QUOTE
Uba,
The velocities in your questions are too low. This leads you to conclude that the sum of the mass of the products is equal to the sum of the mass of the initial objects. The unchanging mass and the complete inelasticity of the collision means you can't use conservation of energy, or at least not the simple one that that uses kinetic energy only.
Trippy is able to keep track of all the energy because he's using conservation of energy in a fully relativistic sense, i.e. keeping track of kinetic energy and the energy in the rest mass of the objects.
The fact that the mass isn't invariant in the relativistic collisions seems to be one of your mental stumbling blocks.
The velocities in your questions are too low. This leads you to conclude that the sum of the mass of the products is equal to the sum of the mass of the initial objects. The unchanging mass and the complete inelasticity of the collision means you can't use conservation of energy, or at least not the simple one that that uses kinetic energy only.
Trippy is able to keep track of all the energy because he's using conservation of energy in a fully relativistic sense, i.e. keeping track of kinetic energy and the energy in the rest mass of the objects.
The fact that the mass isn't invariant in the relativistic collisions seems to be one of your mental stumbling blocks.
Total energy and therefore relativistic mass are still conserved though, even if rest mass need not be. As a result, in an isolated system we should still expect momentum to be conserved, even under relativistic conditions (i.e. the velocity of the COM frame of an isolated system should remain constant to an intertial observer before and after the collision).
Trippy has argued that if rest mass changes, that the COM frame of the system would change relative to an inertial observer), despite no change in the energy/relativistic mass of the system.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Uba, The velocities in your questions are too low. This leads you to conclude that the sum of the mass of the products is equal to the sum of the mass of the initial objects. The unchanging mass and the complete inelasticity of the collision means you can't use conservation of energy, or at least not the simple one that that uses kinetic energy only. Trippy is able to keep track of all the energy because he's using conservation of energy in a fully relativistic sense, i.e. keeping track of kinetic energy and the energy in the rest mass of the objects. The fact that the mass isn't invariant in the relativistic collisions seems to be one of your mental stumbling blocks. |
Total energy and therefore relativistic mass are still conserved though, even if rest mass need not be. As a result, in an isolated system we should still expect momentum to be conserved, even under relativistic conditions (i.e. the velocity of the COM frame of an isolated system should remain constant to an intertial observer before and after the collision).
Trippy has argued that if rest mass changes, that the COM frame of the system would change relative to an inertial observer), despite no change in the energy/relativistic mass of the system.
QUOTE (ThePeanut @ Feb 21 2008, 11:45 AM)
QUOTE
And I have explained to you that your result violates the conservation of momentum. The velocity of the COM in your result is clearly different (relative to any inertial observer), post collision to it was pre-collision despite the lack of an external force acting on your system.
Only if you ignore the CHANGE IN MASS of the system.
Or are you closing your eyes and ignoring how I stated that I did the calculations?
QUOTE (ThePeanut+Feb 22 2008, 02:22 AM)
A quick calculation suggests that a proton of 1150TeV is traveling at more like (1 - (4*10^-12 m/s)) * c
rather than (1 - (4*10^-6 m/s)) * c
Which means his Lorentz factor is out by a factor of about 1,000.
So his estimated momentum of the cosmic ray is too low by around three orders of magnitude and should be around 5.61x10^-13 kgm/s
We would therefore (according to Trippy's own calculations) expect the actual speed of the MBH to be around 1,000 faster than his v=274,402 m/s according to Newtonian conservation (which gives v=274,402,000 m/s).
Of course at these speeds we can no longer ignore the Lorentz factor associated with the MBH (since, despite Trippy's protestations, the MBH is indeed moving at relativistic speeds in earths reference frame) - so relativistic conservation of momentum is more appropriate, (at these speeds the Lorentz factor is still quite small though so the result isn't wildly different from the Newtonian result).
Not quite the same as your original 239 m/s result huh Trippy?
Mass of proton m = 938.27 MeV/c²
E = 1150 TeV = 1.150 x10⁹ MeV = γ m c² = γ 938.27 MeV
γ = 1.15 x10⁹ MeV / 938.27 MeV = 1.2257 x10⁶
= (1-u²/c²)^-½
1 - u²/c² = 6.6567 x10⁻¹³
u²/c² = 1 - 6.6567 x10⁻¹³
u = .999999999999667 c
Yes, Trippy has made an error. Still doesn't explain why Uba is trying to get us to consider low-energy collisions when the math isn't the same.
rather than (1 - (4*10^-6 m/s)) * c
Which means his Lorentz factor is out by a factor of about 1,000.
