QUOTE (Beta+Dec 2 2007, 01:01 AM)
ubavontuba,
Why the continuance of drivel? Your opening thread posit has been more totally annihilated than a ground zero flea experiencing a 10 megaton nuke-job.
Just say something along the lines of "very sorry about my complete lack of mental functioning, it's merely a symptom of degenerative brain disease. I was absolutely wrong. Please forgive me".
Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?
More importantly, can you add anything relevant?
Why the continuance of drivel? Your opening thread posit has been more totally annihilated than a ground zero flea experiencing a 10 megaton nuke-job.
Just say something along the lines of "very sorry about my complete lack of mental functioning, it's merely a symptom of degenerative brain disease. I was absolutely wrong. Please forgive me".
Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?
More importantly, can you add anything relevant?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 2 2007, 03:35 AM)
No, I'm not. Well done on ignoring what I'm saying.
I said the effect could be considered in the lab frame. The length of time a highly relativistic particle exists is still related by the Uncertainty Principle and it extremely short.
"Short" in relation to what?
Says me.
Says me.
I'll ask again, what relativity do you actually know? What quantum mechanics?
How is that relevant to the discussion?
There you go again, losing the relevance of the particular point in question! This isn't even close to the subject I was asking about! Can you determine what the relevant discussion was? I highly doubt it!
There you go again, losing the relevance of the particular point in question! This isn't even close to the subject I was asking about! Can you determine what the relevant discussion was? I highly doubt it!
Based on evidence.
Yet more evidence you don't know much relativity.
You never get tired of that, do you?
What "evidence?"
Not even close to the subject at hand!
Not even close to the subject at hand!
Because you're so well informed about a Kerr black hole!
It doesn't matter if the singularity is literally a singularity or just an extremely dense point, the net effect on the surrounding space-time is the same.
The region of space which is seen as a black hole by the outside objects is a volume. Or are you denying that the event horizon surrounds a volume? You do realise a sphere is spherical....right?
I wasn't discussing the event horizon.
Your inability to stay on topic has reduced the bulk of your responses to irrelevant drivel.
I said the effect could be considered in the lab frame. The length of time a highly relativistic particle exists is still related by the Uncertainty Principle and it extremely short.
"Short" in relation to what?
QUOTE
Says you.
Says me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Says you. |
Says me.
I'll ask again, what relativity do you actually know? What quantum mechanics?
How is that relevant to the discussion?
QUOTE
Yes, you are wrong about your general premise. Black hole created by CERN do not form a problem. The explaination makes up the majority of this thread. Your inability and unwillingness to understand doesn't make it wrong. As with all cranks, you think that because you don't understand it's wrong.
There you go again, losing the relevance of the particular point in question! This isn't even close to the subject I was asking about! Can you determine what the relevant discussion was? I highly doubt it!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Yes, you are wrong about your general premise. Black hole created by CERN do not form a problem. The explaination makes up the majority of this thread. Your inability and unwillingness to understand doesn't make it wrong. As with all cranks, you think that because you don't understand it's wrong. |
There you go again, losing the relevance of the particular point in question! This isn't even close to the subject I was asking about! Can you determine what the relevant discussion was? I highly doubt it!
Based on evidence.
Yet more evidence you don't know much relativity.
You never get tired of that, do you?
What "evidence?"
QUOTE
Something which you ignore. You see things in black and white. "It happens herefore it's a danger". You ignore that the frequency of a black ho interacting with Earth's matter is stagerringly small.
Not even close to the subject at hand!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Something which you ignore. You see things in black and white. "It happens herefore it's a danger". You ignore that the frequency of a black ho interacting with Earth's matter is stagerringly small. |
Not even close to the subject at hand!
Because you're so well informed about a Kerr black hole!
It doesn't matter if the singularity is literally a singularity or just an extremely dense point, the net effect on the surrounding space-time is the same.
The region of space which is seen as a black hole by the outside objects is a volume. Or are you denying that the event horizon surrounds a volume? You do realise a sphere is spherical....right?
I wasn't discussing the event horizon.
Your inability to stay on topic has reduced the bulk of your responses to irrelevant drivel.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 2 2007, 06:25 PM)
Come on Ub.
A little honesty at least.
RC: What Uba isn't mentioning is the fact that in one of his other threads him and I had much the same debate (at least I'm fairly certain it was him) and I provided him with a link to a paper or two that claimed to have measured the speed of gravity. I don't recall exactly what it was, but I seem to recall that it involved the Gallilean satelites, and may have involved microlensing. I'm honest enough to admit, however, that at this point (seeing as it is a very new result) the paper is still very contested.
Oh, and the determined velocity that gravity propogates at was c.
I do not recall any such discussion.
It's long been hypothesized that it has a propagation velocity of c, but I haven't seen any direct evidence that confirms it. Can you provide the references you mentioned?
A little honesty at least.
RC: What Uba isn't mentioning is the fact that in one of his other threads him and I had much the same debate (at least I'm fairly certain it was him) and I provided him with a link to a paper or two that claimed to have measured the speed of gravity. I don't recall exactly what it was, but I seem to recall that it involved the Gallilean satelites, and may have involved microlensing. I'm honest enough to admit, however, that at this point (seeing as it is a very new result) the paper is still very contested.
Oh, and the determined velocity that gravity propogates at was c.
I do not recall any such discussion.
It's long been hypothesized that it has a propagation velocity of c, but I haven't seen any direct evidence that confirms it. Can you provide the references you mentioned?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2007, 04:35 PM)
Do you have anything relevant to add to the discussion?
More importantly, can you add anything relevant?
Here we go again,
More importantly, can you add anything relevant?
Here we go again,
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2007, 05:15 PM)
I do not recall any such discussion.
It's long been hypothesized that it has a propagation velocity of c, but I haven't seen any direct evidence that confirms it. Can you provide the references you mentioned?
I went to the forest and saw a tree on the ground. I am sure the tree is lying there but I have no proof it was ever standing straightalive , so therefore I do not believe it was even though just the fact that it is a tree means that it was in the ground.
It's long been hypothesized that it has a propagation velocity of c, but I haven't seen any direct evidence that confirms it. Can you provide the references you mentioned?
I went to the forest and saw a tree on the ground. I am sure the tree is lying there but I have no proof it was ever standing straightalive , so therefore I do not believe it was even though just the fact that it is a tree means that it was in the ground.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2007, 10:51 PM)
"Short" in relation to what?
The lifetime they'd have if they were stationary in the rest frame.
How is that hard to understand? Fast = short life time, slow = long.
The lifetime they'd have if they were stationary in the rest frame.
How is that hard to understand? Fast = short life time, slow = long.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2007, 10:51 PM)
How is that relevant to the discussion?
If you're utterly ignorant of both then your claims have little basis because you are making claims about the specifics of quantum mechanical and relativistic processes.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2007, 10:51 PM)
There you go again, losing the relevance of the particular point in question! This isn't even close to the subject I was asking about! Can you determine what the relevant discussion was? I highly doubt it!
You asked if you were wrong. This thread is about the danger of black holes from CERN. I told you you were wrong. It's relevent to the discussion.
You are attempting to narrow the question down to a specific statement which you know isn't wrong but you also know has no bearing on the thread topic. You're trying to twist things to support your claims.
You are attempting to narrow the question down to a specific statement which you know isn't wrong but you also know has no bearing on the thread topic. You're trying to twist things to support your claims.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2007, 10:51 PM)
What "evidence?"
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
Wow, Google found that easily. You aren't even trying.
Wow, Google found that easily. You aren't even trying.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2007, 10:51 PM)
Not even close to the subject at hand!
Translation : Wah, wah, wah. Something doesn't agree with what I claim so it's off topic. Mum, mum, the nasty man said I was wrong. Tell him to be quiet!"
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 2 2007, 10:51 PM)
Your inability to stay on topic has reduced the bulk of your responses to irrelevant drivel.
Your inability to realise it's relevent doesn't reduce it to drivel, it displays your ignorance.
Something highly amusing just occured to me.
Ub's, if you need another mechanism to account for what you claim to be an anomalously low number of Neutron stars in our galaxy, here's two mechanisms (both confirmed).
Not all stars in the Milkyway galaxy are gravitationally bound to the milkyway, therefore, not all stars that generate Supernovae are gravitationally bound to the milkyway (with the obvious logical conclusion).
Not all stars that generate supernovae do so symetrical. Not all of the explosions are symmetrical, and some Neutron Stars are ejected from the explosions with velocities greater then the escape velocity of our galaxy.
Ub's, if you need another mechanism to account for what you claim to be an anomalously low number of Neutron stars in our galaxy, here's two mechanisms (both confirmed).
Not all stars in the Milkyway galaxy are gravitationally bound to the milkyway, therefore, not all stars that generate Supernovae are gravitationally bound to the milkyway (with the obvious logical conclusion).
Not all stars that generate supernovae do so symetrical. Not all of the explosions are symmetrical, and some Neutron Stars are ejected from the explosions with velocities greater then the escape velocity of our galaxy.
QUOTE (slasher1975+Dec 2 2007, 10:43 PM)
I went to the forest and saw a tree on the ground. I am sure the tree is lying there but I have no proof it was ever standing straightalive , so therefore I do not believe it was even though just the fact that it is a tree means that it was in the ground.
It seems apparrent that you don't have anything relevant to add to the discussion.
It seems apparrent that you don't have anything relevant to add to the discussion.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 3 2007, 12:12 AM)
The lifetime they'd have if they were stationary in the rest frame.
How is that hard to understand? Fast = short life time, slow = long.
In relation to which observer(s)?
It irks you so much that I've consistently been right that you feel you must test me? This isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
It irks you so much that I've consistently been right that you feel you must test me? This isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
You asked if you were wrong. This thread is about the danger of black holes from CERN. I told you you were wrong. It's relevent to the discussion.
It's not relevant to the questions I posed.
It's nice that you've now admitted I'm right (again!), but the relevant issue is you made a false accusation against me. An accusation that you know is groundless.
Also, it does indeed have a bearing on the the topic as it relates to your neutron star population contention in relation to an article you referenced as evidence to your claims.
It's nice that you've now admitted I'm right (again!), but the relevant issue is you made a false accusation against me. An accusation that you know is groundless.
Also, it does indeed have a bearing on the the topic as it relates to your neutron star population contention in relation to an article you referenced as evidence to your claims.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
Wow, Google found that easily. You aren't even trying.
I've seen that reference before. I marvel at the inconsistencies. First it describes General Relativity's viewpoint that gravity is curved space (not a force), and then goes on to describe it in Quantum Field Theory without skipping a beat (as a force!)... as if that's a logical step! It also implies a preferred direction for a body moving uniformly in space (as if the earth must always catch up with the sun as it swings around a linearly moving sun).
Uniform motion is only relative. As far as the earth/sun system is concerned, they're simply orbiting around a common center. The solar system's relative motion with the galactic center is irrelevant.
Heck, many cosmolgical satellite orbits decay, and the earth's moon is accelerating! Is any of that an effective proof of gravitational propagation too? Give me a break! This isn't "proof" of a finite propagation rate. At best, it implies the possibility.
Your infantile distraction is just another example of your inability to remain relevant.
How is that hard to understand? Fast = short life time, slow = long.
In relation to which observer(s)?
QUOTE
If you're utterly ignorant of both then your claims have little basis because you are making claims about the specifics of quantum mechanical and relativistic processes.
It irks you so much that I've consistently been right that you feel you must test me? This isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If you're utterly ignorant of both then your claims have little basis because you are making claims about the specifics of quantum mechanical and relativistic processes. |
It irks you so much that I've consistently been right that you feel you must test me? This isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
You asked if you were wrong. This thread is about the danger of black holes from CERN. I told you you were wrong. It's relevent to the discussion.
It's not relevant to the questions I posed.
QUOTE
You are attempting to narrow the question down to a specific statement which you know isn't wrong but you also know has no bearing on the thread topic. You're trying to twist things to support your claims.
It's nice that you've now admitted I'm right (again!), but the relevant issue is you made a false accusation against me. An accusation that you know is groundless.
Also, it does indeed have a bearing on the the topic as it relates to your neutron star population contention in relation to an article you referenced as evidence to your claims.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are attempting to narrow the question down to a specific statement which you know isn't wrong but you also know has no bearing on the thread topic. You're trying to twist things to support your claims. |
It's nice that you've now admitted I'm right (again!), but the relevant issue is you made a false accusation against me. An accusation that you know is groundless.
Also, it does indeed have a bearing on the the topic as it relates to your neutron star population contention in relation to an article you referenced as evidence to your claims.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/grav_speed.html
Wow, Google found that easily. You aren't even trying.
I've seen that reference before. I marvel at the inconsistencies. First it describes General Relativity's viewpoint that gravity is curved space (not a force), and then goes on to describe it in Quantum Field Theory without skipping a beat (as a force!)... as if that's a logical step! It also implies a preferred direction for a body moving uniformly in space (as if the earth must always catch up with the sun as it swings around a linearly moving sun).
Uniform motion is only relative. As far as the earth/sun system is concerned, they're simply orbiting around a common center. The solar system's relative motion with the galactic center is irrelevant.
Heck, many cosmolgical satellite orbits decay, and the earth's moon is accelerating! Is any of that an effective proof of gravitational propagation too? Give me a break! This isn't "proof" of a finite propagation rate. At best, it implies the possibility.
QUOTE
Translation : Wah, wah, wah. Something doesn't agree with what I claim so it's off topic. Mum, mum, the nasty man said I was wrong. Tell him to be quiet!"
Your inability to realise it's relevent doesn't reduce it to drivel, it displays your ignorance.
Your inability to realise it's relevent doesn't reduce it to drivel, it displays your ignorance.
Your infantile distraction is just another example of your inability to remain relevant.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 3 2007, 10:57 PM)
It seems apparrent that you don't have anything relevant to add to the discussion.
Thats alright I haven't noticed anything relevent from you as of yet and you posted like 100 posts on this thread
Thats alright I haven't noticed anything relevent from you as of yet and you posted like 100 posts on this thread
QUOTE (slasher1975+Dec 4 2007, 01:17 PM)
Thats alright I haven't noticed anything relevent from you as of yet and you posted like 100 posts on this thread
Still can't come up with a relevant question or comment? Why are you here?
Still can't come up with a relevant question or comment? Why are you here?
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 3 2007, 05:05 AM)
Something highly amusing just occured to me.
Ub's, if you need another mechanism to account for what you claim to be an anomalously low number of Neutron stars in our galaxy, here's two mechanisms (both confirmed).
Not all stars in the Milkyway galaxy are gravitationally bound to the milkyway, therefore, not all stars that generate Supernovae are gravitationally bound to the milkyway (with the obvious logical conclusion).
Not all stars that generate supernovae do so symetrical. Not all of the explosions are symmetrical, and some Neutron Stars are ejected from the explosions with velocities greater then the escape velocity of our galaxy.
Thanks, but I don't need any help. Observation is sufficient.
Ub's, if you need another mechanism to account for what you claim to be an anomalously low number of Neutron stars in our galaxy, here's two mechanisms (both confirmed).
Not all stars in the Milkyway galaxy are gravitationally bound to the milkyway, therefore, not all stars that generate Supernovae are gravitationally bound to the milkyway (with the obvious logical conclusion).
Not all stars that generate supernovae do so symetrical. Not all of the explosions are symmetrical, and some Neutron Stars are ejected from the explosions with velocities greater then the escape velocity of our galaxy.
Thanks, but I don't need any help. Observation is sufficient.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 4 2007, 06:24 AM)
In relation to which observer(s)?
Well whoever is measuring it's velocity, so any observer. If it moves faster, it exists for less time.
Besides, I did mention the lab frame didn't I? Do keep up.
Well whoever is measuring it's velocity, so any observer. If it moves faster, it exists for less time.
Besides, I did mention the lab frame didn't I? Do keep up.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 4 2007, 06:24 AM)
It irks you so much that I've consistently been right that you feel you must test me? This isn't relevant to the discussion at hand.
No, it 'irks' me that you are consistently wrong and yet claim to grasp relativity and quantum mechanics.
Not once have you shown you have working understanding of either of those. And every opportunity provided for you to put your physics where you mouth is is met by an excuse.
Says a lot.
Not once have you shown you have working understanding of either of those. And every opportunity provided for you to put your physics where you mouth is is met by an excuse.
Says a lot.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 4 2007, 06:24 AM)
It's not relevant to the questions I posed.
