified.
Only by raving loonies belonging to the order of the square circle.
Only by raving loonies belonging to the order of the square circle.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 05:02 PM)
It's implied, but it doesn't matter. You think "radiating partons and secondary particles" will make it go faster.
Okay. I retract... nope, that one's still corrrect. How about... nope that one still holds water. [shrug] Sorry.
Not blatantly. Errors occur, but in regards to this I've made an effort to keep the context intact.
No you haven't, and it can not be implied if I do not adress it.
For a topic to be implied in a discussion, it must first be addressed in some form, nowhere in that point do I address the final velocity of the Oxygen atom, in fact the most I have either said about it was to use your assumption that the oxygen atom is unaffected by the collision, and that I find this assumption dubious, but am willing to work with it.
That is the ONLY thing I have EVER claimed about the final velocity of the Oxygen atom. The public record supports this, and demonstrates you to be misrepresenting this particular issue.
I have seen no evidence of you attempting to keep context intact, in fact I have seen quite the opposite, several posts of yours are only explicable if they are regarding something that is taken out of context.
Okay. I retract... nope, that one's still corrrect. How about... nope that one still holds water. [shrug] Sorry.
Not blatantly. Errors occur, but in regards to this I've made an effort to keep the context intact.
No you haven't, and it can not be implied if I do not adress it.
For a topic to be implied in a discussion, it must first be addressed in some form, nowhere in that point do I address the final velocity of the Oxygen atom, in fact the most I have either said about it was to use your assumption that the oxygen atom is unaffected by the collision, and that I find this assumption dubious, but am willing to work with it.
That is the ONLY thing I have EVER claimed about the final velocity of the Oxygen atom. The public record supports this, and demonstrates you to be misrepresenting this particular issue.
I have seen no evidence of you attempting to keep context intact, in fact I have seen quite the opposite, several posts of yours are only explicable if they are regarding something that is taken out of context.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 05:21 PM)
That's not an isolated system. Also, I never said the individual parts can't move.
Isolated compared to what?
The center of mass of the pellets moves relative to the barrel of the gun.
The individual pellets move relative to the center of mass (Therefore from the POV of the pellets, the center of mass must move).
The center of mass of the pellets and the hunter moves relative to the center of mass of the earth moon system (or the fixed and distant stars).
What part of this is so hard for you to grasp?
Isolated compared to what?
The center of mass of the pellets moves relative to the barrel of the gun.
The individual pellets move relative to the center of mass (Therefore from the POV of the pellets, the center of mass must move).
The center of mass of the pellets and the hunter moves relative to the center of mass of the earth moon system (or the fixed and distant stars).
What part of this is so hard for you to grasp?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 05:21 PM)
Here, the observer is not "co-moving with the center of mass," it's not an isolated system, and you're using the earth as a preferred reference frame again.
Only in your imagination am I using a prefered reference frame.
Two asteroids moving towards each other one at 0.9c relative to the fixed and distant stars, the other at 0.8c relative to the fixed and distant stars.
The rest of the argument still stands, the center of mass can move. (Something similar can be said of the shotgun but it's slightly more complicated.
Only in your imagination am I using a prefered reference frame.
Two asteroids moving towards each other one at 0.9c relative to the fixed and distant stars, the other at 0.8c relative to the fixed and distant stars.
The rest of the argument still stands, the center of mass can move. (Something similar can be said of the shotgun but it's slightly more complicated.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 05:21 PM)
Now you think Newton was stupid? It's a law. Perhaps you've heard of it? It's called, "The Conservation of Momentum."
Oh, sorry. Silly me. You didn't understand it before, what was I thinking that you might now?
Oh, sorry. Silly me. You didn't understand it before, what was I thinking that you might now?
:LOL:This is rich from someone that thought that am Asteroid falling from infinity violated the conservation of energy. You clearly DON'T understand classical physics, let alone modern physics.
No, I don't think Newton was stupid, I think he was a genius, I do, however, think that your interpretation of classical mechanics would leave him turning in his grave (in fear and disgust).
Then why have I been able to correct you, even though you refuse to accept it?
No, I don't think Newton was stupid, I think he was a genius, I do, however, think that your interpretation of classical mechanics would leave him turning in his grave (in fear and disgust).
Then why have I been able to correct you, even though you refuse to accept it?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 05:12 PM)
Ha!
The "single oxygen atom" comes directly from Trippy's reference!
And to think, you make posts like this then have the nerve to call other people hateful and spiteful.
So quick to attack anybody that thinks your wrong, and yet you accuse others of simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
The Kettle's on the phone, and he wants to talk about skin pigmentation.
The "single oxygen atom" comes directly from Trippy's reference!
And to think, you make posts like this then have the nerve to call other people hateful and spiteful.
So quick to attack anybody that thinks your wrong, and yet you accuse others of simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
The Kettle's on the phone, and he wants to talk about skin pigmentation.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 05:53 AM)
This argument has been falsified.
No, it hasn't. Numerous people have explained to why the formation of long lasting dangerous microblack holes is experimentally excluded, precisely because the Earth is still here.
If black holes lasted indefinitely, then (as Rpenner points out), they would be constantly created in the upper atmosphere and everywhere in the universe there is matter (since the vast majority of cosmic radiation is above 10TeV, the upper level of CERN).
Over the 13 billion years the universe has existed, these black holes would have been created in such vast quantities that they'd fill the universe as a rarified 'gas', ie they'd come in all masses and velocities and inevitably the Earth would have already captured some of them. Since we're still here 4.5 billion years after the Earth's formation and we see objects in the universe double, almost triple, the age of the Earth, it would seem that even if Hawking radiation doesn't exist, the danger doesn't exist.