So his estimated momentum of the cosmic ray is too low by around three orders of magnitude and should be around 5.61x10^-13 kgm/s
We would therefore (according to Trippy's own calculations) expect the actual speed of the MBH to be around 1,000 faster than his v=274,402 m/s according to Newtonian conservation (which gives v=274,402,000 m/s).
Of course at these speeds we can no longer ignore the Lorentz factor associated with the MBH (since, despite Trippy's protestations, the MBH is indeed moving at relativistic speeds in earths reference frame) - so relativistic conservation of momentum is more appropriate, (at these speeds the Lorentz factor is still quite small though so the result isn't wildly different from the Newtonian result).
Not quite the same as your original 239 m/s result huh Trippy?
Mass of proton m = 938.27 MeV/c²
E = 1150 TeV = 1.150 x10⁹ MeV = γ m c² = γ 938.27 MeV
γ = 1.15 x10⁹ MeV / 938.27 MeV = 1.2257 x10⁶
= (1-u²/c²)^-½
1 - u²/c² = 6.6567 x10⁻¹³
u²/c² = 1 - 6.6567 x10⁻¹³
u = .999999999999667 c
Yes, Trippy has made an error. Still doesn't explain why Uba is trying to get us to consider low-energy collisions when the math isn't the same.
QUOTE
And if we set up a spreadsheet, we can determine that between an energy of 699 PeV, and 699.5 PeV, the residual velocity of the resultant blackhole drops from 11,001 m/s to 10,997 m/s (the escape velocity of the earth is 11,000 m/s).
To put that in perspective, particles with energies as high as 300,000 PeV have been observed, and particles with energies on the order of 700 PeV occur on average twice per km^2/yr
To put that in perspective, particles with energies as high as 300,000 PeV have been observed, and particles with energies on the order of 700 PeV occur on average twice per km^2/yr
This is truly bizarre, do you actually think that the faster the cosmic ray is traveling (relative to earth and the stationary atom), the slower the resulting MBH will be (relative to earth)?
Whatever.
Apparently I did make an error in my working as I stated I thought I might have when I attempted the calculations in the first place.
(still not sure where, and I'm not likely to be able to find it for myself (not through a lack of knowledge either).
The point is that my initial contention has been born out - the alleged black hole must be travelling slower then the Cosmic ray proton (and that in some cases, the velocity might be below the escape velocity of the earth).
I'm just glad that someone finally got around to actually doing some maths rather then jaw flapping.
Apparently I did make an error in my working as I stated I thought I might have when I attempted the calculations in the first place.
(still not sure where, and I'm not likely to be able to find it for myself (not through a lack of knowledge either).
The point is that my initial contention has been born out - the alleged black hole must be travelling slower then the Cosmic ray proton (and that in some cases, the velocity might be below the escape velocity of the earth).
I'm just glad that someone finally got around to actually doing some maths rather then jaw flapping.
Assume proton is in positive x territory moving in -x direction towards the second proton at rest at x = 0:
E_ is the total energy of the two proton system:
E_ = 1150 TeV + 938.27 MeV = 1150.00093827 TeV
p = γ m u = E/c² * u
From this point on I shall avoid the use of bold, although it is implied for u, p (since we are dealing with 1 dimension, the direction is simply designated by the sign). u1 is the velocity of the moving proton, u2 of the still one.
p_ is the total momentum
p_ = E1/c² u1 + E2/c² u2
= 1150 TeV/c2 * -.999999999999667164 c + 938.27 MeV/c² * 0
= -1149.99999999961724 TeV/c
This time m, u, and γ are the mass, velocity and gamma of the black hole respectively:
p_/E_ = γmu / γmc² = u/c²
= -1149.999999999661724 TeV/c / 1150.00093827 TeV
= -.99999918411/c
u = -.99999918411c (still quite fast, definitely relativistic)
γ = (1-.99999918411²)^-½
= 782.835
m = E_/γc² = 1150.00093827 TeV/782.835c²
= 1.46902 TeV/c² (1566 protons!)