Oh no, I pointed out something which wasn't in direct response to what you said. Quick, someone ban my account!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 4 2007, 06:24 AM)
It's nice that you've now admitted I'm right (again!), but the relevant issue is you made a false accusation against me. An accusation that you know is groundless.
Was there something too complicated about "Your general claim is wrong", which meant you couldn't understand?
I specifically said that you are avoiding being specific because then you can say "See, you said I was right" when what I agreed was not the main point of this thread.
You really are struggling with this.
I specifically said that you are avoiding being specific because then you can say "See, you said I was right" when what I agreed was not the main point of this thread.
You really are struggling with this.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 4 2007, 06:24 AM)
I've seen that reference before. I marvel at the inconsistencies. First it describes General Relativity's viewpoint that gravity is curved space (not a force), and then goes on to describe it in Quantum Field Theory without skipping a beat (as a force!)... as if that's a logical step! It also implies a preferred direction for a body moving uniformly in space (as if the earth must always catch up with the sun as it swings around a linearly moving sun).
Your inability to grasp what is a straight forward explaination to anyone familiar with theoretical physics doesn't make it wrong. Baez is well known as one of the best explainers of physics online and is extremely knowledgable in both relativity and quantum theory.
As usual, you don't stop to say "Perhaps my ignorance is getting in the way", like all cranks, it must be everyone else's fault but yours.
As usual, you don't stop to say "Perhaps my ignorance is getting in the way", like all cranks, it must be everyone else's fault but yours.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 4 2007, 06:24 AM)
Uniform motion is only relative. As far as the earth/sun system is concerned, they're simply orbiting around a common center. The solar system's relative motion with the galactic center is irrelevant.
Orbits aren't uniform motion, they are experiencing a force.
If an object is moving in a uniform manner in one inertial frame, it'll be moving in a uniform manner in any other inertial frame, just differently.
Nice display of your lack of understanding
If an object is moving in a uniform manner in one inertial frame, it'll be moving in a uniform manner in any other inertial frame, just differently.
Nice display of your lack of understanding
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 4 2007, 06:24 AM)
Heck, many cosmolgical satellite orbits decay, and the earth's moon is accelerating! Is any of that an effective proof of gravitational propagation too? Give me a break! This isn't "proof" of a finite propagation rate. At best, it implies the possibility.
Satellite orbits decay because some of them aren't put far enough from the atmosphere to prevent dragging. The ISS regularly needs a boost to counteract this otherwise it would fall back into the atmosphere. However, when you have neutron stars, they don't have such an atmospheric drag, they don't have atmospheres. Their orbits cannot simply decay without something carrying away that energy. Gravitational waves. Waves only occur when propogations happen at finite speeds (a well known physics result).
The Moon experiences things like tidal locking. Via gravitational interactions, friction due to having to lift the oceans twice a day has altered the orbit of the Moon, hence why only one side points at the Earth. Similar effects alter the motion still, hence why the Moon is retreating from the Earth ever so slowly.
The Moon experiences things like tidal locking. Via gravitational interactions, friction due to having to lift the oceans twice a day has altered the orbit of the Moon, hence why only one side points at the Earth. Similar effects alter the motion still, hence why the Moon is retreating from the Earth ever so slowly.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 4 2007, 06:24 AM)
Your infantile distraction is just another example of your inability to remain relevant.
As I've just shown, I can be very relevent, you just don't want or can't understand.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 3 2007, 12:12 AM)
QUOTE (ubavontuba to AlphaNumeric @ Dec 4 2007+ 06:24 AM)
In relation to which observer(s)?
The lifetime they'd have if they were stationary in the rest frame.
How is that hard to understand? Fast = short life time, slow = long.
....
.....
.....
Hi guys!
Just dropped in for a moment, and saw this exchange between you two. Can't stay, however......
Just allow me to make the following 'hit and run' contribution of a what I think is a relevant example for you both to consider, involving the MUON as the 'sample particle' for 'velocity/lifetime' observations in fast/slow velocity regime.
FAST moving Muons are by-produced in cosmic ray collision events in the UPPER atmosphere.
These FAST Muons last LONGER than the SLOW type Muons produced in the lab.
The proof of this is that a FAST upper atmosphere Muon lasts long enough to reach the LOWER atmosphere (where they are then 'detected' to DECAY into NEUTRINOS and ELECTRON).
In the lab, SLOW MUONS 'decay' after a SHORTER total time than the faster muons from cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere.
In other words, the fast muon can reach the lower atmosphere NOT just because it travels further in a given time, but because it ACTUALLY 'lives' for a longer total time as seen by an outside observer of both particle 'trajectories' and 'lifetimes'.
That is, if the lifetime was the same or less than the slower lab muon, the upper atmosphere muon would not travel more than a few hundred meters before decaying.
Whereas the upper atmosphere-created muon actually travels MANY KILOMETERS down into the lowere atmosphere before decaying!
So then, according to the common outside observer of both, the situatuion is actually that FAST particle 'lives' a LONGER total 'lifetime'; and a SLOW particle 'lives' a SHORTER total 'lifetime'-----[NOTE: this is about FREE moving, and NOT 'bound' particles where their 'lifetime' is determined by resonance-interaction stabilising factors with other particles in the bound system. Bear that in mind, OK guys?]
I hope this clears up what seems to be developing into a cross-communication misunderstanding between you as to 'which observer' and 'what observed lifetime', hehehe!
Cheers and 'see' y'all again soon!
RC.
.
The lifetime they'd have if they were stationary in the rest frame.
How is that hard to understand? Fast = short life time, slow = long.
....
.....
.....
Hi guys!
Just dropped in for a moment, and saw this exchange between you two. Can't stay, however......
Just allow me to make the following 'hit and run' contribution of a what I think is a relevant example for you both to consider, involving the MUON as the 'sample particle' for 'velocity/lifetime' observations in fast/slow velocity regime.
FAST moving Muons are by-produced in cosmic ray collision events in the UPPER atmosphere.
These FAST Muons last LONGER than the SLOW type Muons produced in the lab.
The proof of this is that a FAST upper atmosphere Muon lasts long enough to reach the LOWER atmosphere (where they are then 'detected' to DECAY into NEUTRINOS and ELECTRON).
In the lab, SLOW MUONS 'decay' after a SHORTER total time than the faster muons from cosmic ray collisions in the upper atmosphere.
In other words, the fast muon can reach the lower atmosphere NOT just because it travels further in a given time, but because it ACTUALLY 'lives' for a longer total time as seen by an outside observer of both particle 'trajectories' and 'lifetimes'.
That is, if the lifetime was the same or less than the slower lab muon, the upper atmosphere muon would not travel more than a few hundred meters before decaying.
Whereas the upper atmosphere-created muon actually travels MANY KILOMETERS down into the lowere atmosphere before decaying!
So then, according to the common outside observer of both, the situatuion is actually that FAST particle 'lives' a LONGER total 'lifetime'; and a SLOW particle 'lives' a SHORTER total 'lifetime'-----[NOTE: this is about FREE moving, and NOT 'bound' particles where their 'lifetime' is determined by resonance-interaction stabilising factors with other particles in the bound system. Bear that in mind, OK guys?]
I hope this clears up what seems to be developing into a cross-communication misunderstanding between you as to 'which observer' and 'what observed lifetime', hehehe!
Cheers and 'see' y'all again soon!
RC.
.
Virtual particles are the ones we're talking about. Real particles have relativistic effect only. A virtual interaction is governed by the Uncertainty Principle which says that the more energy a particle has, the shorter lived it will be (I'm sure Ub knows how to derive this result ).
).
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 5 2007, 11:40 PM)
Virtual particles are the ones we're talking about. Real particles have relativistic effect only. A virtual interaction is governed by the Uncertainty Principle which says that the more energy a particle has, the shorter lived it will be (I'm sure Ub knows how to derive this result ).
Ahhhh! I missed that bit where you two were discussing VIRTUAL particle lifetimes, hehehe.
My post was about REAL particles, of course....and should be viewed by casual passers-by only in THAT context.
Thanks for the heads up, mate! Carry on!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
).Ahhhh! I missed that bit where you two were discussing VIRTUAL particle lifetimes, hehehe.
My post was about REAL particles, of course....and should be viewed by casual passers-by only in THAT context.
Thanks for the heads up, mate! Carry on!
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 5 2007, 08:40 AM)
Well whoever is measuring it's velocity, so any observer. If it moves faster, it exists for less time.
Besides, I did mention the lab frame didn't I? Do keep up.
What if you have two observers observing the same vitual particle event? One is co-moving (stationary) with the event, and the other zooms by relativistically? What will they see?
What if our observer is on the earth and the lab is on a rocket that accelerates away?
What happens when a relativistic particle happens into the same space as a virtual particle?
What happens when a relativistic virtual particle enters the same space as an already existing particle that is co-moving with the observer?
When did I make that claim?
When did I make that claim?
Not once have you shown you have working understanding of either of those. And every opportunity provided for you to put your physics where you mouth is is met by an excuse.
So you believe Trippy's collision model was right and mine was wrong? The co-moving earth is a preferred reference frame?
Specifically, where have I been wrong? How so? How would you model my mistake(s) otherwise?
Specifically, where have I been wrong? How so? How would you model my mistake(s) otherwise?
Oh no, I pointed out something which wasn't in direct response to what you said. Quick, someone ban my account!
It's that you weren't relevant at all.
If you asked me the distance from the earth to the moon and I said something like; "You're always wrong." would that be a relevant response?
If you asked me the distance from the earth to the moon and I said something like; "You're always wrong." would that be a relevant response?
I specifically said that you are avoiding being specific because then you can say "See, you said I was right" when what I agreed was not the main point of this thread.
You agreed with the contextual point I was making. The main point of the thread was irrelevant in that context.
Not at all. On the contrary, it is you that are struggling.
Not at all. On the contrary, it is you that are struggling.
Your inability to grasp what is a straight forward explaination to anyone familiar with theoretical physics doesn't make it wrong. Baez is well known as one of the best explainers of physics online and is extremely knowledgable in both relativity and quantum theory.
How does that make it right?
Maybe I have a valid point.
Maybe I have a valid point.
Orbits aren't uniform motion, they are experiencing a force.
In General Relativity they're in uniform motion, in curved space. Don't you know anything about General Relativity?
What's your point? How's that change what I said?
What's your point? How's that change what I said?
Nice display of your lack of understanding
You mean, yours.
Or, tidal forces could be dragging on them.
Or, tidal forces could be dragging on them.
The Moon experiences things like tidal locking. Via gravitational interactions, friction due to having to lift the oceans twice a day has altered the orbit of the Moon, hence why only one side points at the Earth. Similar effects alter the motion still, hence why the Moon is retreating from the Earth ever so slowly.
As I've just shown, I can be very relevent, you just don't want or can't understand.
I understand fine. Your viewpoint is too narrow though. You need to learn how to think critically, if you want to be a scientist.
No. You missed the point. The virtual 'net event' is practically IN SITU and 'arises and subsides' IN SITU before any 'normal' GROSS scale features can detect/betray it as an 'individual' event. It does not 'move' from the net-zero centre of event location UNLESS the separate 'halves' are affected by an overwhelming force within that 'instant' so that they then 'persist' as SEPARATED IMBALANCES which may or may not eventually self-neutralise once more if they meet up and 're-mrge' somewhere/when. It can only be treated 'statistically' over a whole larger 'volume/timescale' as an 'background noise' for that very reason. No individual 'virtual event' moves or goes anywhere otherwise. See? Nothing TO 'detect/measure' etc at our space-time scales.
And my contention is they must have different relative energies to different observers. They would always exhibit 'real' energy, relative to certain observers.
Again, that's assuming these "perturbations" exist. Perhaps they don't.
Again, that's assuming these "perturbations" exist. Perhaps they don't.
But how can it? The micro-hole scale is so much smaller than the planck scale quantum effects, which are far BELOW the gross scale, that the micro-hole is of EVEN LESS effect on gross scale than the perturbations of the QUANTUM VACUUM itself.
No it isn't. Gravity's reach is hypothetically infinite. Therefore, even a micro black hole is indelibly a part of the macro universe.
Same as above.
Same as above.
See your problem? If they can reach into OUR scale from so far below; then they should reach out and 'separate' horizon-ADJACENT CONSTANLY occurring 'virtual pairs' at an alarming rate.
So what? Even if they did, I feel the energy output might be balanced by the energy input. It seems no one previously considered the kinetic energy of the infalling virtual particles before.
Yes, I can.
Yes, I can.
It is for micro bh. I don't think you realise that the smaller the hole the nearer the event horizon is to the 'size' of the singularity or whatever central feature creats that horizon. ALSO, the sharper and smaller the EXTREME GRADIENT GRADIENT cross-section just above the event horizon. The WHOLE effect of the micro-hole as a 'gravitational body' is practically smaller than the planck scale ITSELF. And at that scale, EVERYTHING is basically INDETERMINATE due to random/chaotic 'uncertainty' effects. Which means the nano-hole and its 'gravitational features PRACTICALLY don't exist immediately it is anywhere near 'formed' IN THE FIRST PLACE. In other words, a micro-hole FORMATION EVENT SELF-TERMINATES into 'chaos'.......and becomes PART OF THE QUANTUM UNCERTAINTY/NOISE itself....with NO PERMANENT effect on gross scale features than the virtual events it disappears amongst, and which 'drown out' any 'persistent' stable existence of such a (STILL PUTATIVE!!!hehehe) nano-hole 'feature'.
And again you insist the whole story is the event horizon. It isn't.
You misunderstood. I was asking; what if virtual particles don't exist (or don't exist in the context we think they do)?
You misunderstood. I was asking; what if virtual particles don't exist (or don't exist in the context we think they do)?
Are you saying that there IS NO underlying UNIVERSAL BULK? It is a logical necessaity for us or any theorists to be discussing ANY theory.
Else why bother? We could just conjure up everything from LITERALLY 'nothing'.
And if 'nothing' is what gave rise to everything, then what's to stop the NANO-hole REGRESSING back into 'nothingness' immediately it is 'formed' (note again the usual 'qualifier': IF it can form at all! hehehe).
Why assume matter is born of space? Maybe space is born of matter. Maybe matter is simply matter and space is simply space. Their origins might be related, they might not. Maybe there is no origin, maybe they just are.
This is merely a hypothetical construct.
This is merely a hypothetical construct.
You are just being fancifully poetic there, uba! Quite MOOD evocative....but hardly SCIENTIFIC, heh!
It's a valid question.
It couldn't happen that way even if gravity had an infinite speed. The energy/mass still remains, albeit in an expanding burst of energy.
If the sun suddenly disappeared though... who knows? Maybe it's instanteous, perhaps something akin to spooky action at a distance (quantum entanglement). Maybe it's faster than light, but not instantaneous.
It couldn't happen that way even if gravity had an infinite speed. The energy/mass still remains, albeit in an expanding burst of energy.
If the sun suddenly disappeared though... who knows? Maybe it's instanteous, perhaps something akin to spooky action at a distance (quantum entanglement). Maybe it's faster than light, but not instantaneous.
You missed it again, uba. I was talking of the FORMATION EVENT needing a PRE-EXISTING extreme gravity 'concentrating effect' for the hole to form at all. Please don't keep doing that. It is becoming tiresome even for ME (usually a most patient and forgiving softie! hehehe).
And again, the forming event is an energy compression event. Gravity isn't the only means to compress energy. Take your fusion bomb example, for instance. Where's all the "PRE-EXISTING extreme gravity" you keep going on about?
It wouldn't be limited to scale. If massive amounts of mass/energy could emerge (as apparently exists), it could just as easily submerge.
It wouldn't be limited to scale. If massive amounts of mass/energy could emerge (as apparently exists), it could just as easily submerge.
Everything IS 'vacuum'. Only the scale of things determine wheter we 'detect/perceive' any particular RANGE of vacuum features/processes. We will never 'perceive' the UNIVERSAL BULK 'vacuum' TOTALITY unless we can 'operate' COHERENTLY and PERSISTENTLY at all those other scales. But if we could, then we wouldn't be the 'features' we are NOW/HERE at this range of phenomena. That is why we must extrapolate any knowledge LOGICALLY CONSISTENTLY to arrive at the TOE. We cannot do it DIRECTLY at all scales/processes.
Now we come to the crux of our misunderstanding. You believe fervently in your TOE. I do not.