Your inability to understand such things doesn't mean you're right.
No, it hasn't. Numerous people have explained to why the formation of long lasting dangerous microblack holes is experimentally excluded, precisely because the Earth is still here.
If black holes lasted indefinitely, then (as Rpenner points out), they would be constantly created in the upper atmosphere and everywhere in the universe there is matter (since the vast majority of cosmic radiation is above 10TeV, the upper level of CERN).
Over the 13 billion years the universe has existed, these black holes would have been created in such vast quantities that they'd fill the universe as a rarified 'gas', ie they'd come in all masses and velocities and inevitably the Earth would have already captured some of them. Since we're still here 4.5 billion years after the Earth's formation and we see objects in the universe double, almost triple, the age of the Earth, it would seem that even if Hawking radiation doesn't exist, the danger doesn't exist.
Your inability to understand such things doesn't mean you're right.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 03:24 AM)
I'm not so sure.
They're the basis for Hawking radiation. Didn't you ever read "A Brief History of Time?"
Sorry to dredge this beck from a few pages ago. I had to sleep!
A brief history of time is popular science. Popular science tries to give very difficult science in terms that lay people can try to understand. In the actual calculation of the Hawking temperature there are no virtual particles. You are an observer at infinity in a geometry with a black hole at the origin and you see particles. You can say nothing more in the Hawking treatment of the problem
In Wilczeks treatment he assumes real particles tunnel through the event horizon and gets the same result. No virtual particles here.
I'n not familiar with this version.
Explain! Explain, as if to a child! -Galaxy Quest
It would be hopeless to try to explain this for 2 reasons. 1) I don't completely understand it myself and 2) It would be far too long. A good place to start if you want to understand it is Carroll's book "Spacetime and Geometry" which is available for free on the web. I'd link but I'm new so I can't so you'll have to google for 'MIT opencourseware Carroll' and hit the first link that comes up. Once you've got to grips with that there's a book by Birrell and Davies called "Quantum Fields in Curved Space" that is the standard text on the subject.
It would be hopeless to try to explain this for 2 reasons. 1) I don't completely understand it myself and 2) It would be far too long. A good place to start if you want to understand it is Carroll's book "Spacetime and Geometry" which is available for free on the web. I'd link but I'm new so I can't so you'll have to google for 'MIT opencourseware Carroll' and hit the first link that comes up. Once you've got to grips with that there's a book by Birrell and Davies called "Quantum Fields in Curved Space" that is the standard text on the subject.
You are correct. I am wrong (see Trippy?).
Admitting you're wrong about a typo is not even close to admitting you're wrong about physics.
What are your (obviously anecdotal) results?
Umm... that physicists don't think the LHC will create black holes.
They're the basis for Hawking radiation. Didn't you ever read "A Brief History of Time?"
Sorry to dredge this beck from a few pages ago. I had to sleep!
A brief history of time is popular science. Popular science tries to give very difficult science in terms that lay people can try to understand. In the actual calculation of the Hawking temperature there are no virtual particles. You are an observer at infinity in a geometry with a black hole at the origin and you see particles. You can say nothing more in the Hawking treatment of the problem
In Wilczeks treatment he assumes real particles tunnel through the event horizon and gets the same result. No virtual particles here.
QUOTE
I'n not familiar with this version.
Explain! Explain, as if to a child! -Galaxy Quest
It would be hopeless to try to explain this for 2 reasons. 1) I don't completely understand it myself and 2) It would be far too long. A good place to start if you want to understand it is Carroll's book "Spacetime and Geometry" which is available for free on the web. I'd link but I'm new so I can't so you'll have to google for 'MIT opencourseware Carroll' and hit the first link that comes up. Once you've got to grips with that there's a book by Birrell and Davies called "Quantum Fields in Curved Space" that is the standard text on the subject.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
I'n not familiar with this version. Explain! Explain, as if to a child! -Galaxy Quest |
It would be hopeless to try to explain this for 2 reasons. 1) I don't completely understand it myself and 2) It would be far too long. A good place to start if you want to understand it is Carroll's book "Spacetime and Geometry" which is available for free on the web. I'd link but I'm new so I can't so you'll have to google for 'MIT opencourseware Carroll' and hit the first link that comes up. Once you've got to grips with that there's a book by Birrell and Davies called "Quantum Fields in Curved Space" that is the standard text on the subject.
You are correct. I am wrong (see Trippy?).
Admitting you're wrong about a typo is not even close to admitting you're wrong about physics.
QUOTE
What are your (obviously anecdotal) results?
Umm... that physicists don't think the LHC will create black holes.
Gentleman and ladies if any, oh and if any ladies, I am 5'9 145 pound, blond hai,,,umm nevermind....lol
Look I think the one thing that can be agreed upon that certain people are unwilling to listen to reason or are just having fun with all of you.
Why stress and break your heads for stupidity.
I suggest that the next updates to this thread should be watching it scroll to page 2...lol
Have a good day
Look I think the one thing that can be agreed upon that certain people are unwilling to listen to reason or are just having fun with all of you.
Why stress and break your heads for stupidity.
I suggest that the next updates to this thread should be watching it scroll to page 2...lol
Have a good day
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 1:19 PM)
Then properly define it. What is the absorption cross section of a relativistic particle?
I'm not talking about the absorption cross section. I'm talkin gabout the cross sectional area, and I'm talking about it in the direction that isn't affected by length contraction. Also, with the calulations your questioning, by neccessity the protons are colliding almost head on, in fact, the maximum angle between them is only a few miliradians, so to an excellent approximation, we can ignore any for-shortening.