Now the center of mass will have to be dealt with relativistically too. We'll use the relativistic mass M = E/c². Xcm is the position of the center of mass, Ucm is the velocity of the center of mass, M₁ and X₁ are the mass and position of the moving proton, U₁ it's velocity (I simply called it u in my previous post), and M₂ is the mass of the proton at rest:
Xcm = (X₁M₁+ X₂M₂)/(M₁+ M₂)
=(1150 TeV/c² * X₁ + 938.27 MeV/c² * 0) /(1150 TeV/c² + 938.27 MeV/c²)
= 1150 TeV/c² * X₁ / 1150.00093827 TeV/c²
= .99999918411 * X₁
Ucm = dXcm/dt
= .99999918411 dX₁/dt
= .99999918411 * U₁
= .99999918411 * -.999999999999667 c
= -.99999918411 c
And thus I have shown that the velocity of the center of mass before the collision is the same as the velocity of the black hole (and therefore the center of mass) afterwards. Conservation of the center of mass, if you will, as long as you use a relativistic center of mass.
E_ is the total energy of the two proton system:
E_ = 1150 TeV + 938.27 MeV = 1150.00093827 TeV
p = γ m u = E/c² * u
From this point on I shall avoid the use of bold, although it is implied for u, p (since we are dealing with 1 dimension, the direction is simply designated by the sign). u1 is the velocity of the moving proton, u2 of the still one.
p_ is the total momentum
p_ = E1/c² u1 + E2/c² u2
= 1150 TeV/c2 * -.999999999999667164 c + 938.27 MeV/c² * 0
= -1149.99999999961724 TeV/c
This time m, u, and γ are the mass, velocity and gamma of the black hole respectively:
p_/E_ = γmu / γmc² = u/c²
= -1149.999999999661724 TeV/c / 1150.00093827 TeV
= -.99999918411/c
u = -.99999918411c (still quite fast, definitely relativistic)
γ = (1-.99999918411²)^-½
= 782.835
m = E_/γc² = 1150.00093827 TeV/782.835c²
= 1.46902 TeV/c² (1566 protons!)
Now the center of mass will have to be dealt with relativistically too. We'll use the relativistic mass M = E/c². Xcm is the position of the center of mass, Ucm is the velocity of the center of mass, M₁ and X₁ are the mass and position of the moving proton, U₁ it's velocity (I simply called it u in my previous post), and M₂ is the mass of the proton at rest:
Xcm = (X₁M₁+ X₂M₂)/(M₁+ M₂)
=(1150 TeV/c² * X₁ + 938.27 MeV/c² * 0) /(1150 TeV/c² + 938.27 MeV/c²)
= 1150 TeV/c² * X₁ / 1150.00093827 TeV/c²
= .99999918411 * X₁
Ucm = dXcm/dt
= .99999918411 dX₁/dt
= .99999918411 * U₁
= .99999918411 * -.999999999999667 c
= -.99999918411 c
And thus I have shown that the velocity of the center of mass before the collision is the same as the velocity of the black hole (and therefore the center of mass) afterwards. Conservation of the center of mass, if you will, as long as you use a relativistic center of mass.
QUOTE
And thus I have shown that the velocity of the center of mass before the collision is the same as the velocity of the black hole (and therefore the center of mass) afterwards. Conservation of the center of mass, if you will, as long as you use a relativistic center of mass.
Thanks barakn, as we would expect, the velocity of the COM of the system has remained constant in our frame (and indeed would in any other intertial frame).
QUOTE
The point is that my initial contention has been born out...
Just a few posts ago your point was: "but my point remains the same. The black holes don't go shooting off at relativistic speeds (like some posters seem to think they do)".
This has been shown to not be the case - the MBH velocity in your example is indeed rather relativistic in earths frame.
Aren't you just changing your point in an attempt to save face?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The point is that my initial contention has been born out... |
Just a few posts ago your point was: "but my point remains the same. The black holes don't go shooting off at relativistic speeds (like some posters seem to think they do)".
This has been shown to not be the case - the MBH velocity in your example is indeed rather relativistic in earths frame.
Aren't you just changing your point in an attempt to save face?
...the alleged black hole must be travelling slower then the Cosmic ray proton....
Gee really? Thats kind of obvious isn't it? Why would you need to make this particular point? Your initial calculation was directed at ubavontuba I believe. I don't recall him saying the MBH would have the same velocity as the cosmic ray proton. Do you have a quote saying otherwise?
QUOTE
.......(and that in some cases, the velocity might be below the escape velocity of the earth).