We (mankind) seek reason and order in the universe. Whether it be through a divine spirit, or through science, we feel there must be some esoteric reason to the universe. It must be understandable. Why? Why can't it be unreasonable? Why can't it simply exist because it does?
I'm not missing them. I simply choose to think critically about them.
I'm not missing them. I simply choose to think critically about them.
Why should it? It's THERE as a constant background state of energy reservoir from which we ALL spring. The point is that it IS a background precisely BECAUSE it IS 'quantum' chaos at that level....and WE are 'persistent/stable' resonance features. All is energy waves/entanglements/resonances/flow-configurations/topologies etc. Hence the VARIETY of 'features' and 'interactions' and flows/translations which lead to RELATIVITY in all its 'meanings'. No worries, mate!
Don't waves and flows erode the soil and transport it from place to place? If this flux is all around us and pervades us, why are we so stable? Why aren't we carried from here to there, a little bit at a time?
Or not. If this were true, there'd be no reason time, mass, energy, and even distance would need to be stable. In our part of the universe it could work one way, in another, the rules could be completely different!
Or not. If this were true, there'd be no reason time, mass, energy, and even distance would need to be stable. In our part of the universe it could work one way, in another, the rules could be completely different!
Good one! Close and very apt in a way. You have a poet's bent, uba! But still, the 'sound/light' experiences are too disparate for close analogy 'in the mind'. The evocations are entirely of different 'qualitative' meanings and references to the external reality 'out of reach' of a truly blind-from-birth person. Good try, though! Very 'sensitive' to the spirit of 'spectrum' of perceived 'signals' eliciting different responses from the 'receiving' ear/mind.
I disagree. You don't need to see the light to understand the light. We all know that infrared light exists without being able to see it. We don't have any idea of how uniquely beautiful (or not) it might be though, could we see it.
Sure, but perhaps the black hole simply radiates as much as it takes in through the Hawking process. Viola! Equilibrium.
Sure, but perhaps the black hole simply radiates as much as it takes in through the Hawking process. Viola! Equilibrium.
Like I explained earlier in this post:....There IS no "outside" of the universal totality BULK. The only transitions are ALL WITHIN that totality. The 'location' aspect is trivial. And as I also explained earlier in this post, energy/mass DO disappear/appear here/there (Pair-production/annihilation; destructive/constructive interference, virtual sub-effective processes etc etc).
But all within the totality. There is NO 'outside' to the bulk....it is unlimited and boundless in reality....and not just 'locally topologically' as for 'sperical' features IMBEDDED WITHIN that overall underlying bulk whence everything arises/subsides 'chaotically' but 'inevitably emergent' (or we would not be here at all. hehehe).
I didn't say anything about an "outside." I meant mass/energy could simply move about randomly within the universe. It could pop into the "underlying bulk" here, only to re-emerge at the same time somewhere else. There's no reason to your prescribed stability at macro scales.
That's not true. We can look at the universe in multiple windows of time going back for most of the age of the universe.
That's not true. We can look at the universe in multiple windows of time going back for most of the age of the universe.
No. It's about what the original distribution/state was for the observable volume; and what capability/possibility you have for making those observations that YOU say 'should see' things that I say you can't NO MATTER WHEN OR HOW OFTEN it occurred. There is no way you can ascertain sufficient 'population' of old/newer etc 'neutron' stars. And ordinary stars are what they are because they have NOT yet become merged/expelled to become neutron/black etc features which amy or may not BE 'detectable' RIGHT NOW as you require fro your argument.
You're making an assumption they form in large numbers, periodically. And you're making an assumption we happen to be in a neutron-star-forming drought. This seems highly unlikley.
I think this is a lapse in reason and observation. Why do galaxies have dark matter halos? Why isn't there much (if any) apparently normal matter caught up in these halos? Why are there apparent dark matter galaxies where normal stars can't form even when there's enough hydrogen to create a hundred million stars?
It seems apparent that dark matter may eat ordinary matter. It's quite possible that dark matter largely consists of micro black holes.
I think this is a lapse in reason and observation. Why do galaxies have dark matter halos? Why isn't there much (if any) apparently normal matter caught up in these halos? Why are there apparent dark matter galaxies where normal stars can't form even when there's enough hydrogen to create a hundred million stars?
It seems apparent that dark matter may eat ordinary matter. It's quite possible that dark matter largely consists of micro black holes.
I'll try once more.
Consider a newly contracting expanse of gas cloud material that eventually goes nova and produces a star. The mass involved will IGNITE the fusion process and either produce a 'sun-like' star OR if the mass is greater, it produces such a cataclysmic nova explosion that a neutron star or black hole may form right away.
I don't buy that. Stars may explode and leave dense matter objects behind, but gas clouds aren't dense enough to immediately collapse into dense matter objects.
Yes.
Yes.
That nova fusion energy level per unit mass should tell you something about ANY IGNITION compression energy level/rate in an explosuively IMPLODING mass that ITSELF IS ALSO FUSIONING as it is being compressed by the preceding layers energy inputs.
If you can't see the corollary, I will leave off and call it quits.
I can't see the corollary. Besides, where is the prerequisite "PRE-EXISTING extreme gravity" you keep talking about?
I repeat: Yes, I can. The speed of gravity is yet to be verified. Instantaneous quantum processes are already known to exist. Maybe this is another.
I repeat: Yes, I can. The speed of gravity is yet to be verified. Instantaneous quantum processes are already known to exist. Maybe this is another.
But you don't explain WHY they could not (if as you say such things CAN form in 'free' collisions of sufficient energy density etc. You are 'empty quipping' without 'substantive argument'. Enough is enough, uba. That is NOT the way to debate with ME. Save it for others. I don't respect such tactics. That's straight, mate. No more.
I have explained it thoroughly. The energy density is insufficient.
I appreciate that, but I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions.
I appreciate that, but I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions.
Who knows? Neagative findings are often as, or even more, important than 'expected positive' findings. Let the boys and girls play. It will keep them off the streets and out of mischief!
And who knows what insights will come of 'failure' as well as 'success'? hehehe.
There's truth in that, but I fear the mischief lies in the doing.
I've seen no evidence to suggest it.
I've seen no evidence to suggest it.
"Hit and run"? Is that what you call my long series of posts explaining various obvious/novel counter-perspectives for your benefit? hehehe. Cheeky devil! hehehe. But I will have to finish like I said....there are more important things for me to do now that I have given you enough to work on! hehehe.
Whew! You do present a lot of material.
What I mean is, hypothetical meanderings are not conclusive. Verifiable observation is conclusive.
What I mean is, hypothetical meanderings are not conclusive. Verifiable observation is conclusive.
Spineless lot, aren't they?! Too bad. Your country has been ill served by incompetents of the highest calibre! hehehe. They should have handled things a piece at a time instead on choking on the whole thing just for political expediency at the early stages. Pity. Good luck over the next year, mate!
Thanks. We'll need it. The current crop of contenders aren't looking so hot either!
Besides, I did mention the lab frame didn't I? Do keep up.
What if you have two observers observing the same vitual particle event? One is co-moving (stationary) with the event, and the other zooms by relativistically? What will they see?
What if our observer is on the earth and the lab is on a rocket that accelerates away?
What happens when a relativistic particle happens into the same space as a virtual particle?
What happens when a relativistic virtual particle enters the same space as an already existing particle that is co-moving with the observer?
QUOTE
No, it 'irks' me that you are consistently wrong and yet claim to grasp relativity and quantum mechanics.
When did I make that claim?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, it 'irks' me that you are consistently wrong and yet claim to grasp relativity and quantum mechanics. |
When did I make that claim?
Not once have you shown you have working understanding of either of those. And every opportunity provided for you to put your physics where you mouth is is met by an excuse.
So you believe Trippy's collision model was right and mine was wrong? The co-moving earth is a preferred reference frame?
QUOTE
Says a lot.
Specifically, where have I been wrong? How so? How would you model my mistake(s) otherwise?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Says a lot. |
Specifically, where have I been wrong? How so? How would you model my mistake(s) otherwise?
Oh no, I pointed out something which wasn't in direct response to what you said. Quick, someone ban my account!
It's that you weren't relevant at all.
QUOTE
Was there something too complicated about "Your general claim is wrong", which meant you couldn't understand?
If you asked me the distance from the earth to the moon and I said something like; "You're always wrong." would that be a relevant response?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Was there something too complicated about "Your general claim is wrong", which meant you couldn't understand? |
If you asked me the distance from the earth to the moon and I said something like; "You're always wrong." would that be a relevant response?
I specifically said that you are avoiding being specific because then you can say "See, you said I was right" when what I agreed was not the main point of this thread.
You agreed with the contextual point I was making. The main point of the thread was irrelevant in that context.
QUOTE
You really are struggling with this.
Not at all. On the contrary, it is you that are struggling.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You really are struggling with this. |
Not at all. On the contrary, it is you that are struggling.
Your inability to grasp what is a straight forward explaination to anyone familiar with theoretical physics doesn't make it wrong. Baez is well known as one of the best explainers of physics online and is extremely knowledgable in both relativity and quantum theory.
How does that make it right?
QUOTE
As usual, you don't stop to say "Perhaps my ignorance is getting in the way", like all cranks, it must be everyone else's fault but yours.
Maybe I have a valid point.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As usual, you don't stop to say "Perhaps my ignorance is getting in the way", like all cranks, it must be everyone else's fault but yours. |
Maybe I have a valid point.
Orbits aren't uniform motion, they are experiencing a force.
In General Relativity they're in uniform motion, in curved space. Don't you know anything about General Relativity?
QUOTE
If an object is moving in a uniform manner in one inertial frame, it'll be moving in a uniform manner in any other inertial frame, just differently.
What's your point? How's that change what I said?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| If an object is moving in a uniform manner in one inertial frame, it'll be moving in a uniform manner in any other inertial frame, just differently. |
What's your point? How's that change what I said?
Nice display of your lack of understanding
You mean, yours.
QUOTE
Satellite orbits decay because some of them aren't put far enough from the atmosphere to prevent dragging. The ISS regularly needs a boost to counteract this otherwise it would fall back into the atmosphere. However, when you have neutron stars, they don't have such an atmospheric drag, they don't have atmospheres. Their orbits cannot simply decay without something carrying away that energy. Gravitational waves. Waves only occur when propogations happen at finite speeds (a well known physics result).
Or, tidal forces could be dragging on them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Satellite orbits decay because some of them aren't put far enough from the atmosphere to prevent dragging. The ISS regularly needs a boost to counteract this otherwise it would fall back into the atmosphere. However, when you have neutron stars, they don't have such an atmospheric drag, they don't have atmospheres. Their orbits cannot simply decay without something carrying away that energy. Gravitational waves. Waves only occur when propogations happen at finite speeds (a well known physics result). |
Or, tidal forces could be dragging on them.
The Moon experiences things like tidal locking. Via gravitational interactions, friction due to having to lift the oceans twice a day has altered the orbit of the Moon, hence why only one side points at the Earth. Similar effects alter the motion still, hence why the Moon is retreating from the Earth ever so slowly.
As I've just shown, I can be very relevent, you just don't want or can't understand.
I understand fine. Your viewpoint is too narrow though. You need to learn how to think critically, if you want to be a scientist.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 2 2007, 07:33 AM)
No. You missed the point. The virtual 'net event' is practically IN SITU and 'arises and subsides' IN SITU before any 'normal' GROSS scale features can detect/betray it as an 'individual' event. It does not 'move' from the net-zero centre of event location UNLESS the separate 'halves' are affected by an overwhelming force within that 'instant' so that they then 'persist' as SEPARATED IMBALANCES which may or may not eventually self-neutralise once more if they meet up and 're-mrge' somewhere/when. It can only be treated 'statistically' over a whole larger 'volume/timescale' as an 'background noise' for that very reason. No individual 'virtual event' moves or goes anywhere otherwise. See? Nothing TO 'detect/measure' etc at our space-time scales.
And my contention is they must have different relative energies to different observers. They would always exhibit 'real' energy, relative to certain observers.
QUOTE
It does not. It is only 'conjectured' to apply at/below the event horizon (ie research 'swapped' space-like/time-like curves/dimensions etc). And like I said, I don't rely on others' 'speculations'. And there is a difference between a mIcro-hole whose event horizon 'internal volume' is WITHIN the quantum vaccum BELOW the 'normal' scale, and a mAcro-hole whose event horizon 'internal volume extends across a GROSS scale volume. The effect of perturbations on a micro horizon is HUGE in comparison to its scale; whereas such perturbations are practically insignificant on the larger expanse horizon.
Again, that's assuming these "perturbations" exist. Perhaps they don't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It does not. It is only 'conjectured' to apply at/below the event horizon (ie research 'swapped' space-like/time-like curves/dimensions etc). And like I said, I don't rely on others' 'speculations'. And there is a difference between a mIcro-hole whose event horizon 'internal volume' is WITHIN the quantum vaccum BELOW the 'normal' scale, and a mAcro-hole whose event horizon 'internal volume extends across a GROSS scale volume. The effect of perturbations on a micro horizon is HUGE in comparison to its scale; whereas such perturbations are practically insignificant on the larger expanse horizon. |
Again, that's assuming these "perturbations" exist. Perhaps they don't.
But how can it? The micro-hole scale is so much smaller than the planck scale quantum effects, which are far BELOW the gross scale, that the micro-hole is of EVEN LESS effect on gross scale than the perturbations of the QUANTUM VACUUM itself.
No it isn't. Gravity's reach is hypothetically infinite. Therefore, even a micro black hole is indelibly a part of the macro universe.
QUOTE
And if the event horizon of a micro black hole cannot affect (separate before rebalancing) the virtual pairs created all around it all the time, then how on earth can it affect GROSS scale ROBUSTLY PERSISTENT 'stable resonance' "REAL" energy/matter features?
Same as above.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And if the event horizon of a micro black hole cannot affect (separate before rebalancing) the virtual pairs created all around it all the time, then how on earth can it affect GROSS scale ROBUSTLY PERSISTENT 'stable resonance' "REAL" energy/matter features? |
Same as above.
See your problem? If they can reach into OUR scale from so far below; then they should reach out and 'separate' horizon-ADJACENT CONSTANLY occurring 'virtual pairs' at an alarming rate.
So what? Even if they did, I feel the energy output might be balanced by the energy input. It seems no one previously considered the kinetic energy of the infalling virtual particles before.
QUOTE
I repeat. You STILL can't have it both ways, hehehe.
Yes, I can.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I repeat. You STILL can't have it both ways, hehehe. |
Yes, I can.
It is for micro bh. I don't think you realise that the smaller the hole the nearer the event horizon is to the 'size' of the singularity or whatever central feature creats that horizon. ALSO, the sharper and smaller the EXTREME GRADIENT GRADIENT cross-section just above the event horizon. The WHOLE effect of the micro-hole as a 'gravitational body' is practically smaller than the planck scale ITSELF. And at that scale, EVERYTHING is basically INDETERMINATE due to random/chaotic 'uncertainty' effects. Which means the nano-hole and its 'gravitational features PRACTICALLY don't exist immediately it is anywhere near 'formed' IN THE FIRST PLACE. In other words, a micro-hole FORMATION EVENT SELF-TERMINATES into 'chaos'.......and becomes PART OF THE QUANTUM UNCERTAINTY/NOISE itself....with NO PERMANENT effect on gross scale features than the virtual events it disappears amongst, and which 'drown out' any 'persistent' stable existence of such a (STILL PUTATIVE!!!hehehe) nano-hole 'feature'.
And again you insist the whole story is the event horizon. It isn't.
QUOTE
That's why I keep sprinkling all my explanations to you so far with "QUALIFIERS" like: "PUTATIVE"; and "IF IT CAN BE SO PRODUCED"; and IF IT EXISTS" etc. hehehe. You must have missed them; or you would not have said that last. If you missed all of my qualifiers; and my statements to the effect that "THEY CANNOT FORM AT ALL", what else have you missed from my posts? hehehe. Better go back over all my responses to you and see what you missed, mate.
You misunderstood. I was asking; what if virtual particles don't exist (or don't exist in the context we think they do)?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| That's why I keep sprinkling all my explanations to you so far with "QUALIFIERS" like: "PUTATIVE"; and "IF IT CAN BE SO PRODUCED"; and IF IT EXISTS" etc. hehehe. You must have missed them; or you would not have said that last. If you missed all of my qualifiers; and my statements to the effect that "THEY CANNOT FORM AT ALL", what else have you missed from my posts? hehehe. Better go back over all my responses to you and see what you missed, mate. |
You misunderstood. I was asking; what if virtual particles don't exist (or don't exist in the context we think they do)?