Also, my calculations only considered collisions that had 50% or greater overlap between colliding protons.
I'm not talking about the absorption cross section. I'm talkin gabout the cross sectional area, and I'm talking about it in the direction that isn't affected by length contraction. Also, with the calulations your questioning, by neccessity the protons are colliding almost head on, in fact, the maximum angle between them is only a few miliradians, so to an excellent approximation, we can ignore any for-shortening.
Also, my calculations only considered collisions that had 50% or greater overlap between colliding protons.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 2:41 PM)
Whatever. You don't see it, and I can't make you see it.
You have failed repeatedly to demonstrate this alleged contradiction, and the alleged favouring of the earth bound reference frame.
You have failed repeatedly to demonstrate this alleged contradiction, and the alleged favouring of the earth bound reference frame.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 3:58 PM)
That's right, they're so-o-o-o wrong to start with.
More unjustified claims. You claim that my starting values are incorrect.
Do you claim that the maximum total energy produced by the LHC by colliding lead nuclei isn't 1150 TeV? Because I got that off the CERN website.
Are you saying that the rest mass of a proton isn't 938 MeV? Because that figure is available in virtually any particle physics text.
Are you saying that the rest mass of a Neutron isn't 939 MeV? Because that figure is available from the same place.
Are you saying that the experimentally determined energy spectrum of incoming cosmic rays is incorrect?
Are you saying that the radius of a proton isn't somewhere around 0.8 Fermi? Because there's a whole bunch of papers that say this.
Are you saying that once you take isotopic abundances into account, that the weight of an average oxygen atom isn't 15.9994 AMU? Because that's available in almost any chemistry text at almost every level above highschool (here calculation of average atomic mass is part of the highschool curriculum).
Are you saying that the average speed of an air molecule isn't 450-odd m/s? Because NASA would disagree with you.
If you have any better figures then any of these, please, feel free to share them with the viewers of this thread, otherwise admit you were wrong and the initial figures I used in my calculations were correct.
More unjustified claims. You claim that my starting values are incorrect.
Do you claim that the maximum total energy produced by the LHC by colliding lead nuclei isn't 1150 TeV? Because I got that off the CERN website.
Are you saying that the rest mass of a proton isn't 938 MeV? Because that figure is available in virtually any particle physics text.
Are you saying that the rest mass of a Neutron isn't 939 MeV? Because that figure is available from the same place.
Are you saying that the experimentally determined energy spectrum of incoming cosmic rays is incorrect?
Are you saying that the radius of a proton isn't somewhere around 0.8 Fermi? Because there's a whole bunch of papers that say this.
Are you saying that once you take isotopic abundances into account, that the weight of an average oxygen atom isn't 15.9994 AMU? Because that's available in almost any chemistry text at almost every level above highschool (here calculation of average atomic mass is part of the highschool curriculum).
Are you saying that the average speed of an air molecule isn't 450-odd m/s? Because NASA would disagree with you.
If you have any better figures then any of these, please, feel free to share them with the viewers of this thread, otherwise admit you were wrong and the initial figures I used in my calculations were correct.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 3:58 PM)
Oh, brother.
What, precisely, are you trying to imply by this statement?
Are you trying to imply that you can solve γv=k for v?
Are you trying to imply that it is a simple and trivial task?
Do you even know what γ represents?
I, at least, am willing to admit the possibility that I might have messed up one of the algebraic steps for solving that seemingly simple equation.
What, precisely, are you trying to imply by this statement?
Are you trying to imply that you can solve γv=k for v?
Are you trying to imply that it is a simple and trivial task?
Do you even know what γ represents?
I, at least, am willing to admit the possibility that I might have messed up one of the algebraic steps for solving that seemingly simple equation.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 3:58 PM)
No he didn't.
His agreement that my descriptions are correct is implicit in his agreement with me in principle. You've contradicted yourself here, first saying that he has agreed with me in vague universal terms, and then saying that he hasn't agreed with my descriptions. And I thought that the comment below was pretty straight forward.
His agreement that my descriptions are correct is implicit in his agreement with me in principle. You've contradicted yourself here, first saying that he has agreed with me in vague universal terms, and then saying that he hasn't agreed with my descriptions. And I thought that the comment below was pretty straight forward.
QUOTE (Rpenner+Oct 30 2007, 06:50 AM)
Trippy is right on the subject of collisions in space happening with the local physics being exactly the same as on Earth... ...But I have not checked all of Trippy's math and therefore can only commit to a nuanced response as above.
So, my descriptions of the physics are correct, but he has not checked the math and thus can't comment on the precise numbers.
So, my descriptions of the physics are correct, but he has not checked the math and thus can't comment on the precise numbers.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 3:58 PM)
Whatever.
No, not whatever.
I have provided numbers from verifiable sources.
I have applied the known laws of modern physics in correct and appropriate ways.
I have justified every assumption I have made.
I have, scientifically speaking, conducted myself in a correct and appropriate way.
The only thing that I have not done is go into the level of detail of my working that I did in this post http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...60&#entry259924 and why would I bother, especially after the feedback I got from you "I'll bet if you feed numbers into it, you'll see that it's wrong" I feed the numbers into it, it was correct, and you still have not said "Okay, I was wrong".
No, not whatever.
I have provided numbers from verifiable sources.
I have applied the known laws of modern physics in correct and appropriate ways.
I have justified every assumption I have made.
I have, scientifically speaking, conducted myself in a correct and appropriate way.