Like when the cosmic rays have really really really high energies right? Those cosmic rays produce slower moving MBH's (relative to earth) than lower energy cosmic rays according to you.
QUOTE (ThePeanut+Feb 22 2008, 09:11 PM)
Just a few posts ago your point was: "but my point remains the same. The black holes don't go shooting off at relativistic speeds (like some posters seem to think they do)".
This has been shown to not be the case - the MBH velocity in your example is indeed rather relativistic in earths frame.
Aren't you just changing your point in an attempt to save face?
Gee really? Thats kind of obvious isn't it? Why would you need to make this particular point? Your initial calculation was directed at ubavontuba I believe. I don't recall him saying the MBH would have the same velocity as the cosmic ray proton. Do you have a quote saying otherwise?
Like when the cosmic rays have really really really high energies right? Those cosmic rays produce slower moving MBH's (relative to earth) than lower energy cosmic rays according to you.
Get over yourself you arrogant jackass.
Anyone with half a brain can see that that conclusion was based on a faulty derivation. As was the comment you refer back to.
And no, I'm not just changing my claim to save face. You've been through this thread, or my post history, you can see for yourself that I have used that exact same phrase repeatedly.
QUOTE (barakn+Feb 22 2008, 08:34 PM)
Assume proton is in positive x territory moving in -x direction towards the second proton at rest at x = 0:
E_ is the total energy of the two proton system:
E_ = 1150 TeV + 938.27 MeV = 1150.00093827 TeV
p = γ m u = E/c² * u
From this point on I shall avoid the use of bold, although it is implied for u, p (since we are dealing with 1 dimension, the direction is simply designated by the sign). u1 is the velocity of the moving proton, u2 of the still one.
p_ is the total momentum
p_ = E1/c² u1 + E2/c² u2
= 1150 TeV/c2 * -.999999999999667164 c + 938.27 MeV/c² * 0
= -1149.99999999961724 TeV/c
This time m, u, and γ are the mass, velocity and gamma of the black hole respectively:
p_/E_ = γmu / γmc² = u/c²
= -1149.999999999661724 TeV/c / 1150.00093827 TeV
= -.99999918411/c
u = -.99999918411c (still quite fast, definitely relativistic)
γ = (1-.99999918411²)^-½
= 782.835
m = E_/γc² = 1150.00093827 TeV/782.835c²
= 1.46902 TeV/c² (1566 protons!)
Now the center of mass will have to be dealt with relativistically too. We'll use the relativistic mass M = E/c². Xcm is the position of the center of mass, Ucm is the velocity of the center of mass, M₁ and X₁ are the mass and position of the moving proton, U₁ it's velocity (I simply called it u in my previous post), and M₂ is the mass of the proton at rest:
Xcm = (X₁M₁+ X₂M₂)/(M₁+ M₂)
=(1150 TeV/c² * X₁ + 938.27 MeV/c² * 0) /(1150 TeV/c² + 938.27 MeV/c²)
= 1150 TeV/c² * X₁ / 1150.00093827 TeV/c²
= .99999918411 * X₁
Ucm = dXcm/dt
= .99999918411 dX₁/dt
= .99999918411 * U₁
= .99999918411 * -.999999999999667 c
= -.99999918411 c
And thus I have shown that the velocity of the center of mass before the collision is the same as the velocity of the black hole (and therefore the center of mass) afterwards. Conservation of the center of mass, if you will, as long as you use a relativistic center of mass.
This is the same derivation I used (or at least tried to).
But, apparently, I took a wrong step somewhere (check your inbox).
E_ is the total energy of the two proton system:
E_ = 1150 TeV + 938.27 MeV = 1150.00093827 TeV
p = γ m u = E/c² * u
From this point on I shall avoid the use of bold, although it is implied for u, p (since we are dealing with 1 dimension, the direction is simply designated by the sign). u1 is the velocity of the moving proton, u2 of the still one.
p_ is the total momentum
p_ = E1/c² u1 + E2/c² u2
= 1150 TeV/c2 * -.999999999999667164 c + 938.27 MeV/c² * 0
= -1149.99999999961724 TeV/c
This time m, u, and γ are the mass, velocity and gamma of the black hole respectively:
p_/E_ = γmu / γmc² = u/c²
= -1149.999999999661724 TeV/c / 1150.00093827 TeV
= -.99999918411/c
u = -.99999918411c (still quite fast, definitely relativistic)
γ = (1-.99999918411²)^-½
= 782.835
m = E_/γc² = 1150.00093827 TeV/782.835c²
= 1.46902 TeV/c² (1566 protons!)