Are you saying that there IS NO underlying UNIVERSAL BULK? It is a logical necessaity for us or any theorists to be discussing ANY theory.
Else why bother? We could just conjure up everything from LITERALLY 'nothing'.
And if 'nothing' is what gave rise to everything, then what's to stop the NANO-hole REGRESSING back into 'nothingness' immediately it is 'formed' (note again the usual 'qualifier': IF it can form at all! hehehe).
Why assume matter is born of space? Maybe space is born of matter. Maybe matter is simply matter and space is simply space. Their origins might be related, they might not. Maybe there is no origin, maybe they just are.
QUOTE
Maybe. But what is this 'cosmos' that the lesser-than-planck-scale nano-hole is "merrily wending" its way through? How can anything QUANTUM CHAOS SCALE 'translate' in any COHERENT way through 'the cosmos' if that 'cosmos' ITSELF is swamping its coherence/persistencs?
This is merely a hypothetical construct.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Maybe. But what is this 'cosmos' that the lesser-than-planck-scale nano-hole is "merrily wending" its way through? How can anything QUANTUM CHAOS SCALE 'translate' in any COHERENT way through 'the cosmos' if that 'cosmos' ITSELF is swamping its coherence/persistencs? |
This is merely a hypothetical construct.
You are just being fancifully poetic there, uba! Quite MOOD evocative....but hardly SCIENTIFIC, heh!
It's a valid question.
QUOTE
Are you claiming that if the sun were to explode into photons, the gravitational 'disturbance/absence' would be detected at the Earth's orbit BEFORE the photon explosion 'front' hit?
Now who is doing the hypothesising here, uba? You, not me! hehehe.
Now who is doing the hypothesising here, uba? You, not me! hehehe.
It couldn't happen that way even if gravity had an infinite speed. The energy/mass still remains, albeit in an expanding burst of energy.
If the sun suddenly disappeared though... who knows? Maybe it's instanteous, perhaps something akin to spooky action at a distance (quantum entanglement). Maybe it's faster than light, but not instantaneous.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you claiming that if the sun were to explode into photons, the gravitational 'disturbance/absence' would be detected at the Earth's orbit BEFORE the photon explosion 'front' hit? Now who is doing the hypothesising here, uba? You, not me! hehehe. |
It couldn't happen that way even if gravity had an infinite speed. The energy/mass still remains, albeit in an expanding burst of energy.
If the sun suddenly disappeared though... who knows? Maybe it's instanteous, perhaps something akin to spooky action at a distance (quantum entanglement). Maybe it's faster than light, but not instantaneous.
You missed it again, uba. I was talking of the FORMATION EVENT needing a PRE-EXISTING extreme gravity 'concentrating effect' for the hole to form at all. Please don't keep doing that. It is becoming tiresome even for ME (usually a most patient and forgiving softie! hehehe).
And again, the forming event is an energy compression event. Gravity isn't the only means to compress energy. Take your fusion bomb example, for instance. Where's all the "PRE-EXISTING extreme gravity" you keep going on about?
QUOTE
It does. It's called annihilation of opposite properties which, when taken together add to NET ZERO effect globally. What do you think happens to the that PART of the photonic wave during DESTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE wher 'trough' meets 'peak' going in the same direction. They add to ZERO EFFECT in THAT volume of underlying space-time.....while the CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE elsewhere is DOUBLING the mass/energy in THAT space-time location. See? There are effectively TWO locations where mass/energy is being 'created/destroyed' BUT OVERALL GLOBALLY...it is still all net zero for the underlying balance state. The features are transient....some more persistent than others due to stability factors that delay LOCALLY there eventual subsidence into the bulk when 'paired' IN REVERSE (pair annihilation rather than pair creation). Logical and self-evident given the 'readily repeatable' observations to date. No 'mystery' to it, uba!
It wouldn't be limited to scale. If massive amounts of mass/energy could emerge (as apparently exists), it could just as easily submerge.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It does. It's called annihilation of opposite properties which, when taken together add to NET ZERO effect globally. What do you think happens to the that PART of the photonic wave during DESTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE wher 'trough' meets 'peak' going in the same direction. They add to ZERO EFFECT in THAT volume of underlying space-time.....while the CONSTRUCTIVE INTERFERENCE elsewhere is DOUBLING the mass/energy in THAT space-time location. See? There are effectively TWO locations where mass/energy is being 'created/destroyed' BUT OVERALL GLOBALLY...it is still all net zero for the underlying balance state. The features are transient....some more persistent than others due to stability factors that delay LOCALLY there eventual subsidence into the bulk when 'paired' IN REVERSE (pair annihilation rather than pair creation). Logical and self-evident given the 'readily repeatable' observations to date. No 'mystery' to it, uba! |
It wouldn't be limited to scale. If massive amounts of mass/energy could emerge (as apparently exists), it could just as easily submerge.
Everything IS 'vacuum'. Only the scale of things determine wheter we 'detect/perceive' any particular RANGE of vacuum features/processes. We will never 'perceive' the UNIVERSAL BULK 'vacuum' TOTALITY unless we can 'operate' COHERENTLY and PERSISTENTLY at all those other scales. But if we could, then we wouldn't be the 'features' we are NOW/HERE at this range of phenomena. That is why we must extrapolate any knowledge LOGICALLY CONSISTENTLY to arrive at the TOE. We cannot do it DIRECTLY at all scales/processes.
Now we come to the crux of our misunderstanding. You believe fervently in your TOE. I do not.
We (mankind) seek reason and order in the universe. Whether it be through a divine spirit, or through science, we feel there must be some esoteric reason to the universe. It must be understandable. Why? Why can't it be unreasonable? Why can't it simply exist because it does?
QUOTE
As long as you don't cross over into self-contradictory 'broad explanations' as you keep doing because you keep missing my points on this 'effectiveness scale' aspect between sub-planck features and our gross scale features.
I'm not missing them. I simply choose to think critically about them.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As long as you don't cross over into self-contradictory 'broad explanations' as you keep doing because you keep missing my points on this 'effectiveness scale' aspect between sub-planck features and our gross scale features. |
I'm not missing them. I simply choose to think critically about them.
Why should it? It's THERE as a constant background state of energy reservoir from which we ALL spring. The point is that it IS a background precisely BECAUSE it IS 'quantum' chaos at that level....and WE are 'persistent/stable' resonance features. All is energy waves/entanglements/resonances/flow-configurations/topologies etc. Hence the VARIETY of 'features' and 'interactions' and flows/translations which lead to RELATIVITY in all its 'meanings'. No worries, mate!
Don't waves and flows erode the soil and transport it from place to place? If this flux is all around us and pervades us, why are we so stable? Why aren't we carried from here to there, a little bit at a time?
QUOTE
But time and causality are PROPERTIES/EFFECTS that do not exist PER SE. They are SYMPTOMS/CONSEQUENCES/STATES of translations/interactions/persistence etc within the universal totality bulk energy reservoir we call the 'all-encompassing' (and not 'empty') vacuum which underlies the infinite distribution/collection of ALL 'local universe' types of 'phenomena sets' at any one location/instance across the totality.
Or not. If this were true, there'd be no reason time, mass, energy, and even distance would need to be stable. In our part of the universe it could work one way, in another, the rules could be completely different!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| But time and causality are PROPERTIES/EFFECTS that do not exist PER SE. They are SYMPTOMS/CONSEQUENCES/STATES of translations/interactions/persistence etc within the universal totality bulk energy reservoir we call the 'all-encompassing' (and not 'empty') vacuum which underlies the infinite distribution/collection of ALL 'local universe' types of 'phenomena sets' at any one location/instance across the totality. |
Or not. If this were true, there'd be no reason time, mass, energy, and even distance would need to be stable. In our part of the universe it could work one way, in another, the rules could be completely different!
Good one! Close and very apt in a way. You have a poet's bent, uba! But still, the 'sound/light' experiences are too disparate for close analogy 'in the mind'. The evocations are entirely of different 'qualitative' meanings and references to the external reality 'out of reach' of a truly blind-from-birth person. Good try, though! Very 'sensitive' to the spirit of 'spectrum' of perceived 'signals' eliciting different responses from the 'receiving' ear/mind.
I disagree. You don't need to see the light to understand the light. We all know that infrared light exists without being able to see it. We don't have any idea of how uniquely beautiful (or not) it might be though, could we see it.
QUOTE
We are talking of underlying ground states that are subject to quantum perturn=bations CHAOTICALLY. Who knows how UNIVERSAL BULK chaotic system perturbations added constructively over the unknown duration EPOCHAL PAST?
Consider the 'ordinary' example 'emergent behaviour' and 'persistent state' features/cyclic processes evolving 'incrementally and INEVITABLY etc in any 'seemingly random' systems that have INFORMATIONAL COMPLEXITY CRITICALLY.
What could be MORE INFORMATIONAL COMPLEXITY CRITICAL than EVERYTHING that comprises the underlying universal totality bulk 'vacuum' reservoir?
The phenomena I describe observationally/logically is CONSISTENT with what we observe even in our OWN transient/small spacetime volume. No mystery. Energy is energy AT THE QUANTUM CHAOS SCALE. It is 'food' for anything such as your/others' STILL EXTREMELY PUTATIVE!!!! nano-holes IF they could 'persist' COHERENTLY in such a melee that would tend to overwhelm its very fabric/forces/processes and other properties at that scale.
Consider the 'ordinary' example 'emergent behaviour' and 'persistent state' features/cyclic processes evolving 'incrementally and INEVITABLY etc in any 'seemingly random' systems that have INFORMATIONAL COMPLEXITY CRITICALLY.
What could be MORE INFORMATIONAL COMPLEXITY CRITICAL than EVERYTHING that comprises the underlying universal totality bulk 'vacuum' reservoir?
The phenomena I describe observationally/logically is CONSISTENT with what we observe even in our OWN transient/small spacetime volume. No mystery. Energy is energy AT THE QUANTUM CHAOS SCALE. It is 'food' for anything such as your/others' STILL EXTREMELY PUTATIVE!!!! nano-holes IF they could 'persist' COHERENTLY in such a melee that would tend to overwhelm its very fabric/forces/processes and other properties at that scale.
Sure, but perhaps the black hole simply radiates as much as it takes in through the Hawking process. Viola! Equilibrium.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| We are talking of underlying ground states that are subject to quantum perturn=bations CHAOTICALLY. Who knows how UNIVERSAL BULK chaotic system perturbations added constructively over the unknown duration EPOCHAL PAST? Consider the 'ordinary' example 'emergent behaviour' and 'persistent state' features/cyclic processes evolving 'incrementally and INEVITABLY etc in any 'seemingly random' systems that have INFORMATIONAL COMPLEXITY CRITICALLY. What could be MORE INFORMATIONAL COMPLEXITY CRITICAL than EVERYTHING that comprises the underlying universal totality bulk 'vacuum' reservoir? The phenomena I describe observationally/logically is CONSISTENT with what we observe even in our OWN transient/small spacetime volume. No mystery. Energy is energy AT THE QUANTUM CHAOS SCALE. It is 'food' for anything such as your/others' STILL EXTREMELY PUTATIVE!!!! nano-holes IF they could 'persist' COHERENTLY in such a melee that would tend to overwhelm its very fabric/forces/processes and other properties at that scale. |
Sure, but perhaps the black hole simply radiates as much as it takes in through the Hawking process. Viola! Equilibrium.
Like I explained earlier in this post:....There IS no "outside" of the universal totality BULK. The only transitions are ALL WITHIN that totality. The 'location' aspect is trivial. And as I also explained earlier in this post, energy/mass DO disappear/appear here/there (Pair-production/annihilation; destructive/constructive interference, virtual sub-effective processes etc etc).
But all within the totality. There is NO 'outside' to the bulk....it is unlimited and boundless in reality....and not just 'locally topologically' as for 'sperical' features IMBEDDED WITHIN that overall underlying bulk whence everything arises/subsides 'chaotically' but 'inevitably emergent' (or we would not be here at all. hehehe).
I didn't say anything about an "outside." I meant mass/energy could simply move about randomly within the universe. It could pop into the "underlying bulk" here, only to re-emerge at the same time somewhere else. There's no reason to your prescribed stability at macro scales.
QUOTE
You missed it again. The 'latest generation' of newly formed pairs would have been disrupted by the very processes that formed that latest generation.
The older-seeming stars are recent products of HYDROGEN CLOUDS (as opposed to heavy meatls laden 'ash' molecular/dust clouds rom SUPERNOVAE of ols generation stars.
The RANGE and PHASES and RAW MATERIAL CYCLES/DISTRIBUTIONS/INTERACTIONS give rise to all sorts of NOW states that represent a CONFUSED MIXTURE of all the foregoing/recent and 'current' phases/recycling/collisions over the epochs to date. NO current 'snapshot' is capable of telling EXACTLY what happened where/when. What we see now is but a small WINDOW into the ongoing evolution of the observable/surrounding volumes.
Your assertions are based on 'shifting sands' of time/processes. The upshot is that group dynamics will eject/merge stars of any type/generations into solitary features like macro black holes, N-stars, White Dwarfs etc etc. The inability to 'detect' any and all of these in a perfect distribution/range 'snapshot' is NOT possible for the reasons already given. Leave it at that, mate! This part of the discussion is futile for both of us.
The older-seeming stars are recent products of HYDROGEN CLOUDS (as opposed to heavy meatls laden 'ash' molecular/dust clouds rom SUPERNOVAE of ols generation stars.
The RANGE and PHASES and RAW MATERIAL CYCLES/DISTRIBUTIONS/INTERACTIONS give rise to all sorts of NOW states that represent a CONFUSED MIXTURE of all the foregoing/recent and 'current' phases/recycling/collisions over the epochs to date. NO current 'snapshot' is capable of telling EXACTLY what happened where/when. What we see now is but a small WINDOW into the ongoing evolution of the observable/surrounding volumes.
Your assertions are based on 'shifting sands' of time/processes. The upshot is that group dynamics will eject/merge stars of any type/generations into solitary features like macro black holes, N-stars, White Dwarfs etc etc. The inability to 'detect' any and all of these in a perfect distribution/range 'snapshot' is NOT possible for the reasons already given. Leave it at that, mate! This part of the discussion is futile for both of us.
That's not true. We can look at the universe in multiple windows of time going back for most of the age of the universe.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You missed it again. The 'latest generation' of newly formed pairs would have been disrupted by the very processes that formed that latest generation. The older-seeming stars are recent products of HYDROGEN CLOUDS (as opposed to heavy meatls laden 'ash' molecular/dust clouds rom SUPERNOVAE of ols generation stars. The RANGE and PHASES and RAW MATERIAL CYCLES/DISTRIBUTIONS/INTERACTIONS give rise to all sorts of NOW states that represent a CONFUSED MIXTURE of all the foregoing/recent and 'current' phases/recycling/collisions over the epochs to date. NO current 'snapshot' is capable of telling EXACTLY what happened where/when. What we see now is but a small WINDOW into the ongoing evolution of the observable/surrounding volumes. Your assertions are based on 'shifting sands' of time/processes. The upshot is that group dynamics will eject/merge stars of any type/generations into solitary features like macro black holes, N-stars, White Dwarfs etc etc. The inability to 'detect' any and all of these in a perfect distribution/range 'snapshot' is NOT possible for the reasons already given. Leave it at that, mate! This part of the discussion is futile for both of us. |
That's not true. We can look at the universe in multiple windows of time going back for most of the age of the universe.
No. It's about what the original distribution/state was for the observable volume; and what capability/possibility you have for making those observations that YOU say 'should see' things that I say you can't NO MATTER WHEN OR HOW OFTEN it occurred. There is no way you can ascertain sufficient 'population' of old/newer etc 'neutron' stars. And ordinary stars are what they are because they have NOT yet become merged/expelled to become neutron/black etc features which amy or may not BE 'detectable' RIGHT NOW as you require fro your argument.
You're making an assumption they form in large numbers, periodically. And you're making an assumption we happen to be in a neutron-star-forming drought. This seems highly unlikley.