The only thing that I have not done is go into the level of detail of my working that I did in this post http://forum.physorg.com/index.php?showtop...60&#entry259924 and why would I bother, especially after the feedback I got from you "I'll bet if you feed numbers into it, you'll see that it's wrong" I feed the numbers into it, it was correct, and you still have not said "Okay, I was wrong".
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 3:58 PM)
Whatever. Believe what you want (you do anyway).
Again with the unjustified, and unjustifiable erroneous claims. Nowhere have you been able to point to a post where I have explicitly stated or remotely implied that "The velocity of the oxygen atom after the collision is x m/s" as I have stated repeatedly, the most I have ever said on the issue is that I do not believe that the oxygen atom remains completely unaffected by the collision.
Again with the unjustified, and unjustifiable erroneous claims. Nowhere have you been able to point to a post where I have explicitly stated or remotely implied that "The velocity of the oxygen atom after the collision is x m/s" as I have stated repeatedly, the most I have ever said on the issue is that I do not believe that the oxygen atom remains completely unaffected by the collision.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 3:58 PM)
"Slower" is a magnitude of speed, therefore it can have no sign. Acceleration is relative. It isn't negative in separating a co-moving, two particle system.
Incorrect. We refer to an object that is experienceing a negative acceleration, IE deccelerating as 'Slowing down'. Arguably the velocity of the cosmic ray proton in the reference frame of an initially comoving observer has changed from 0 to large and negative. Observe, and hopefully learn.
The comoving observer measure the displacement between themselves and the Oxygen atom.
They measure displacement S1 at T1 and S2 at T2
The equation for measuring the velocity of an object is (S2-S1)/(T2-T1) IE the Initial displacement subtracted from the final displacement (compare this to the equation for acceleration).
Because the Oxygen atom is moving towards the comoving observer S2 < S1, therfore the velocity of the Oxygen atom is negative.
The comoving observer (with the proton) therefore observes the protons velocity to change from zero before the collision, to something that is large and negative after the collision. Therefore, the co-moving observer can say that the proton has experienced a large, negative acceleration, therefore has been deccelerated, therfore has slowed down.
The only way your objection could hold any water would be if the comoving observer redefined his reference frame at the moment of impact, or chose to define the oxygen atom as approaching him from behind (which would change the sign of the velocity). As you have pointed neither of these out either explicitly or implicitly, you forfeit the right to use them.
Incorrect. We refer to an object that is experienceing a negative acceleration, IE deccelerating as 'Slowing down'. Arguably the velocity of the cosmic ray proton in the reference frame of an initially comoving observer has changed from 0 to large and negative. Observe, and hopefully learn.
The comoving observer measure the displacement between themselves and the Oxygen atom.
They measure displacement S1 at T1 and S2 at T2
The equation for measuring the velocity of an object is (S2-S1)/(T2-T1) IE the Initial displacement subtracted from the final displacement (compare this to the equation for acceleration).
Because the Oxygen atom is moving towards the comoving observer S2 < S1, therfore the velocity of the Oxygen atom is negative.
The comoving observer (with the proton) therefore observes the protons velocity to change from zero before the collision, to something that is large and negative after the collision. Therefore, the co-moving observer can say that the proton has experienced a large, negative acceleration, therefore has been deccelerated, therfore has slowed down.
The only way your objection could hold any water would be if the comoving observer redefined his reference frame at the moment of impact, or chose to define the oxygen atom as approaching him from behind (which would change the sign of the velocity). As you have pointed neither of these out either explicitly or implicitly, you forfeit the right to use them.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov 3 2007, 3:58 PM)
That's not true. I've been very careful to quote you in context. You keep trying to change the context to cover your mistakes. Sorry, it won't work.
I strongly resent the implications in this comment, and request that you apologize. I have never changed the context of anything I have said, although there have been occasions where what I have said has changed to take into account new information found by myself, or pointed out to me by Alphanumeric and Rpenner.
I strongly resent the implications in this comment, and request that you apologize. I have never changed the context of anything I have said, although there have been occasions where what I have said has changed to take into account new information found by myself, or pointed out to me by Alphanumeric and Rpenner.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov3 2007, 5:02 PM)
It's implied, but it doesn't matter. You think "radiating partons and secondary particles" will make it go faster.
You are the one that originally claimed that Partons could carry away energy from the collision, without affecting the momentum.
Once again, we see you questioning a comment that you yourself have made at some point. How are we supposed to effectively argue with someone who continually contradicts themselves (presumably) just for the sake of being contrary?
If Partons are radiated as pairs of equal of mass with opposing velocity vectors, then it is possible for them to carry away some of the total energy of the collision without affecting the momentum.
Because they reduce the mass of the resultant black hole without changing it's momentum, the resultant black hole must travel faster then it would have otherwise.
Ironically (for you) this very same principle has been put to use in discarding SABOT rounds. The basic principle being that the slug fire from a weapon consists of three or more parts. The idea being that you have the slug which is intended to penetrate, and is encased in an outer casing. As the slug travels, after it has left the barrel of the weapon, the outer casing is discarded (centrifugal force, I believe, Combined with air resistance does the work). When the outer case is discarded, it is discarded as fragements that have opposing velocity vectors, resulting in the now much lighter slug still having the full momentum of the original much heavier slug, the end result? The slug is accelerated to a faster velocity, in accordance with the conservation of Momentum.
Another way of looking at this problem is to examin the motion of the center of mass of the system. Once the discarding SABOT round leaves the barrel of the weapon firing the center of mass of the entire round is travelling in a particular direction at the muzzle velocity. When the outer casing is discarded, they have a velocity of (in an ideal case) zero relative to the weapon, or at a Vector that is equal and opposed to the muzzle velocity. There is a requirement for the Center of mass to keep moving in the same direction at the same speed (unless work is done on it) and the only way this can happen is if the velocity of the penetrating slug increases.