Now the center of mass will have to be dealt with relativistically too. We'll use the relativistic mass M = E/c². Xcm is the position of the center of mass, Ucm is the velocity of the center of mass, M₁ and X₁ are the mass and position of the moving proton, U₁ it's velocity (I simply called it u in my previous post), and M₂ is the mass of the proton at rest:
Xcm = (X₁M₁+ X₂M₂)/(M₁+ M₂)
=(1150 TeV/c² * X₁ + 938.27 MeV/c² * 0) /(1150 TeV/c² + 938.27 MeV/c²)
= 1150 TeV/c² * X₁ / 1150.00093827 TeV/c²
= .99999918411 * X₁
Ucm = dXcm/dt
= .99999918411 dX₁/dt
= .99999918411 * U₁
= .99999918411 * -.999999999999667 c
= -.99999918411 c
And thus I have shown that the velocity of the center of mass before the collision is the same as the velocity of the black hole (and therefore the center of mass) afterwards. Conservation of the center of mass, if you will, as long as you use a relativistic center of mass.
This is the same derivation I used (or at least tried to).
But, apparently, I took a wrong step somewhere (check your inbox).
QUOTE (ThePeanut+Feb 22 2008, 09:11 PM)
Gee really? Thats kind of obvious isn't it? Why would you need to make this particular point? Your initial calculation was directed at ubavontuba I believe. I don't recall him saying the MBH would have the same velocity as the cosmic ray proton. Do you have a quote saying otherwise?
I've lost count of how many times he's claimed "Fat and lazy doesn't work"
I could go on, but I can't be bothered.
I've also lost count of how many times he's claimed that the Center of Mass doesn't have a reference frame.
I've lost count of how many times he's claimed "Fat and lazy doesn't work"
I could go on, but I can't be bothered.
I've also lost count of how many times he's claimed that the Center of Mass doesn't have a reference frame.
QUOTE
Get over yourself you arrogant jackass.
Says the pot to the kettle.
You've been rude to me from the outset, simply because I disagreed with you, that smacks of arrogance. My tone in response to your posts is simply a consequence of your rudeness. I bet you wouldn't be calling me an arrogant jackass if I had agreed with you and made rude, smart-alec comments to ubavnotuba (something you do all the time).
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Get over yourself you arrogant jackass. |
Says the pot to the kettle.
You've been rude to me from the outset, simply because I disagreed with you, that smacks of arrogance. My tone in response to your posts is simply a consequence of your rudeness. I bet you wouldn't be calling me an arrogant jackass if I had agreed with you and made rude, smart-alec comments to ubavnotuba (something you do all the time).
Anyone with half a brain can see that that conclusion was based on a faulty derivation. As was the comment you refer back to.
A competent physicist would've seen that increasing cosmic ray energies leading to slower and slower MBH velocities (relative to earth) is a nonsense result, and attempted to find the error in their calculation. You posted it in this forum, apparently oblivious to how silly it was. You obviously thought it WAS a possibility when you posted it or you wouldn't have.
That point is probably lost on you though.
QUOTE
And no, I'm not just changing my claim to save face. You've been through this thread, or my post history, you can see for yourself that I have used that exact same phrase repeatedly.
You said just a couple of days ago - "but my point remains the same. The black holes don't go shooting off at relativistic speeds (like some posters seem to think they do)".
QUOTE (ThePeanut+Feb 22 2008, 10:46 PM)
You've been rude to me from the outset, simply because I disagreed with you, that smacks of arrogance. My tone in response to your posts is simply a consequence of your rudeness. I bet you wouldn't be calling me an arrogant jackass if I had agreed with you and made rude, smart-alec comments to ubavnotuba (something you do all the time).
Irrelevant.
Actually, if you bothered to look into the facts before openeing your mouth, you'd realize something.
Ubavontubas first post to me was abusive - I stated that I believed someone else to be correct, he took the wrong end of the stick, got his nose out of joint and started abusing me. My attitude towards Ubavontuba is a direct reflection of his own actions.
Irrelevant.
Actually, if you bothered to look into the facts before openeing your mouth, you'd realize something.
Ubavontubas first post to me was abusive - I stated that I believed someone else to be correct, he took the wrong end of the stick, got his nose out of joint and started abusing me. My attitude towards Ubavontuba is a direct reflection of his own actions.