QUOTE
As collision experiments have already shown, everything is 'wave-like' or 'fluid vortex' or 'fluid-flow-like' at that level. The colliding features would spaltter BEFORE any appreciable concentration occurred that would not be immediately 'destroyed' as a coherent feature at that scale. The very momentum conservation laws that you reference for your argument would ensure that either the products would 'scatter' OR they would form MANY INDIVIDUAL 'swirls' of ORDINARY RESONANCE PARTICLES/WAVES that currently arise in existing collision experiments.
Like I said before, the very fact that we have not been devoured by such EXTREMELY 'non-resonant' features at that nano-scale is proof that such things cannot form....given the conservation and behaviour aspects which would have the products scatter and reform as the usual classical/quantum particles/waves types before any 'black' densities can aggregate in 'free' collision scenarios/effects.
Like I said before, the very fact that we have not been devoured by such EXTREMELY 'non-resonant' features at that nano-scale is proof that such things cannot form....given the conservation and behaviour aspects which would have the products scatter and reform as the usual classical/quantum particles/waves types before any 'black' densities can aggregate in 'free' collision scenarios/effects.
I think this is a lapse in reason and observation. Why do galaxies have dark matter halos? Why isn't there much (if any) apparently normal matter caught up in these halos? Why are there apparent dark matter galaxies where normal stars can't form even when there's enough hydrogen to create a hundred million stars?
It seems apparent that dark matter may eat ordinary matter. It's quite possible that dark matter largely consists of micro black holes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As collision experiments have already shown, everything is 'wave-like' or 'fluid vortex' or 'fluid-flow-like' at that level. The colliding features would spaltter BEFORE any appreciable concentration occurred that would not be immediately 'destroyed' as a coherent feature at that scale. The very momentum conservation laws that you reference for your argument would ensure that either the products would 'scatter' OR they would form MANY INDIVIDUAL 'swirls' of ORDINARY RESONANCE PARTICLES/WAVES that currently arise in existing collision experiments. Like I said before, the very fact that we have not been devoured by such EXTREMELY 'non-resonant' features at that nano-scale is proof that such things cannot form....given the conservation and behaviour aspects which would have the products scatter and reform as the usual classical/quantum particles/waves types before any 'black' densities can aggregate in 'free' collision scenarios/effects. |
I think this is a lapse in reason and observation. Why do galaxies have dark matter halos? Why isn't there much (if any) apparently normal matter caught up in these halos? Why are there apparent dark matter galaxies where normal stars can't form even when there's enough hydrogen to create a hundred million stars?
It seems apparent that dark matter may eat ordinary matter. It's quite possible that dark matter largely consists of micro black holes.
I'll try once more.
Consider a newly contracting expanse of gas cloud material that eventually goes nova and produces a star. The mass involved will IGNITE the fusion process and either produce a 'sun-like' star OR if the mass is greater, it produces such a cataclysmic nova explosion that a neutron star or black hole may form right away.
I don't buy that. Stars may explode and leave dense matter objects behind, but gas clouds aren't dense enough to immediately collapse into dense matter objects.
QUOTE
Are you seriously suggesting that any such 'fusion ignition' is TOO COOL and of INSUFFICIENT ENERGY per unit volume at the centre of the fusing mass to produce a NANO-HOLE if the fusion was ignited in a SMALL enough mass.....like a humongous nuclear bomb?
Yes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Are you seriously suggesting that any such 'fusion ignition' is TOO COOL and of INSUFFICIENT ENERGY per unit volume at the centre of the fusing mass to produce a NANO-HOLE if the fusion was ignited in a SMALL enough mass.....like a humongous nuclear bomb? |
Yes.
That nova fusion energy level per unit mass should tell you something about ANY IGNITION compression energy level/rate in an explosuively IMPLODING mass that ITSELF IS ALSO FUSIONING as it is being compressed by the preceding layers energy inputs.
If you can't see the corollary, I will leave off and call it quits.
I can't see the corollary. Besides, where is the prerequisite "PRE-EXISTING extreme gravity" you keep talking about?
QUOTE
As long as it is FINITE, it is LIMITED in effective range and velocity of REACH from the nano to the gross scale as/after any PUTATIVE nano hole is formed. Given that finiteness and the fantastic speed of reactions at the sub-planck scale, who cares what tiny and slow nano-gravity gradient is doing while it is being already deatroyed before it can 'form/reach' into our scale. For if it could reach into our scale, then the quantum virtual energy would 'flow' into such a nano-hole IF it could form and feed at all at ANY scale. I repeat: You can't have it both ways.
I repeat: Yes, I can. The speed of gravity is yet to be verified. Instantaneous quantum processes are already known to exist. Maybe this is another.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| As long as it is FINITE, it is LIMITED in effective range and velocity of REACH from the nano to the gross scale as/after any PUTATIVE nano hole is formed. Given that finiteness and the fantastic speed of reactions at the sub-planck scale, who cares what tiny and slow nano-gravity gradient is doing while it is being already deatroyed before it can 'form/reach' into our scale. For if it could reach into our scale, then the quantum virtual energy would 'flow' into such a nano-hole IF it could form and feed at all at ANY scale. I repeat: You can't have it both ways. |
I repeat: Yes, I can. The speed of gravity is yet to be verified. Instantaneous quantum processes are already known to exist. Maybe this is another.
But you don't explain WHY they could not (if as you say such things CAN form in 'free' collisions of sufficient energy density etc. You are 'empty quipping' without 'substantive argument'. Enough is enough, uba. That is NOT the way to debate with ME. Save it for others. I don't respect such tactics. That's straight, mate. No more.
I have explained it thoroughly. The energy density is insufficient.
QUOTE
Look to what I argue/present. That will tell what is and what isn't. I am merely the logical/observational messenger. The conclusions follow the message....both of which should stand on their own merits without reference to me. I only post all this for YOUR benefit to allay your fears using reality/logically consistent arguments.
I appreciate that, but I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Look to what I argue/present. That will tell what is and what isn't. I am merely the logical/observational messenger. The conclusions follow the message....both of which should stand on their own merits without reference to me. I only post all this for YOUR benefit to allay your fears using reality/logically consistent arguments. |
I appreciate that, but I don't necessarily agree with your conclusions.
Who knows? Neagative findings are often as, or even more, important than 'expected positive' findings. Let the boys and girls play. It will keep them off the streets and out of mischief!
And who knows what insights will come of 'failure' as well as 'success'? hehehe.
There's truth in that, but I fear the mischief lies in the doing.
QUOTE
Given the range of characters/fields involved across the thousands involved, it's almost a statical certainty that (just as YOU have), there probably WERE some one/few INDIVIDUALS who F;LEETINGLY considered that aspect and dismissed it out of hand because of knowledge of 'fluid/vortex/splatter etc behaviour at those levels in 'free' collisions. They probably didn't think it important enough to mention due to the OBVIOUS 'understood' counterarguments I am making HERE to YOU! hehehe.
I've seen no evidence to suggest it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Given the range of characters/fields involved across the thousands involved, it's almost a statical certainty that (just as YOU have), there probably WERE some one/few INDIVIDUALS who F;LEETINGLY considered that aspect and dismissed it out of hand because of knowledge of 'fluid/vortex/splatter etc behaviour at those levels in 'free' collisions. They probably didn't think it important enough to mention due to the OBVIOUS 'understood' counterarguments I am making HERE to YOU! hehehe. |
I've seen no evidence to suggest it.
"Hit and run"? Is that what you call my long series of posts explaining various obvious/novel counter-perspectives for your benefit? hehehe. Cheeky devil! hehehe. But I will have to finish like I said....there are more important things for me to do now that I have given you enough to work on! hehehe.
Whew! You do present a lot of material.
QUOTE
Cryptic. "It does not compute", as they say! hehehe.
What I mean is, hypothetical meanderings are not conclusive. Verifiable observation is conclusive.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Cryptic. "It does not compute", as they say! hehehe. |
What I mean is, hypothetical meanderings are not conclusive. Verifiable observation is conclusive.
Spineless lot, aren't they?! Too bad. Your country has been ill served by incompetents of the highest calibre! hehehe. They should have handled things a piece at a time instead on choking on the whole thing just for political expediency at the early stages. Pity. Good luck over the next year, mate!
Thanks. We'll need it. The current crop of contenders aren't looking so hot either!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 6 2007, 05:46 AM)
What if you have two observers observing the same vitual particle event? One is co-moving (stationary) with the event, and the other zooms by relativistically? What will they see?
What if our observer is on the earth and the lab is on a rocket that accelerates away?
What happens when a relativistic particle happens into the same space as a virtual particle?
What happens when a relativistic virtual particle enters the same space as an already existing particle that is co-moving with the observer?
The ones moving relativistically will see a shorter lab and also a shorter particle track. The particle will have lived less time.
What if our observer is on the earth and the lab is on a rocket that accelerates away?
What happens when a relativistic particle happens into the same space as a virtual particle?
What happens when a relativistic virtual particle enters the same space as an already existing particle that is co-moving with the observer?
The ones moving relativistically will see a shorter lab and also a shorter particle track. The particle will have lived less time.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 6 2007, 05:46 AM)
When did I make that claim?
You claim to have read a great many books. You couldn't name one. Your entire argument here requires you to be at least familiar with relativity and quantum mechanics otherwise what are you basing your claims on? Numerous times you make reference to GR or QM notions, as if you're familiar with them, but not once have you actually demonstrated working knowledge in them, despite many opportunities.
Of course, if you're now admitting you don't know any GR or QM....
Of course, if you're now admitting you don't know any GR or QM....
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 6 2007, 05:46 AM)
Specifically, where have I been wrong?
Why do you persist in asking that, when every post made back at you corrects you on something? Do you think anyone else buys it? 
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 6 2007, 05:46 AM)
Not at all. On the contrary, it is you that are struggling.
Ah, the good old "I know you are, but what am I?" playground insult. I haven't heard that one in years.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 6 2007, 05:46 AM)
In General Relativity they're in uniform motion, in curved space. Don't you know anything about General Relativity?
Being in freefall isn't the same as uniform motion. If you picked an inertial frame, the orbitting object would clearly not be in uniform motion. If you picked any other freefalling frame along the orbit (other than a perfectly circular orbit ) then the freefalling frames would not be uniformly moving with respect to one another. Then you have that you'd be aware of tidal effects, the force of gravity would be stronger on one side than the other of the object.
You were vague in your comments and then tried to turn it around to talk about curved space-time. Feel free to crank out a mathematical derivation of your claim to pin down exactly what you're referring to. We all know you won't, because you can't.
You were vague in your comments and then tried to turn it around to talk about curved space-time. Feel free to crank out a mathematical derivation of your claim to pin down exactly what you're referring to. We all know you won't, because you can't.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 6 2007, 05:46 AM)
Or, tidal forces could be dragging on them.
An effect which is already taken into account. Just like all the usual effects are taken into account for Mercury's precision before saying "There's something amiss from the Newtonian description".
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 6 2007, 05:46 AM)
I understand fine. Your viewpoint is too narrow though. You need to learn how to think critically, if you want to be a scientist.
I am a physicist. More than can be said for you.
.
Hi Uba!
As you know, I can't stay long for now. Just glanced through your response to my last. I'll answer more fully in a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, I'll do a 'hit and run' on a couple of areas where it is obvious you are missing the obvious.
Regarding:
- Pre-existing gravity.....
The pre-existing strong gravity relates to the large mass concentrations involved in MACRO explosion/implosion events like novae/supernovae which is ALREADY CONTAINING the interior collisions between energetic particles that would produce maicro holes IF they could be produced by colliding particles at all, even when they ARE contained by strong gravity within the whole larger body mass;
My original point was that there IS an absence of such pre-existing strong gravity in MICRO-MASS 'free-collision' events, which is precisely what I originally pointed to as NOT being so 'pre-contained' by pre-xisting strong gravity AT ALL (as you now admit re the ICF and Nuclear bomb scenarios I also pointed to).
In star-forming nova events that first ignite the concentrating large mass and then shoot out POLAR JETS of material at RELATIVISTIC velocities into the surrounding still-infalling material that had been going to form the new stellar-mass concentrations, there are ample energetic particle colliding under pre-existing strong gravity 'containment' (within the new star) as well as ample energetic particle gravity-unconstrained 'free collisions' (when relativisticallt-moving polar jet particles hit the still-infalling surrounding nebula material which is later dispersed by the polar jets as well as the all-round energy released by star ignition 'material shedding and initial radiant energy output.
Hence the upshot......IF, as YOU essentially claim, such micro Neutron-star/Quark-star/micro-hole 'stuff' can BE produced at all by 'free collisions' that are NOT so 'pre-contained' by large-mass scenarios, then how much more likely that they WOULD be produced in such large mass events like novae and supernovae.
So where are all these exotic/extreme features? Because we should see (or more correctly, NOT see) them at every turn, hehehe.
Simply because EVERY STAR-FORMING EVENT would then result in the formation of one or other of these NS/QS/BH 'features'....and there would not be ANY 'normal' stars to see at all. Ever.
- Dark Energy/Mass.....
You posit that the SPECULATED Dark Matter Halos consist largely of micro black holes.
BUT, now think about everything that you have so far said in support of YOUR claim that such LHC-produced (still putative) micro holes "pose a danger to the Earth". See the 'having it both ways' inconsistency of your stance?
The very same arguments/properties you claim for micro holes to interact with the Earth material would be MAGNIFIED to the extreme for vast clouds of micro-holes.....since mutual extreme-GRADIENT/TIDAL gravitational interactions in such a vast 'group dynamics' would ensure the almost IMMEDIATE COLLAPSE/MERGING of all the micro-holes into one humongous black hole.
Therefore there COULD NOT BE any such things as 'clouds of micro holes' as explanation for the (still equally speculative) 'dark matter'.
See?
Again, you want it both ways. That's getting to be a greedy and most 'fattening' habit, Uba! Resist the temptation, mate! hehehe.
That's all the time I can spare here at the moment, Uba. I will answer your whole post when time permits.
Meanwhile, I'll 'see' y'all when I surf through again, uba, everyone!
Cheers!
RC.
.
Hi Uba!
As you know, I can't stay long for now. Just glanced through your response to my last. I'll answer more fully in a couple of weeks. Meanwhile, I'll do a 'hit and run' on a couple of areas where it is obvious you are missing the obvious.
Regarding:
- Pre-existing gravity.....
The pre-existing strong gravity relates to the large mass concentrations involved in MACRO explosion/implosion events like novae/supernovae which is ALREADY CONTAINING the interior collisions between energetic particles that would produce maicro holes IF they could be produced by colliding particles at all, even when they ARE contained by strong gravity within the whole larger body mass;
My original point was that there IS an absence of such pre-existing strong gravity in MICRO-MASS 'free-collision' events, which is precisely what I originally pointed to as NOT being so 'pre-contained' by pre-xisting strong gravity AT ALL (as you now admit re the ICF and Nuclear bomb scenarios I also pointed to).
In star-forming nova events that first ignite the concentrating large mass and then shoot out POLAR JETS of material at RELATIVISTIC velocities into the surrounding still-infalling material that had been going to form the new stellar-mass concentrations, there are ample energetic particle colliding under pre-existing strong gravity 'containment' (within the new star) as well as ample energetic particle gravity-unconstrained 'free collisions' (when relativisticallt-moving polar jet particles hit the still-infalling surrounding nebula material which is later dispersed by the polar jets as well as the all-round energy released by star ignition 'material shedding and initial radiant energy output.
Hence the upshot......IF, as YOU essentially claim, such micro Neutron-star/Quark-star/micro-hole 'stuff' can BE produced at all by 'free collisions' that are NOT so 'pre-contained' by large-mass scenarios, then how much more likely that they WOULD be produced in such large mass events like novae and supernovae.
So where are all these exotic/extreme features? Because we should see (or more correctly, NOT see) them at every turn, hehehe.
Simply because EVERY STAR-FORMING EVENT would then result in the formation of one or other of these NS/QS/BH 'features'....and there would not be ANY 'normal' stars to see at all. Ever.
- Dark Energy/Mass.....
You posit that the SPECULATED Dark Matter Halos consist largely of micro black holes.
BUT, now think about everything that you have so far said in support of YOUR claim that such LHC-produced (still putative) micro holes "pose a danger to the Earth". See the 'having it both ways' inconsistency of your stance?