So you see? Using one real world example of a real world physics, I have shown two of your claims to be completely without merit.
1) Your claim that I am wrong in saying that the center of mass can not move.
2) Your claim that I am wrong in saying that the emission of partons and secondary particles increases the final velocity of the resultant black hole (by decreasing it's mass.
Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discarding_sabot is the wiki article on Discarding SABOT rounds.
You are the one that originally claimed that Partons could carry away energy from the collision, without affecting the momentum.
Once again, we see you questioning a comment that you yourself have made at some point. How are we supposed to effectively argue with someone who continually contradicts themselves (presumably) just for the sake of being contrary?
If Partons are radiated as pairs of equal of mass with opposing velocity vectors, then it is possible for them to carry away some of the total energy of the collision without affecting the momentum.
Because they reduce the mass of the resultant black hole without changing it's momentum, the resultant black hole must travel faster then it would have otherwise.
Ironically (for you) this very same principle has been put to use in discarding SABOT rounds. The basic principle being that the slug fire from a weapon consists of three or more parts. The idea being that you have the slug which is intended to penetrate, and is encased in an outer casing. As the slug travels, after it has left the barrel of the weapon, the outer casing is discarded (centrifugal force, I believe, Combined with air resistance does the work). When the outer case is discarded, it is discarded as fragements that have opposing velocity vectors, resulting in the now much lighter slug still having the full momentum of the original much heavier slug, the end result? The slug is accelerated to a faster velocity, in accordance with the conservation of Momentum.
Another way of looking at this problem is to examin the motion of the center of mass of the system. Once the discarding SABOT round leaves the barrel of the weapon firing the center of mass of the entire round is travelling in a particular direction at the muzzle velocity. When the outer casing is discarded, they have a velocity of (in an ideal case) zero relative to the weapon, or at a Vector that is equal and opposed to the muzzle velocity. There is a requirement for the Center of mass to keep moving in the same direction at the same speed (unless work is done on it) and the only way this can happen is if the velocity of the penetrating slug increases.
So you see? Using one real world example of a real world physics, I have shown two of your claims to be completely without merit.
1) Your claim that I am wrong in saying that the center of mass can not move.
2) Your claim that I am wrong in saying that the emission of partons and secondary particles increases the final velocity of the resultant black hole (by decreasing it's mass.
Here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discarding_sabot is the wiki article on Discarding SABOT rounds.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov3 2007, 5:21 PM)
That's not an isolated system. Also, I never said the individual parts can't move.
Whether or not it's an isolated system is completely irrelevant. My point still stands, and is backed up by science is that an observer comoving with one particular pellet will see the center of mass moving relative to themself, the gun, and other pellets. Therefore your assertion that the center of mass can not move, is in error.
Nevertheless, good luck to you....simply because I believe your motives are GOOD....if not based on firm grounds when having regard to what DOES occur all around the Earth/solar-system all the time.
I find this a curious statement. Surely someone who is promoting paranoia and suspicion of the science community for no good reason should not be doing it, regardless of his motives. I suspect Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour in trying to get rid of the Jews but you wouldn't wish him luck because his motives were good would you?
Whether or not it's an isolated system is completely irrelevant. My point still stands, and is backed up by science is that an observer comoving with one particular pellet will see the center of mass moving relative to themself, the gun, and other pellets. Therefore your assertion that the center of mass can not move, is in error.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Nov3 2007, 5:21 PM)
Here, the observer is not "co-moving with the center of mass," it's not an isolated system, and you're using the earth as a preferred reference frame again.
Again, another irrelevant distraction. The point of this statement was to demonstrate that the center of mass can move. In this example, the center of mass is moving relative to the observers in each car, and relative to the earth, I can therefore define an observer comoving with the center of mass, which, again, illustrates the lack of validity of your claims.
So, not only do your claims contradict the known laws of modern physics, they are completely without merit (As if trying to contradict the known laws of physics didn't do this by it's own right).
Again, another irrelevant distraction. The point of this statement was to demonstrate that the center of mass can move. In this example, the center of mass is moving relative to the observers in each car, and relative to the earth, I can therefore define an observer comoving with the center of mass, which, again, illustrates the lack of validity of your claims.
So, not only do your claims contradict the known laws of modern physics, they are completely without merit (As if trying to contradict the known laws of physics didn't do this by it's own right).
.
Hi uba; everyone!
Uba.....IIRC, it was I that from your earliest LHC discussion here brought up the various logical-observational arguments against the formation/growth possibility of STILL ONLY 'PUTATIVE' so-called 'nano/micro' black holes.
I refer everyone to the many scenarios I put to you involving cosmic ray energies/events that, if such things were possible AT ALL, would have been formed with the 'dangerous' low relative momentum to nearby 'food' sources for such nano-blackholes.
Simply because there ARE scenarios where such nano-holes would be 'captured' If they could be produced/captured AT ALL).
For example, I described the light years of (putative) nano-holes CO-MOVING within LIGHT-YEARS sized dust/molecular clouds such that they would NOT have any significant differential in momentum in relation to neighboring 'food' paticles.
I pointed to the formation of head-on cosmic-ray collision-formed nano holes that would immediately succumb
My points answered your concerns regarding 'low relative momentum' nano/micro bh formed just above NEUTRON STARS surface, which would provide MANY times the 'food' AND the 'pressure' that you argue would be present in the center of the Earth.