The very same arguments/properties you claim for micro holes to interact with the Earth material would be MAGNIFIED to the extreme for vast clouds of micro-holes.....since mutual extreme-GRADIENT/TIDAL gravitational interactions in such a vast 'group dynamics' would ensure the almost IMMEDIATE COLLAPSE/MERGING of all the micro-holes into one humongous black hole.
Therefore there COULD NOT BE any such things as 'clouds of micro holes' as explanation for the (still equally speculative) 'dark matter'.
See?
Again, you want it both ways. That's getting to be a greedy and most 'fattening' habit, Uba! Resist the temptation, mate! hehehe.
That's all the time I can spare here at the moment, Uba. I will answer your whole post when time permits.
Meanwhile, I'll 'see' y'all when I surf through again, uba, everyone!
Cheers!
RC.
.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 7 2007, 08:03 AM)
The ones moving relativistically will see a shorter lab and also a shorter particle track. The particle will have lived less time.
How do you determine which is moving relativistically, the lab or the observer? Are you suggesting the lab is a preferred reference?
So you admit it. It's apparent that I am "at least familiar with relativity and quantum mechanics."
So you admit it. It's apparent that I am "at least familiar with relativity and quantum mechanics."
Numerous times you make reference to GR or QM notions, as if you're familiar with them, but not once have you actually demonstrated working knowledge in them, despite many opportunities.
Working knowledge? What do you define as "working knowledge?"
When did I make that claim?
When did I make that claim?
Why do you persist in asking that, when every post made back at you corrects you on something? Do you think anyone else buys it?
That's not an answer to the question. That's simply a diversion.
It's an oldy, but a goody. Perhaps not as sophisticated as your diversionary tactics, but at least it's honest.
It's an oldy, but a goody. Perhaps not as sophisticated as your diversionary tactics, but at least it's honest.
Being in freefall isn't the same as uniform motion. If you picked an inertial frame, the orbitting object would clearly not be in uniform motion. If you picked any other freefalling frame along the orbit (other than a perfectly circular orbit ) then the freefalling frames would not be uniformly moving with respect to one another. Then you have that you'd be aware of tidal effects, the force of gravity would be stronger on one side than the other of the object.
Trying to CYA? It isn't working. Einstein clearly defines gravity as curved spacetime. Variances in the structure of the curves is irrelevant to his tenet.
Vague? How was I vague? I tore your reference to shreds for its inconsistencies. That's not being vague.
You want to talk about being vague? Why didn't you answer this question:
Vague? How was I vague? I tore your reference to shreds for its inconsistencies. That's not being vague.
You want to talk about being vague? Why didn't you answer this question:
An effect which is already taken into account. Just like all the usual effects are taken into account for Mercury's precision before saying "There's something amiss from the Newtonian description".
Really? You got references? It's certainly not stated in the reference you provided.
You're a pretender. You haven't the ability to think for yourself and ask the critical questions necessary to be a physicist.
How do you determine which is moving relativistically, the lab or the observer? Are you suggesting the lab is a preferred reference?
QUOTE
You claim to have read a great many books. You couldn't name one. Your entire argument here requires you to be at least familiar with relativity and quantum mechanics otherwise what are you basing your claims on?
So you admit it. It's apparent that I am "at least familiar with relativity and quantum mechanics."
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You claim to have read a great many books. You couldn't name one. Your entire argument here requires you to be at least familiar with relativity and quantum mechanics otherwise what are you basing your claims on? |
So you admit it. It's apparent that I am "at least familiar with relativity and quantum mechanics."
Numerous times you make reference to GR or QM notions, as if you're familiar with them, but not once have you actually demonstrated working knowledge in them, despite many opportunities.
Working knowledge? What do you define as "working knowledge?"
QUOTE
Of course, if you're now admitting you don't know any GR or QM....
When did I make that claim?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Of course, if you're now admitting you don't know any GR or QM.... |
When did I make that claim?
Why do you persist in asking that, when every post made back at you corrects you on something? Do you think anyone else buys it?
That's not an answer to the question. That's simply a diversion.
QUOTE
Ah, the good old "I know you are, but what am I?" playground insult. I haven't heard that one in years.
It's an oldy, but a goody. Perhaps not as sophisticated as your diversionary tactics, but at least it's honest.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Ah, the good old "I know you are, but what am I?" playground insult. I haven't heard that one in years. |
It's an oldy, but a goody. Perhaps not as sophisticated as your diversionary tactics, but at least it's honest.
Being in freefall isn't the same as uniform motion. If you picked an inertial frame, the orbitting object would clearly not be in uniform motion. If you picked any other freefalling frame along the orbit (other than a perfectly circular orbit ) then the freefalling frames would not be uniformly moving with respect to one another. Then you have that you'd be aware of tidal effects, the force of gravity would be stronger on one side than the other of the object.
Trying to CYA? It isn't working. Einstein clearly defines gravity as curved spacetime. Variances in the structure of the curves is irrelevant to his tenet.
QUOTE
You were vague in your comments and then tried to turn it around to talk about curved space-time. Feel free to crank out a mathematical derivation of your claim to pin down exactly what you're referring to. We all know you won't, because you can't.
Vague? How was I vague? I tore your reference to shreds for its inconsistencies. That's not being vague.
You want to talk about being vague? Why didn't you answer this question:
- So you believe Trippy's collision model was right and mine was wrong? The co-moving earth is a preferred reference frame?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You were vague in your comments and then tried to turn it around to talk about curved space-time. Feel free to crank out a mathematical derivation of your claim to pin down exactly what you're referring to. We all know you won't, because you can't. |
Vague? How was I vague? I tore your reference to shreds for its inconsistencies. That's not being vague.
You want to talk about being vague? Why didn't you answer this question:
- So you believe Trippy's collision model was right and mine was wrong? The co-moving earth is a preferred reference frame?
An effect which is already taken into account. Just like all the usual effects are taken into account for Mercury's precision before saying "There's something amiss from the Newtonian description".
Really? You got references? It's certainly not stated in the reference you provided.
QUOTE
I am a physicist. More than can be said for you.
You're a pretender. You haven't the ability to think for yourself and ask the critical questions necessary to be a physicist.
I thought AlphaN was a mathematician?
Mathematics are used for modelling. Intuition always comes first... development of the mathematical modelling for the percieved relationships is always secondary.
Mathematics are used for modelling. Intuition always comes first... development of the mathematical modelling for the percieved relationships is always secondary.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 8 2007, 07:32 PM)
How do you determine which is moving relativistically, the lab or the observer? Are you suggesting the lab is a preferred reference?
Clearly you're so desperate to take a pot shot at me you didn't even stop to think about what I said.
I said "The one moving relativistically sees a shorter lab". Clearly that means that I'm taking as my original inertial frame that of the lab frame, since anyone moving relative to it would see 'a shorter lab'.
Such creative thinking is too much to ask of you.
Clearly you're so desperate to take a pot shot at me you didn't even stop to think about what I said.
I said "The one moving relativistically sees a shorter lab". Clearly that means that I'm taking as my original inertial frame that of the lab frame, since anyone moving relative to it would see 'a shorter lab'.
Such creative thinking is too much to ask of you.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 8 2007, 07:32 PM)
So you admit it. It's apparent that I am "at least familiar with relativity and quantum mechanics."
And again, you fail to understand what I said.
I admitted nothing. My implications went the other way. I asked you to name some books, you haven't. I pointed out that your arguments here require you to have some grasp of those topics, but since you cannot provide any demonstration or evidence you do grasp such topics, what does that say about how valid your claims are likely to be?
Do you need that to be explained a third time?
I admitted nothing. My implications went the other way. I asked you to name some books, you haven't. I pointed out that your arguments here require you to have some grasp of those topics, but since you cannot provide any demonstration or evidence you do grasp such topics, what does that say about how valid your claims are likely to be?
Do you need that to be explained a third time?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 8 2007, 07:32 PM)
Working knowledge? What do you define as "working knowledge?"
I'd like to see you use actual quantum mechanics or relativity to demonstrate a viable danger from the LHC in terms of black hole production and destruction of the Earth. All you do at the moment is wave your arms and ignore anyone who actually can demonstrate working knowledge in such things.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 8 2007, 07:32 PM)
When did I make that claim?
You really are having trouble following the implication of what people say to you, aren't you?
You asked me to point out where you claimed you understood GR and QM. By asking such a thing, are you attempting to imply you don't know either of those?
You asked me to point out where you claimed you understood GR and QM. By asking such a thing, are you attempting to imply you don't know either of those?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 8 2007, 07:32 PM)
Trying to CYA? It isn't working. Einstein clearly defines gravity as curved spacetime. Variances in the structure of the curves is irrelevant to his tenet.
CYA?
I explained why orbits are not uniform motion. You didn't actually retort anything I said. There's a way to measure the difference between moving in an orbit and being in an inertial frame sans gravity.
I explained why orbits are not uniform motion. You didn't actually retort anything I said. There's a way to measure the difference between moving in an orbit and being in an inertial frame sans gravity.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 8 2007, 07:32 PM)
Vague? How was I vague? I tore your reference to shreds for its inconsistencies. That's not being vague.
You think that displaying your ignorance is 'tearing my references to shreds'? Who are you trying to convince here, me or you?
I mean, wow.
Who are you trying to convince here, me or you? I mean, wow.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 8 2007, 07:32 PM)
You want to talk about being vague? Why didn't you answer this question:
Because I didn't read Trippy's post. Quite frankly, I don't bother to spend much time reading this thread because reading your ignorant vomit is akin to having my fingernails removed with plyers. If I want to listen to idiots for long periods of time, I'd turn on a local radio station.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 8 2007, 07:32 PM)
Really? You got references? It's certainly not stated in the reference you provided.
Let's see. You ask for references usually is the result of you being very ignorant and having made no attempt to find the information yourself. Then, when someone puts it infront of your face, you fail to understand it and so don't accept it. If you bother to read it at all.
So it seems somewhat a waste of time to pander to your lazy unwillingness to use Google because you'll only be blind to it anyway.
So it seems somewhat a waste of time to pander to your lazy unwillingness to use Google because you'll only be blind to it anyway.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 8 2007, 07:32 PM)
You're a pretender. You haven't the ability to think for yourself and ask the critical questions necessary to be a physicist. How well did you do at physics and maths in school? I'm just wondering why you aren't a world class physicist right now. Obviously something got in the way. Did you not do very well at the subject when you were being tested on it? Now, when noone makes you sit tests to prove your ability, suddenly you're so much better than anyone who did manage to do well in school and prove their abilities.
The classic "If I tried I know I could do it" attitude of cranks. If I'm pretending to do physics, I'm pretending well enough to have fooled several univeristies. What about you? You pretend to understand a bunch of physics you know nothing about.
Which one of us is pretending the most? The one with a mathematics degree, a masters in mathematics and theoretical physics and is doing a PhD in theoretical physics (specifically supersymmetric gravity theories!) or you. I guess the highest physics acheivement you have to your name is a highschool diploma. Maybe...
Talk is cheap. Every chance you get given to show your knowledge is anything but talk you run for the hills.
How well did you do at physics and maths in school? I'm just wondering why you aren't a world class physicist right now. Obviously something got in the way. Did you not do very well at the subject when you were being tested on it? Now, when noone makes you sit tests to prove your ability, suddenly you're so much better than anyone who did manage to do well in school and prove their abilities. The classic "If I tried I know I could do it" attitude of cranks. If I'm pretending to do physics, I'm pretending well enough to have fooled several univeristies. What about you? You pretend to understand a bunch of physics you know nothing about.
Which one of us is pretending the most? The one with a mathematics degree, a masters in mathematics and theoretical physics and is doing a PhD in theoretical physics (specifically supersymmetric gravity theories!) or you. I guess the highest physics acheivement you have to your name is a highschool diploma. Maybe...
Talk is cheap. Every chance you get given to show your knowledge is anything but talk you run for the hills.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 8 2007, 07:32 PM)
I thought AlphaN was a mathematician?
I would say I'm a mathematician first, a physicist second but that is only because the physics I do is extremely mathematical. When it comes to theoretical physics, that's common. As Hilbert said, physics is too important to be left to physicists.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 8 2007, 08:05 PM)
I would say I'm a mathematician first, a physicist second but that is only because the physics I do is extremely mathematical. When it comes to theoretical physics, that's common. As Hilbert said, physics is too important to be left to physicists.
I think you'll find that the original quote reads:
I think you'll find that the original quote reads:
QUOTE (Hilbert+)
"Physics is obviously far too difficult to be left to the physicists and mathematicians still think they are God's gift to science."
Taking things out of context completely changes the meaning, nes pas?
Taking things out of context completely changes the meaning, nes pas?
Sh**
Alpha, you was one of the main guys here?
And now?
Let it go man.
We do need you.
But not like this.
Alpha, you was one of the main guys here?
And now?
Let it go man.
We do need you.
But not like this.
QUOTE (Solid State Universe+Dec 8 2007, 09:34 PM)
Taking things out of context completely changes the meaning, nes pas?
Not really. The implication of the essential need to have a firm grasp of the quantative side of things is clearly there.
Such a thing cranks invariably fail to do. Funny how none of you ever back up what you say with any decent (even freshman level) quantative stuff.
Not really. The implication of the essential need to have a firm grasp of the quantative side of things is clearly there.
Such a thing cranks invariably fail to do. Funny how none of you ever back up what you say with any decent (even freshman level) quantative stuff.
QUOTE (yor_on+Dec 8 2007, 11:57 PM)
Alpha, you was one of the main guys here?
And now?
And now?
What suddenly changed?
QUOTE (yor_on+Dec 8 2007, 11:57 PM)
Let it go man.
I have a strange compulsion to correct peoples misconceptions about physics and maths. When the person is all the more ardent about their ignorance, I get suckered into being all the more ardent about correcting them.
QUOTE (yor_on+Dec 8 2007, 11:57 PM)
We do need you.
But not like this.
But not like this.
No, none of you 'need me'. None of you do actual physics, so none of you 'need' me to be able to do research. None of you 'need' me to learn physics, what you 'need' is to sit down for a couple of hours at a time a few times a week over the course of several months and read through books on introductory physics and maths courses like differential equations, Newtonian dynamics, vector calculus, electromagnetism. Physics isn't learnt by talking about it on forums, only little patches of information are gleaned in such a way or particular problems resolved. True understanding comes from concerted effort. Something nuts like Ub are too lazy to do.
So what other 'need' do you have of me?
So what other 'need' do you have of me?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 5 2007, 05:46 PM)
Thanks, but I don't need any help. Observation is sufficient.
Quite happy living in ignorance then.
Content with making an observation, assuming that it supports your doom saying, but not actually bothering to investigate what existing modern physics has to say about the situation.
Quite happy living in ignorance then.
Content with making an observation, assuming that it supports your doom saying, but not actually bothering to investigate what existing modern physics has to say about the situation.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 6 2007, 05:46 PM)
So you believe Trippy's collision model was right and mine was wrong? The co-moving earth is a preferred reference frame?
Strawman, and a lie at that.
I have never claimed that the Earth is a preferred reference frame.
Nothing I have ever said implies that the earth is a preferred reference frame.
You have never demonstrated that I have done any of these things.
Strawman, and a lie at that.
I have never claimed that the Earth is a preferred reference frame.
Nothing I have ever said implies that the earth is a preferred reference frame.
You have never demonstrated that I have done any of these things.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 8 2007, 08:05 PM)
CYA?
Stormingly great retort Alpha'c
Btw CYA is Cover Your A$$ ...... uba seriously ought to erect a similar inpenetrable barrier around his keyboard, that way he'd be CHI (Covering His Ignorance).
Stormingly great retort Alpha'c
Btw CYA is Cover Your A$$ ...... uba seriously ought to erect a similar inpenetrable barrier around his keyboard, that way he'd be CHI (Covering His Ignorance).
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 8 2007, 08:05 PM)
Clearly you're so desperate to take a pot shot at me you didn't even stop to think about what I said.
I said "The one moving relativistically sees a shorter lab". Clearly that means that I'm taking as my original inertial frame that of the lab frame, since anyone moving relative to it would see 'a shorter lab'.
Such creative thinking is too much to ask of you.
So, you do see the lab as a preferred reference frame. That's funny, because the questions I asked were intended to examine the lab frame under various conditions. Perhaps such creative thinking is too much to ask of you?
And again: Where specifically am I wrong and how would you model it differently? (Keep in mind that you've already admitted I'm right on two of my three major contentions).
And again: Where specifically am I wrong and how would you model it differently? (Keep in mind that you've already admitted I'm right on two of my three major contentions).
I'd like to see you use actual quantum mechanics or relativity to demonstrate a viable danger from the LHC in terms of black hole production and destruction of the Earth. All you do at the moment is wave your arms and ignore anyone who actually can demonstrate working knowledge in such things.
I make verifiable predictions using the standard laws of physics. So far, none of your predictions have held up to scrutiny whereas mine have. So who of us has a real "working knowledge" here? It certainly isn't you.
I'm attempting to lead the conversation back into relevance. You keep asking irrelevant questions. If I'm Stephen Hawking himself, would that make me somehow more right than if I was Joe Schmo? Who I am is irrelevant.
I'm attempting to lead the conversation back into relevance. You keep asking irrelevant questions. If I'm Stephen Hawking himself, would that make me somehow more right than if I was Joe Schmo? Who I am is irrelevant.
CYA?
More proof that you're a chatbot. Humans typically understand the significane of that acronym.
That's only because of the gravitational gradients. It's a structure of curved spacetime that affects the orbit. In GR gravity is not a force. Are you contending otherwise?
That's only because of the gravitational gradients. It's a structure of curved spacetime that affects the orbit. In GR gravity is not a force. Are you contending otherwise?
You think that displaying your ignorance is 'tearing my references to shreds'? Who are you trying to convince here, me or you?
I mean, wow.
Why is it that the more uncertain you are, the more smilies you use? Yes, I tore your reference to shreds.
Then why are you always responding?
Then why are you always responding?
Let's see. You ask for references usually is the result of you being very ignorant and having made no attempt to find the information yourself. Then, when someone puts it infront of your face, you fail to understand it and so don't accept it. If you bother to read it at all.
So it seems somewhat a waste of time to pander to your lazy unwillingness to use Google because you'll only be blind to it anyway.
Wow. What a dodge. Couldn't prove your contention, could you?
All that matters is if I'm right or not. So far, you've admitted I'm right on two of my three major contentions.
You're the self-professed expert. How do you explain the reasons why you've admitted I'm right? Am I just lucky?
All that matters is if I'm right or not. So far, you've admitted I'm right on two of my three major contentions.
You're the self-professed expert. How do you explain the reasons why you've admitted I'm right? Am I just lucky?
I would say I'm a mathematician first, a physicist second but that is only because the physics I do is extremely mathematical. When it comes to theoretical physics, that's common. As Hilbert said, physics is too important to be left to physicists.
Math without a premise is useless. Being able to think is essential to developing any new mathematical premise.
I said "The one moving relativistically sees a shorter lab". Clearly that means that I'm taking as my original inertial frame that of the lab frame, since anyone moving relative to it would see 'a shorter lab'.
Such creative thinking is too much to ask of you.
So, you do see the lab as a preferred reference frame. That's funny, because the questions I asked were intended to examine the lab frame under various conditions. Perhaps such creative thinking is too much to ask of you?
QUOTE
And again, you fail to understand what I said.
I admitted nothing. My implications went the other way. I asked you to name some books, you haven't. I pointed out that your arguments here require you to have some grasp of those topics, but since you cannot provide any demonstration or evidence you do grasp such topics, what does that say about how valid your claims are likely to be?
Do you need that to be explained a third time?
I admitted nothing. My implications went the other way. I asked you to name some books, you haven't. I pointed out that your arguments here require you to have some grasp of those topics, but since you cannot provide any demonstration or evidence you do grasp such topics, what does that say about how valid your claims are likely to be?
Do you need that to be explained a third time?
And again: Where specifically am I wrong and how would you model it differently? (Keep in mind that you've already admitted I'm right on two of my three major contentions).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And again, you fail to understand what I said. I admitted nothing. My implications went the other way. I asked you to name some books, you haven't. I pointed out that your arguments here require you to have some grasp of those topics, but since you cannot provide any demonstration or evidence you do grasp such topics, what does that say about how valid your claims are likely to be? Do you need that to be explained a third time? |
And again: Where specifically am I wrong and how would you model it differently? (Keep in mind that you've already admitted I'm right on two of my three major contentions).
I'd like to see you use actual quantum mechanics or relativity to demonstrate a viable danger from the LHC in terms of black hole production and destruction of the Earth. All you do at the moment is wave your arms and ignore anyone who actually can demonstrate working knowledge in such things.
I make verifiable predictions using the standard laws of physics. So far, none of your predictions have held up to scrutiny whereas mine have. So who of us has a real "working knowledge" here? It certainly isn't you.
QUOTE
You really are having trouble following the implication of what people say to you, aren't you?
You asked me to point out where you claimed you understood GR and QM. By asking such a thing, are you attempting to imply you don't know either of those?
You asked me to point out where you claimed you understood GR and QM. By asking such a thing, are you attempting to imply you don't know either of those?
I'm attempting to lead the conversation back into relevance. You keep asking irrelevant questions. If I'm Stephen Hawking himself, would that make me somehow more right than if I was Joe Schmo? Who I am is irrelevant.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You really are having trouble following the implication of what people say to you, aren't you? You asked me to point out where you claimed you understood GR and QM. By asking such a thing, are you attempting to imply you don't know either of those? |
I'm attempting to lead the conversation back into relevance. You keep asking irrelevant questions. If I'm Stephen Hawking himself, would that make me somehow more right than if I was Joe Schmo? Who I am is irrelevant.
CYA?
More proof that you're a chatbot. Humans typically understand the significane of that acronym.
QUOTE
I explained why orbits are not uniform motion. You didn't actually retort anything I said. There's a way to measure the difference between moving in an orbit and being in an inertial frame sans gravity.
That's only because of the gravitational gradients. It's a structure of curved spacetime that affects the orbit. In GR gravity is not a force. Are you contending otherwise?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I explained why orbits are not uniform motion. You didn't actually retort anything I said. There's a way to measure the difference between moving in an orbit and being in an inertial frame sans gravity. |
That's only because of the gravitational gradients. It's a structure of curved spacetime that affects the orbit. In GR gravity is not a force. Are you contending otherwise?
You think that displaying your ignorance is 'tearing my references to shreds'? Who are you trying to convince here, me or you?
I mean, wow.
Why is it that the more uncertain you are, the more smilies you use? Yes, I tore your reference to shreds.
QUOTE
Because I didn't read Trippy's post. Quite frankly, I don't bother to spend much time reading this thread because reading your ignorant vomit is akin to having my fingernails removed with plyers. If I want to listen to idiots for long periods of time, I'd turn on a local radio station.
Then why are you always responding?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Because I didn't read Trippy's post. Quite frankly, I don't bother to spend much time reading this thread because reading your ignorant vomit is akin to having my fingernails removed with plyers. If I want to listen to idiots for long periods of time, I'd turn on a local radio station. |
Then why are you always responding?
Let's see. You ask for references usually is the result of you being very ignorant and having made no attempt to find the information yourself. Then, when someone puts it infront of your face, you fail to understand it and so don't accept it. If you bother to read it at all.
So it seems somewhat a waste of time to pander to your lazy unwillingness to use Google because you'll only be blind to it anyway.
Wow. What a dodge. Couldn't prove your contention, could you?
QUOTE
How well did you do at physics and maths in school? I'm just wondering why you aren't a world class physicist right now. Obviously something got in the way. Did you not do very well at the subject when you were being tested on it? Now, when noone makes you sit tests to prove your ability, suddenly you're so much better than anyone who did manage to do well in school and prove their abilities.
The classic "If I tried I know I could do it" attitude of cranks. If I'm pretending to do physics, I'm pretending well enough to have fooled several univeristies. What about you? You pretend to understand a bunch of physics you know nothing about.
Which one of us is pretending the most? The one with a mathematics degree, a masters in mathematics and theoretical physics and is doing a PhD in theoretical physics (specifically supersymmetric gravity theories!) or you. I guess the highest physics acheivement you have to your name is a highschool diploma. Maybe...
Talk is cheap. Every chance you get given to show your knowledge is anything but talk you run for the hills.....
The classic "If I tried I know I could do it" attitude of cranks. If I'm pretending to do physics, I'm pretending well enough to have fooled several univeristies. What about you? You pretend to understand a bunch of physics you know nothing about.
Which one of us is pretending the most? The one with a mathematics degree, a masters in mathematics and theoretical physics and is doing a PhD in theoretical physics (specifically supersymmetric gravity theories!) or you. I guess the highest physics acheivement you have to your name is a highschool diploma. Maybe...
Talk is cheap. Every chance you get given to show your knowledge is anything but talk you run for the hills.....
All that matters is if I'm right or not. So far, you've admitted I'm right on two of my three major contentions.
You're the self-professed expert. How do you explain the reasons why you've admitted I'm right? Am I just lucky?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How well did you do at physics and maths in school? I'm just wondering why you aren't a world class physicist right now. Obviously something got in the way. Did you not do very well at the subject when you were being tested on it? Now, when noone makes you sit tests to prove your ability, suddenly you're so much better than anyone who did manage to do well in school and prove their abilities. The classic "If I tried I know I could do it" attitude of cranks. If I'm pretending to do physics, I'm pretending well enough to have fooled several univeristies. What about you? You pretend to understand a bunch of physics you know nothing about. Which one of us is pretending the most? The one with a mathematics degree, a masters in mathematics and theoretical physics and is doing a PhD in theoretical physics (specifically supersymmetric gravity theories!) or you. I guess the highest physics acheivement you have to your name is a highschool diploma. Maybe... Talk is cheap. Every chance you get given to show your knowledge is anything but talk you run for the hills..... |
All that matters is if I'm right or not. So far, you've admitted I'm right on two of my three major contentions.
You're the self-professed expert. How do you explain the reasons why you've admitted I'm right? Am I just lucky?
I would say I'm a mathematician first, a physicist second but that is only because the physics I do is extremely mathematical. When it comes to theoretical physics, that's common. As Hilbert said, physics is too important to be left to physicists.
Math without a premise is useless. Being able to think is essential to developing any new mathematical premise.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 9 2007, 01:11 AM)
Strawman, and a lie at that.
I have never claimed that the Earth is a preferred reference frame.
Nothing I have ever said implies that the earth is a preferred reference frame.
You have never demonstrated that I have done any of these things.
Everytime you state the collision will slow relative to the earthbound observer and not the other observer co-moving with the inbound particle, you imply a preferred reference frame for the earth.
I have never claimed that the Earth is a preferred reference frame.
Nothing I have ever said implies that the earth is a preferred reference frame.
You have never demonstrated that I have done any of these things.
Everytime you state the collision will slow relative to the earthbound observer and not the other observer co-moving with the inbound particle, you imply a preferred reference frame for the earth.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:57 PM)
Everytime you state the collision will slow relative to the earthbound observer and not the other observer co-moving with the inbound particle, you imply a preferred reference frame for the earth.
Pfft.
No, you're full of it.
Everything I have said is self consitent, and does not rely on a prefered reference frame.
Slowing down in one reference frame is speeding up in another. Man, that even applies to Gallilean relativity, not that I'd expect you to understand that.
Pfft.
No, you're full of it.
Everything I have said is self consitent, and does not rely on a prefered reference frame.
Slowing down in one reference frame is speeding up in another. Man, that even applies to Gallilean relativity, not that I'd expect you to understand that.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 9 2007, 08:23 AM)
Pfft.
No, you're full of it.
Everything I have said is self consitent, and does not rely on a prefered reference frame.
Slowing down in one reference frame is speeding up in another. Man, that even applies to Gallilean relativity, not that I'd expect you to understand that.
Particle A collides with Particle B.
Observer A and the earth are traveling uniformly with Particle A. Observer B is traveling uniformly with Particle B.
The particles collide, but the observers continue onward in their previous uniform motion.
You contend that the collision result will slow to less than the earth's escape velocity for Observer A. Observer B therefore leaves the collision result behind, as it has chosen to stay with A.
What if there is no earth? Which observer will get the collision result? Why is the earth relevant?
No, you're full of it.
Everything I have said is self consitent, and does not rely on a prefered reference frame.
Slowing down in one reference frame is speeding up in another. Man, that even applies to Gallilean relativity, not that I'd expect you to understand that.
Particle A collides with Particle B.
Observer A and the earth are traveling uniformly with Particle A. Observer B is traveling uniformly with Particle B.
The particles collide, but the observers continue onward in their previous uniform motion.
You contend that the collision result will slow to less than the earth's escape velocity for Observer A. Observer B therefore leaves the collision result behind, as it has chosen to stay with A.
What if there is no earth? Which observer will get the collision result? Why is the earth relevant?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 10:25 PM)
Particle A collides with Particle B.
Observer A and the earth are traveling uniformly with Particle A. Observer B is traveling uniformly with Particle B.
The particles collide, but the observers continue onward in their previous uniform motion.
You contend that the collision result will slow to less than the earth's escape velocity for Observer A. Observer B therefore leaves the collision result behind, as it has chosen to stay with A.
What if there is no earth? Which observer will get the collision result? Why is the earth relevant?
I've already explained this to you.
Not sure I can be bothered going over it again.
And the Earth is relevant because in the context of the problem, and the discussion, we're discussing observations from the earths reference frame.
Observer A and the earth are traveling uniformly with Particle A. Observer B is traveling uniformly with Particle B.
The particles collide, but the observers continue onward in their previous uniform motion.
You contend that the collision result will slow to less than the earth's escape velocity for Observer A. Observer B therefore leaves the collision result behind, as it has chosen to stay with A.
What if there is no earth? Which observer will get the collision result? Why is the earth relevant?
I've already explained this to you.
Not sure I can be bothered going over it again.
And the Earth is relevant because in the context of the problem, and the discussion, we're discussing observations from the earths reference frame.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:50 AM)
So, you do see the lab as a preferred reference frame. That's funny, because the questions I asked were intended to examine the lab frame under various conditions. Perhaps such creative thinking is too much to ask of you?
No, I don't consider it 'a prefered reference frame'! My god, how are you not getting this? I have two frames, the lab and another one moving relativistically compared to the lab. The lab sees one thing, the moving frame sees another, as I discussed.
How in the hell are you not understanding that? Either you are trying to be deliberately difficult in order to wind me up or you are staggeringly stupid!
No, I don't consider it 'a prefered reference frame'! My god, how are you not getting this? I have two frames, the lab and another one moving relativistically compared to the lab. The lab sees one thing, the moving frame sees another, as I discussed.
How in the hell are you not understanding that? Either you are trying to be deliberately difficult in order to wind me up or you are staggeringly stupid!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:50 AM)
And again: Where specifically am I wrong and how would you model it differently? (Keep in mind that you've already admitted I'm right on two of my three major contentions).
Which two things were those?
The long term stability of all stellar objects implies that natural black hole production is not a problem.
The LHC's ability to produce black holes is possible only if a large number of parameters are just right. Hence the probability of their production is small.
Even if the conditions are right, the percentage of collisions which will result in a black hole being produced is small and an even small number (much much smaller) will actually be below escape velocity.
Such a black hole will not be a danger to the Earth because it would take trillions of years to absorb enough matter to be noticable. Assuming that you ignore the fact that every theory we have says black holes evaporate.
You are specificably wrong about your claim that the LHC will be a danger for those reasons, most of which you have, at some point, said the opposite of.
The long term stability of all stellar objects implies that natural black hole production is not a problem.
The LHC's ability to produce black holes is possible only if a large number of parameters are just right. Hence the probability of their production is small.
Even if the conditions are right, the percentage of collisions which will result in a black hole being produced is small and an even small number (much much smaller) will actually be below escape velocity.
Such a black hole will not be a danger to the Earth because it would take trillions of years to absorb enough matter to be noticable. Assuming that you ignore the fact that every theory we have says black holes evaporate.
You are specificably wrong about your claim that the LHC will be a danger for those reasons, most of which you have, at some point, said the opposite of.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:50 AM)
I make verifiable predictions using the standard laws of physics. So far, none of your predictions have held up to scrutiny whereas mine have. So who of us has a real "working knowledge" here? It certainly isn't you.
Sorry, which predictions are these? You haven't used any 'standard laws of physics' to predict anything precise! You've just waved your arms.
It's funny how you claim to be using the 'standard laws of physics' yet you have to deliberately ignore everything they say in order to make your claim that black holes from the LHC would be dangerous. Trying to have your cake and eat it.