Even recently, I also pointed out that even in the neutron-star-formation process itself there is AMPLE energies/opportunities for collision-formed nano holes to be produced and be quicly captured so that we SHOULDN'T BE NOW OBSERVING ANY 'long-lived' neutron stars.
And I also recall mentioning to oyu that the same CONSERVATION LAW arguments you depend on ALSO would produce many CHARGED/MAGNETIC 'nano-holes' that would be EASILY RE-DIRECTEDor ACCELAREATED/DECELLERARTED and CAPTURED/TRAPPED by/within the UBIQUITOUS electric/magnetic fields ranging from the nuclear and all the way up through molecular, planetary (especially giant planets/brown dwarf sized), stellar(supergiants, white dwarf, neutronic), nebulosic and up to the galactic scale/strenths.
IF such nano holes existed and could be produced by 'free-collision' (as opposed to the MACRO bh that is produced by GRAVITATIONALLY TRAPPED 'persistent' CONCENTRATION processes), then all these observable/logical factors would have the Earth and all MASSIVE/VIOLENT phenomena IMPOSSIBLE to sustain for long enough for us TO observe what we do.
Now, repenner, AlphaNumeric, Trippy and others have been kind enough to take the trouble to provide the 'number crunching' for most of these and other scenarios....for which, many thanks from all here!
I think any fair assessment of this and the other thread discussion/input supports the my and others' contention that:
- it is not possible for such holes to BE formed AT ALL by cosmic/LHC 'free' (non-gavitaionally constrained) 'collision events'.
......OR if it IS possible to produce such in this way, that:
- There are UBIQUITOUS, FREQUENT and INNUMERABLE instances where such so-formed (still putative, remember!) 'nano-holes' to have LOW ENOUGH relative momentum to almost immediately 'destroy' all massive/charged/magnetica astronomical bodies in the way you seem to believe that LHC 'products' will do to our planet.
Honestly mate, it beggars the suspension of self-evident reality to say that we are in danger from Man's PUNY (in cosmic energy/scale/permutation/probability terms) LHC endeavours.
Nevertheless, good luck to you....simply because I believe your motives are GOOD....if not based on firm grounds when having regard to what DOES occur all around the Earth/solar-system all the time.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
Hi uba; everyone!
Uba.....IIRC, it was I that from your earliest LHC discussion here brought up the various logical-observational arguments against the formation/growth possibility of STILL ONLY 'PUTATIVE' so-called 'nano/micro' black holes.
I refer everyone to the many scenarios I put to you involving cosmic ray energies/events that, if such things were possible AT ALL, would have been formed with the 'dangerous' low relative momentum to nearby 'food' sources for such nano-blackholes.
Simply because there ARE scenarios where such nano-holes would be 'captured' If they could be produced/captured AT ALL).
For example, I described the light years of (putative) nano-holes CO-MOVING within LIGHT-YEARS sized dust/molecular clouds such that they would NOT have any significant differential in momentum in relation to neighboring 'food' paticles.
I pointed to the formation of head-on cosmic-ray collision-formed nano holes that would immediately succumb
My points answered your concerns regarding 'low relative momentum' nano/micro bh formed just above NEUTRON STARS surface, which would provide MANY times the 'food' AND the 'pressure' that you argue would be present in the center of the Earth.
Even recently, I also pointed out that even in the neutron-star-formation process itself there is AMPLE energies/opportunities for collision-formed nano holes to be produced and be quicly captured so that we SHOULDN'T BE NOW OBSERVING ANY 'long-lived' neutron stars.
And I also recall mentioning to oyu that the same CONSERVATION LAW arguments you depend on ALSO would produce many CHARGED/MAGNETIC 'nano-holes' that would be EASILY RE-DIRECTEDor ACCELAREATED/DECELLERARTED and CAPTURED/TRAPPED by/within the UBIQUITOUS electric/magnetic fields ranging from the nuclear and all the way up through molecular, planetary (especially giant planets/brown dwarf sized), stellar(supergiants, white dwarf, neutronic), nebulosic and up to the galactic scale/strenths.
IF such nano holes existed and could be produced by 'free-collision' (as opposed to the MACRO bh that is produced by GRAVITATIONALLY TRAPPED 'persistent' CONCENTRATION processes), then all these observable/logical factors would have the Earth and all MASSIVE/VIOLENT phenomena IMPOSSIBLE to sustain for long enough for us TO observe what we do.
Now, repenner, AlphaNumeric, Trippy and others have been kind enough to take the trouble to provide the 'number crunching' for most of these and other scenarios....for which, many thanks from all here!
I think any fair assessment of this and the other thread discussion/input supports the my and others' contention that:
- it is not possible for such holes to BE formed AT ALL by cosmic/LHC 'free' (non-gavitaionally constrained) 'collision events'.
......OR if it IS possible to produce such in this way, that:
- There are UBIQUITOUS, FREQUENT and INNUMERABLE instances where such so-formed (still putative, remember!) 'nano-holes' to have LOW ENOUGH relative momentum to almost immediately 'destroy' all massive/charged/magnetica astronomical bodies in the way you seem to believe that LHC 'products' will do to our planet.
Honestly mate, it beggars the suspension of self-evident reality to say that we are in danger from Man's PUNY (in cosmic energy/scale/permutation/probability terms) LHC endeavours.
Nevertheless, good luck to you....simply because I believe your motives are GOOD....if not based on firm grounds when having regard to what DOES occur all around the Earth/solar-system all the time.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Nov 3 2007, 11:15 PM)
Nevertheless, good luck to you....simply because I believe your motives are GOOD....if not based on firm grounds when having regard to what DOES occur all around the Earth/solar-system all the time.
I find this a curious statement. Surely someone who is promoting paranoia and suspicion of the science community for no good reason should not be doing it, regardless of his motives. I suspect Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour in trying to get rid of the Jews but you wouldn't wish him luck because his motives were good would you?
QUOTE (prometheus+Nov 3 2007, 11:26 PM)
I find this a curious statement. Surely someone who is promoting paranoia and suspicion of the science community for no good reason should not be doing it, regardless of his motives. I suspect Hitler thought he was doing the world a favour in trying to get rid of the Jews but you wouldn't wish him luck because his motives were good would you?
Hi prometheus!
No sweat, mate! As far as my own exhanges with ubavontuba are concerned, I have found him NOT 'malicious' but 'mistaken'.
And in any case, whereas tyrants COMMIT/PLAN 'outrages' on the 'persons' and/or 'human rights' of their fellow Earthlings, as far as I can ascertain, uba's motives seem to be 'benign' to such persons/rights....insofar as he seems motivated to 'warn' and/or persuade through 'peaceful' discussion against what he (mistakenly in my considered oipinion) seems to think is a 'peril' to those persons/rights.
Your 'comparison/likening' of his behaviour/motives to those of certain others (insert your favourite historical megalomaniacal tyrant here) seems to me to be going a bit far. Don't you think?
I encourage everyone to question/discuss 'peacefully'.
And if one is 'mistaken', it does NOT in my estimation make them necessarily 'malicious'.
Simply 'mistaken' (unless I have self-evident reasons for thinking they are 'malicious').
No more judgement than THAT is possible from his exchanges with me. Hence my statement of well wishes when signing off to him.
I hope that clarifies my statement to your satisfaction, prom!
One thing uba HAS accomplished is to have elicited logical/observational arguments/scenarios from me that I otherwise would not have bothered to think further about or put into words to others....but left them as unspoken/unruminated 'background understandings' buried deep within my own 'world construct', hehehe! [For which I thank you, uba! Our conversations have been most stimulating!]
Cheers and good luck and good thinking prom, uba, everyone!
RC.
.
Hi prometheus!
No sweat, mate! As far as my own exhanges with ubavontuba are concerned, I have found him NOT 'malicious' but 'mistaken'.
And in any case, whereas tyrants COMMIT/PLAN 'outrages' on the 'persons' and/or 'human rights' of their fellow Earthlings, as far as I can ascertain, uba's motives seem to be 'benign' to such persons/rights....insofar as he seems motivated to 'warn' and/or persuade through 'peaceful' discussion against what he (mistakenly in my considered oipinion) seems to think is a 'peril' to those persons/rights.
Your 'comparison/likening' of his behaviour/motives to those of certain others (insert your favourite historical megalomaniacal tyrant here) seems to me to be going a bit far. Don't you think?
I encourage everyone to question/discuss 'peacefully'.
And if one is 'mistaken', it does NOT in my estimation make them necessarily 'malicious'.
Simply 'mistaken' (unless I have self-evident reasons for thinking they are 'malicious').
No more judgement than THAT is possible from his exchanges with me. Hence my statement of well wishes when signing off to him.
I hope that clarifies my statement to your satisfaction, prom!
One thing uba HAS accomplished is to have elicited logical/observational arguments/scenarios from me that I otherwise would not have bothered to think further about or put into words to others....but left them as unspoken/unruminated 'background understandings' buried deep within my own 'world construct', hehehe! [For which I thank you, uba! Our conversations have been most stimulating!]
Cheers and good luck and good thinking prom, uba, everyone!
RC.
.
QUOTE (Baby+Nov 3 2007, 05:18 AM)
Try telling that to Brian Greene.
I presume you're referring to "The Elegant Universe" (by Brian Greene).
Obvious problem: Everyone here assures me Hawking radiation will eliminate micro black holes. If electrons are micro black holes, then that can't be true, right? Which is it?
I presume you're referring to "The Elegant Universe" (by Brian Greene).
Obvious problem: Everyone here assures me Hawking radiation will eliminate micro black holes. If electrons are micro black holes, then that can't be true, right? Which is it?
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 3 2007, 08:38 AM)
No you haven't, and it can not be implied if I do not adress it.
For a topic to be implied in a discussion, it must first be addressed in some form, nowhere in that point do I address the final velocity of the Oxygen atom,
If I have 3 apples and you have two apples, isn't the total number of apples we have, implied?
Then what slowed the proton? Oh, that's right. You think it magically created mass out of nothing, causing it to become fat and lazy. Silly me.
Then what slowed the proton? Oh, that's right. You think it magically created mass out of nothing, causing it to become fat and lazy. Silly me.
That is the ONLY thing I have EVER claimed about the final velocity of the Oxygen atom. The public record supports this, and demonstrates you to be misrepresenting this particular issue.
Fine. The oxygen atom is unaffected. What now?
Where and how?
For a topic to be implied in a discussion, it must first be addressed in some form, nowhere in that point do I address the final velocity of the Oxygen atom,
If I have 3 apples and you have two apples, isn't the total number of apples we have, implied?
QUOTE
in fact the most I have either said about it was to use your assumption that the oxygen atom is unaffected by the collision, and that I find this assumption dubious, but am willing to work with it.
Then what slowed the proton? Oh, that's right. You think it magically created mass out of nothing, causing it to become fat and lazy. Silly me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| in fact the most I have either said about it was to use your assumption that the oxygen atom is unaffected by the collision, and that I find this assumption dubious, but am willing to work with it. |
Then what slowed the proton? Oh, that's right. You think it magically created mass out of nothing, causing it to become fat and lazy. Silly me.