It's funny how you claim to be using the 'standard laws of physics' yet you have to deliberately ignore everything they say in order to make your claim that black holes from the LHC would be dangerous. Trying to have your cake and eat it.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:50 AM)
More proof that you're a chatbot. Humans typically understand the significane of that acronym.
Surely a chatbot would be programmed with all common acronyms?
So your evidence I'm a chatbot is that I'm not as internet savvy as you on a particular thing? Oh no, I spend my time talking to people who have sufficent spelling and grammar skills to not resort to acronyms all the time! I must be a chatbot!
Do you even listen to what you say?
So your evidence I'm a chatbot is that I'm not as internet savvy as you on a particular thing? Oh no, I spend my time talking to people who have sufficent spelling and grammar skills to not resort to acronyms all the time! I must be a chatbot!
Do you even listen to what you say?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:50 AM)
That's only because of the gravitational gradients. It's a structure of curved spacetime that affects the orbit. In GR gravity is not a force. Are you contending otherwise?
There is force in general relativity. Simplyt saying "It's a gradient" doesn't remove that, all forces are defined as the gradients of potentials, haven't you ever done electromagnetism?
A short discussion on it is here : http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130654
A short discussion on it is here : http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130654
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:50 AM)
Why is it that the more uncertain you are, the more smilies you use? Yes, I tore your reference to shreds.
No, the more I find your posts a complete joke, the more I use smilies. It's to convey that I don't even consider your whining worthy of a straight faced reply. If we were having this discussion face to face, I'd have spent most of this reply laughing in your face.
You didn't tear them to shreds, you just said "Lah, lah, lah, it's wrong, I can't hear you, lah, lah, lah!!". You didn't provide evidence against them, you just denied them, assuming you're know more about gravity than John Baez.
You didn't tear them to shreds, you just said "Lah, lah, lah, it's wrong, I can't hear you, lah, lah, lah!!". You didn't provide evidence against them, you just denied them, assuming you're know more about gravity than John Baez.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:50 AM)
Then why are you always responding?
Because I worry that your ignorance might infect others.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:50 AM)
Wow. What a dodge. Couldn't prove your contention, could you?
The same dodge you keep employing when I ask you what books on the topic you've read and what evidence you can actually provide against the Baez reference I gave.
You first, since I asked many pages ago and you never replied.
You first, since I asked many pages ago and you never replied.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:50 AM)
All that matters is if I'm right or not. So far, you've admitted I'm right on two of my three major contentions.
Which two are those?
Nothing you have said has given any support to "The LHC is a huge danger to Mankind", you have had that explained to you many times, by many people, in many ways, over many threads and many forums. You don't want to hear it because you feel an ego boost by whining and proclaiming you see further than all the physicists in the world on a topic you know nothing about.
Then you have the embarassment of being shown as ignorant by a chatbot
Nothing you have said has given any support to "The LHC is a huge danger to Mankind", you have had that explained to you many times, by many people, in many ways, over many threads and many forums. You don't want to hear it because you feel an ego boost by whining and proclaiming you see further than all the physicists in the world on a topic you know nothing about.
Then you have the embarassment of being shown as ignorant by a chatbot
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:50 AM)
You're the self-professed expert. ?
I didn't claim to be an expert. I am an expert compared to you though.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 9 2007, 08:50 AM)
How do you explain the reasons why you've admitted I'm right? Am I just lucky?
The fact you learnt something from your compulsory science education in school doesn't mean that your comments imply your claim is correct. Saying "The Sun is a fusion reactor!", as taught to school kids, doesn't mean you'd be right if you then claimed "It's going to explode and kill us all!". You seem to think that because you know something about physics, you are right about it all. No, it just means that the education system didn't totally fail you.
You seem to have trouble with logic. You make statements A, B and C, which imply D, yet seem to think that they actually imply E. you then proclaim that because I don't deny A, B and C, I must be accepting E. No, you first have to demonstrate that (A,B,C)=>E. We've constantly shown you that they don't. Your lack of understanding of physics blinds you to this fact though.
You seem to have trouble with logic. You make statements A, B and C, which imply D, yet seem to think that they actually imply E. you then proclaim that because I don't deny A, B and C, I must be accepting E. No, you first have to demonstrate that (A,B,C)=>E. We've constantly shown you that they don't. Your lack of understanding of physics blinds you to this fact though.
QUOTE (Trippy+Dec 9 2007, 09:47 AM)
I've already explained this to you.
No, you haven't. You've flubbed it every time.
Thanks. Spare me the torture of reading your misconceptions.
Thanks. Spare me the torture of reading your misconceptions.
And the Earth is relevant because in the context of the problem, and the discussion, we're discussing observations from the earths reference frame.
Let's discuss it from the other reference frame. Why wouldn't it slow to less than the earth's escape velocity relative to Observer B?
No, you haven't. You've flubbed it every time.
QUOTE
Not sure I can be bothered going over it again.
Thanks. Spare me the torture of reading your misconceptions.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Not sure I can be bothered going over it again. |
Thanks. Spare me the torture of reading your misconceptions.
And the Earth is relevant because in the context of the problem, and the discussion, we're discussing observations from the earths reference frame.
Let's discuss it from the other reference frame. Why wouldn't it slow to less than the earth's escape velocity relative to Observer B?
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Dec 9 2007, 10:28 AM)
No, I don't consider it 'a prefered reference frame'! My god, how are you not getting this? I have two frames, the lab and another one moving relativistically compared to the lab. The lab sees one thing, the moving frame sees another, as I discussed.
I presented a lot more frames than those two. What about them?
It's you. You failed to differentiate between the questions I posed. Chatbots are like that.
It's you. You failed to differentiate between the questions I posed. Chatbots are like that.
Which two things were those?
Forgetful, aren't we?
How so? How might they be captured by ordinary, relatively slow moving mass?
How so? How might they be captured by ordinary, relatively slow moving mass?
The LHC's ability to produce black holes is possible only if a large number of parameters are just right. Hence the probability of their production is small.
I never said otherwise.
I never said otherwise. However I did contend that some would be captured. You denied that contention.
I never said otherwise. However I did contend that some would be captured. You denied that contention.
Such a black hole will not be a danger to the Earth because it would take trillions of years to absorb enough matter to be noticable. Assuming that you ignore the fact that every theory we have says black holes evaporate.
Based on discrete particles and a linear absorption model. Could it be modeled any other way?
When? I've steadfastly asserted my arguments.
When? I've steadfastly asserted my arguments.
Sorry, which predictions are these? You haven't used any 'standard laws of physics' to predict anything precise! You've just waved your arms.
Oh, like how your neutron star reference was falsified. Like how the LHC would cause earth capture of some nano black holes (should they occur). Like how the earth couldn't capture cosmic ray induced nano black holes. Like how in GR, gravity isn't a force.
What laws have I ignored? Where? In what way?
What laws have I ignored? Where? In what way?
Surely a chatbot would be programmed with all common acronyms?
You'd think, but not necessarily.
"CYA" predates the internet era.
"CYA" predates the internet era.
Do you even listen to what you say?
You should.
Did you even read that debate? The "mentor" struggles to define it as a force and admits it's 'ambiguous' and 'dependent' on certain conditions.
Unlike magnetism, it's not a force as described by QFT.
Did you even read that debate? The "mentor" struggles to define it as a force and admits it's 'ambiguous' and 'dependent' on certain conditions.
Unlike magnetism, it's not a force as described by QFT.
No, the more I find your posts a complete joke, the more I use smilies. It's to convey that I don't even consider your whining worthy of a straight faced reply. If we were having this discussion face to face, I'd have spent most of this reply laughing in your face.
Then why do you only use them when you can't give a straight answer to a specific question?
I never claimed that. I merely pointed out some inconsistencies in the reference you provided. Are you saying the inconsistencies I pointed out aren't there? How would you explain them?
I never claimed that. I merely pointed out some inconsistencies in the reference you provided. Are you saying the inconsistencies I pointed out aren't there? How would you explain them?
Because I worry that your ignorance might infect others.
Then why, in several circumstances, have you admitted I'm right?
The evidence is that gravity in General Relativity is not properly defined as a force.
The evidence is that gravity in General Relativity is not properly defined as a force.
You first, since I asked many pages ago and you never replied.
I'll use the same reference you used: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130654
See above.
See above.
Nothing you have said has given any support to "The LHC is a huge danger to Mankind", you have had that explained to you many times, by many people, in many ways, over many threads and many forums. You don't want to hear it because you feel an ego boost by whining and proclaiming you see further than all the physicists in the world on a topic you know nothing about.
"Many forums?" Which "many forums?"
Ego has nothing to do with it. I'm only trying to address the facts. It's you that keeps trying to make it into a debate on personality. Why do you keep including these irrelevant accusations?
Not.
Not.
I didn't claim to be an expert. I am an expert compared to you though.
Again, why have you had to concede some of my points then, over your own contentions?
Again, thanks for acknowledging that I at least know something of physics. However, how does this answer the question I posed?
I presented a lot more frames than those two. What about them?
QUOTE
How in the hell are you not understanding that? Either you are trying to be deliberately difficult in order to wind me up or you are staggeringly stupid!
It's you. You failed to differentiate between the questions I posed. Chatbots are like that.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| How in the hell are you not understanding that? Either you are trying to be deliberately difficult in order to wind me up or you are staggeringly stupid! |
It's you. You failed to differentiate between the questions I posed. Chatbots are like that.
Which two things were those?
Forgetful, aren't we?
QUOTE
The long term stability of all stellar objects implies that natural black hole production is not a problem.
How so? How might they be captured by ordinary, relatively slow moving mass?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The long term stability of all stellar objects implies that natural black hole production is not a problem. |
How so? How might they be captured by ordinary, relatively slow moving mass?
The LHC's ability to produce black holes is possible only if a large number of parameters are just right. Hence the probability of their production is small.
I never said otherwise.
QUOTE
Even if the conditions are right, the percentage of collisions which will result in a black hole being produced is small and an even small number (much much smaller) will actually be below escape velocity.
I never said otherwise. However I did contend that some would be captured. You denied that contention.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Even if the conditions are right, the percentage of collisions which will result in a black hole being produced is small and an even small number (much much smaller) will actually be below escape velocity. |
I never said otherwise. However I did contend that some would be captured. You denied that contention.
Such a black hole will not be a danger to the Earth because it would take trillions of years to absorb enough matter to be noticable. Assuming that you ignore the fact that every theory we have says black holes evaporate.
Based on discrete particles and a linear absorption model. Could it be modeled any other way?
QUOTE
You are specificably wrong about your claim that the LHC will be a danger for those reasons, most of which you have, at some point, said the opposite of.
When? I've steadfastly asserted my arguments.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You are specificably wrong about your claim that the LHC will be a danger for those reasons, most of which you have, at some point, said the opposite of. |
When? I've steadfastly asserted my arguments.
Sorry, which predictions are these? You haven't used any 'standard laws of physics' to predict anything precise! You've just waved your arms.
Oh, like how your neutron star reference was falsified. Like how the LHC would cause earth capture of some nano black holes (should they occur). Like how the earth couldn't capture cosmic ray induced nano black holes. Like how in GR, gravity isn't a force.
QUOTE
It's funny how you claim to be using the 'standard laws of physics' yet you have to deliberately ignore everything they say in order to make your claim that black holes from the LHC would be dangerous. Trying to have your cake and eat it.
What laws have I ignored? Where? In what way?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It's funny how you claim to be using the 'standard laws of physics' yet you have to deliberately ignore everything they say in order to make your claim that black holes from the LHC would be dangerous. Trying to have your cake and eat it. |
What laws have I ignored? Where? In what way?
Surely a chatbot would be programmed with all common acronyms?
You'd think, but not necessarily.
QUOTE
So your evidence I'm a chatbot is that I'm not as internet savvy as you on a particular thing? Oh no, I spend my time talking to people who have sufficent spelling and grammar skills to not resort to acronyms all the time! I must be a chatbot!
"CYA" predates the internet era.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So your evidence I'm a chatbot is that I'm not as internet savvy as you on a particular thing? Oh no, I spend my time talking to people who have sufficent spelling and grammar skills to not resort to acronyms all the time! I must be a chatbot! |
"CYA" predates the internet era.
Do you even listen to what you say?
You should.
QUOTE
There is force in general relativity. Simplyt saying "It's a gradient" doesn't remove that, all forces are defined as the gradients of potentials, haven't you ever done electromagnetism?
A short discussion on it is here : http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130654
A short discussion on it is here : http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130654
Did you even read that debate? The "mentor" struggles to define it as a force and admits it's 'ambiguous' and 'dependent' on certain conditions.
Unlike magnetism, it's not a force as described by QFT.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There is force in general relativity. Simplyt saying "It's a gradient" doesn't remove that, all forces are defined as the gradients of potentials, haven't you ever done electromagnetism? A short discussion on it is here : http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130654 |
Did you even read that debate? The "mentor" struggles to define it as a force and admits it's 'ambiguous' and 'dependent' on certain conditions.
Unlike magnetism, it's not a force as described by QFT.
No, the more I find your posts a complete joke, the more I use smilies. It's to convey that I don't even consider your whining worthy of a straight faced reply. If we were having this discussion face to face, I'd have spent most of this reply laughing in your face.
Then why do you only use them when you can't give a straight answer to a specific question?
QUOTE
You didn't tear them to shreds, you just said "Lah, lah, lah, it's wrong, I can't hear you, lah, lah, lah!!". You didn't provide evidence against them, you just denied them, assuming you're know more about gravity than John Baez.
I never claimed that. I merely pointed out some inconsistencies in the reference you provided. Are you saying the inconsistencies I pointed out aren't there? How would you explain them?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You didn't tear them to shreds, you just said "Lah, lah, lah, it's wrong, I can't hear you, lah, lah, lah!!". You didn't provide evidence against them, you just denied them, assuming you're know more about gravity than John Baez. |
I never claimed that. I merely pointed out some inconsistencies in the reference you provided. Are you saying the inconsistencies I pointed out aren't there? How would you explain them?
Because I worry that your ignorance might infect others.
Then why, in several circumstances, have you admitted I'm right?
QUOTE
The same dodge you keep employing when I ask you what books on the topic you've read and what evidence you can actually provide against the Baez reference I gave.
The evidence is that gravity in General Relativity is not properly defined as a force.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The same dodge you keep employing when I ask you what books on the topic you've read and what evidence you can actually provide against the Baez reference I gave. |
The evidence is that gravity in General Relativity is not properly defined as a force.
You first, since I asked many pages ago and you never replied.
I'll use the same reference you used: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=130654
- Given a particular worldline (of zero volume), one can define a force that an observer following that worldline would measure with an acceleromater.
That is not sufficient to be ble to unambiguously define gravity as a "force" in general. For slowly moving objects there is an interpretation available of gravity as a force. This runs into difficulties with as simple a situation as defining the force on a rapidly (i.e. relativistically) moving object, however. While one can compute the 4-accleration for any particular wordline, interpreting gravity as a force requires that one pick out particular moving worldlines as being "straight lines of constant velocity". This turns out to be ambiguous and dependent on the coordinates used. The worldlines that follow geodesics experience no force at all, so they don't define the notion of "straight" that is wanted here.
QUOTE
Which two are those?
See above.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Which two are those? |
See above.
Nothing you have said has given any support to "The LHC is a huge danger to Mankind", you have had that explained to you many times, by many people, in many ways, over many threads and many forums. You don't want to hear it because you feel an ego boost by whining and proclaiming you see further than all the physicists in the world on a topic you know nothing about.
"Many forums?" Which "many forums?"
Ego has nothing to do with it. I'm only trying to address the facts. It's you that keeps trying to make it into a debate on personality. Why do you keep including these irrelevant accusations?
QUOTE
Then you have the embarassment of being shown as ignorant by a chatbot
Not.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Then you have the embarassment of being shown as ignorant by a chatbot |
Not.
I didn't claim to be an expert. I am an expert compared to you though.
Again, why have you had to concede some of my points then, over your own contentions?
QUOTE
The fact you learnt something from your compulsory science education in school doesn't mean that your comments imply your claim is correct. Saying "The Sun is a fusion reactor!", as taught to school kids, doesn't mean you'd be right if you then claimed "It's going to explode and kill us all!". You seem to think that because you know something about physics, you are right about it all. No, it just means that the education system didn't totally fail you.
Again, thanks for acknowledging that I at least know something of physics. However, how does this answer the question I posed?
QUOTE (->