That is the ONLY thing I have EVER claimed about the final velocity of the Oxygen atom. The public record supports this, and demonstrates you to be misrepresenting this particular issue.
Fine. The oxygen atom is unaffected. What now?
QUOTE
I have seen no evidence of you attempting to keep context intact, in fact I have seen quite the opposite, several posts of yours are only explicable if they are regarding something that is taken out of context.
Where and how?
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 3 2007, 08:45 AM)
Isolated compared to what?
The center of mass of the pellets moves relative to the barrel of the gun.
The individual pellets move relative to the center of mass (Therefore from the POV of the pellets, the center of mass must move).
The center of mass of the pellets and the hunter moves relative to the center of mass of the earth moon system (or the fixed and distant stars).
What part of this is so hard for you to grasp?
You obviously have no concept of what an isolated system is.
As I recall, you've claimed to be some sort of physics expert (a teacher was it?). If so, I'm very worried about the state of science.
Only because you've taken the system out of isolation. Even so, the relative motion of the center of mass remains constant in relation to "the fixed and distant stars." The collision and the relative velocities are (generally speaking) irrelevant.
Only because you've taken the system out of isolation. Even so, the relative motion of the center of mass remains constant in relation to "the fixed and distant stars." The collision and the relative velocities are (generally speaking) irrelevant.
This is rich from someone that thought that am Asteroid falling from infinity violated the conservation of energy. You clearly DON'T understand classical physics, let alone modern physics.
I gave up on making my point, because it was obvious you weren't getting it. You just don't know enough to get it. The tragedy is that you think you do, so you don't bother to check your facts.
Check it with someone knowledgable in the field.
Check it with someone knowledgable in the field.
Then why have I been able to correct you, even though you refuse to accept it?
Like a child telling an adult.
The center of mass of the pellets moves relative to the barrel of the gun.
The individual pellets move relative to the center of mass (Therefore from the POV of the pellets, the center of mass must move).
The center of mass of the pellets and the hunter moves relative to the center of mass of the earth moon system (or the fixed and distant stars).
What part of this is so hard for you to grasp?
You obviously have no concept of what an isolated system is.
As I recall, you've claimed to be some sort of physics expert (a teacher was it?). If so, I'm very worried about the state of science.
QUOTE
Only in your imagination am I using a prefered reference frame.
Two asteroids moving towards each other one at 0.9c relative to the fixed and distant stars, the other at 0.8c relative to the fixed and distant stars.
The rest of the argument still stands, the center of mass can move. (Something similar can be said of the shotgun but it's slightly more complicated.
Two asteroids moving towards each other one at 0.9c relative to the fixed and distant stars, the other at 0.8c relative to the fixed and distant stars.
The rest of the argument still stands, the center of mass can move. (Something similar can be said of the shotgun but it's slightly more complicated.
Only because you've taken the system out of isolation. Even so, the relative motion of the center of mass remains constant in relation to "the fixed and distant stars." The collision and the relative velocities are (generally speaking) irrelevant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Only in your imagination am I using a prefered reference frame. Two asteroids moving towards each other one at 0.9c relative to the fixed and distant stars, the other at 0.8c relative to the fixed and distant stars. The rest of the argument still stands, the center of mass can move. (Something similar can be said of the shotgun but it's slightly more complicated. |
Only because you've taken the system out of isolation. Even so, the relative motion of the center of mass remains constant in relation to "the fixed and distant stars." The collision and the relative velocities are (generally speaking) irrelevant.
This is rich from someone that thought that am Asteroid falling from infinity violated the conservation of energy. You clearly DON'T understand classical physics, let alone modern physics.
I gave up on making my point, because it was obvious you weren't getting it. You just don't know enough to get it. The tragedy is that you think you do, so you don't bother to check your facts.
QUOTE
No, I don't think Newton was stupid, I think he was a genius, I do, however, think that your interpretation of classical mechanics would leave him turning in his grave (in fear and disgust).
Check it with someone knowledgable in the field.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, I don't think Newton was stupid, I think he was a genius, I do, however, think that your interpretation of classical mechanics would leave him turning in his grave (in fear and disgust). |
Check it with someone knowledgable in the field.
Then why have I been able to correct you, even though you refuse to accept it?
Like a child telling an adult.
QUOTE (Trippy+Nov 3 2007, 09:08 AM)
And to think, you make posts like this then have the nerve to call other people hateful and spiteful.
So quick to attack anybody that thinks your wrong, and yet you accuse others of simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
The Kettle's on the phone, and he wants to talk about skin pigmentation.
Recheck my post. After I saw that you addressed the issue, I changed it and gave you a pat on the back for doing so.
So quick to attack anybody that thinks your wrong, and yet you accuse others of simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
The Kettle's on the phone, and he wants to talk about skin pigmentation.
Recheck my post. After I saw that you addressed the issue, I changed it and gave you a pat on the back for doing so.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Nov 3 2007, 10:20 AM)
No, it hasn't. Numerous people have explained to why the formation of long lasting dangerous microblack holes is experimentally excluded, precisely because the Earth is still here.
I see you're having another one of your curious continuity problems again.
This isn't even the argument in question.
However, explain dark matter. Could it be the stable micro black holes to which you are referring?
I see you're having another one of your curious continuity problems again.
QUOTE
If black holes lasted indefinitely, then (as Rpenner points out), they would be constantly created in the upper atmosphere and everywhere in the universe there is matter (since the vast majority of cosmic radiation is above 10TeV, the upper level of CERN).
This isn't even the argument in question.
However, explain dark matter. Could it be the stable micro black holes to which you are referring?
QUOTE (->