QUOTE (ThePeanut+Feb 22 2008, 10:46 PM)
A competent physicist would've seen that increasing cosmic ray energies leading to slower and slower MBH velocities (relative to earth) is a nonsense result, and attempted to find the error in their calculation. You posted it in this forum, apparently oblivious to how silly it was. You obviously thought it WAS a possibility when you posted it or you wouldn't have.
That point is probably lost on you though.
Did you bother looking over the post that I linked to? No? Didn't think so, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous that statement was. Yes, I missed what some may consider an obvious error when I sat down and created a spreedsheet, however when I looked at the way the residual velocity was behaving, while it seemed odd, it didn't seem (neccessarily) completely unusual - i'd explain further, but 1) it's not worth my time, and 2) it's not really relevant.
And if I was 'completely oblivious' to 'how silly it was' why do you think i've commented multiple freaking times that I suspected there might have been an error in it?
That point is probably lost on you though.
Did you bother looking over the post that I linked to? No? Didn't think so, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous that statement was. Yes, I missed what some may consider an obvious error when I sat down and created a spreedsheet, however when I looked at the way the residual velocity was behaving, while it seemed odd, it didn't seem (neccessarily) completely unusual - i'd explain further, but 1) it's not worth my time, and 2) it's not really relevant.
And if I was 'completely oblivious' to 'how silly it was' why do you think i've commented multiple freaking times that I suspected there might have been an error in it?
QUOTE (ThePeanut+Feb 22 2008, 10:46 PM)
You said just a couple of days ago - "but my point remains the same. The black holes don't go shooting off at relativistic speeds (like some posters seem to think they do)".
You're like a dog with a freaking bone. I have also stated, multiple times, many more times in fact, that "in some cases, the velocity might be below the escape velocity of the earth".
You know, if you're going to hold me to my most recent statements, hold me to all of them, and stop being such a hypocrite. Don't just do it when it suites you. An erroneous derivation does not invalidate my approach.
I may have been a little clumsy in handling the equations (something that even you have to aknowledge is not always the case), however, I was correct in principle.
My approach (and assertions) were correct, however the value I derived was inaccurate because of a clumsy derivation - I'm even willing to admit that the approach I used was not neccessarily the best approach (I had a pm'd conversation with someone else about my approach a long time ago).
I have asked/challenged, multiple times for people who disagree with me to do the calculations to prove it. Did you ever stop to consider, that maybe the tone I have used in some of my posts is a direct reflection of the fact that you haven't done this, and chosen to respond with the same sort of Jaw flapping as Ubavontuba? That in behaving in the same way as him, in spite of numerous requests/demands, that you lump yourself into a group of posters (including Ubavontuba) who like to sit around and prognosticate over physics they barely understand (See Ubavontubas claim that strapping rocket packs onto asteroids and throwing/dropping them at each other from gavitational infinity as proof of this). Did it occur to you in your self-righteous rampage that if you had simply done what Barakn has done and said "Well actually, the calculations show this, this, and this" that much of what has transpired could have been avoided?
No? Didn't think so.
My points are probably lost on you. For someone who has claimed the moral highground, you're doing a really poor job of keeping it.
Edit: As far as I'm concerned, the only person on this thread that gets bragging rights about proving me wrong is Barakn, because he's the only person that actually stepped up to the plate without jaw flapping.
You're like a dog with a freaking bone. I have also stated, multiple times, many more times in fact, that "in some cases, the velocity might be below the escape velocity of the earth".
You know, if you're going to hold me to my most recent statements, hold me to all of them, and stop being such a hypocrite. Don't just do it when it suites you. An erroneous derivation does not invalidate my approach.
I may have been a little clumsy in handling the equations (something that even you have to aknowledge is not always the case), however, I was correct in principle.
My approach (and assertions) were correct, however the value I derived was inaccurate because of a clumsy derivation - I'm even willing to admit that the approach I used was not neccessarily the best approach (I had a pm'd conversation with someone else about my approach a long time ago).
I have asked/challenged, multiple times for people who disagree with me to do the calculations to prove it. Did you ever stop to consider, that maybe the tone I have used in some of my posts is a direct reflection of the fact that you haven't done this, and chosen to respond with the same sort of Jaw flapping as Ubavontuba? That in behaving in the same way as him, in spite of numerous requests/demands, that you lump yourself into a group of posters (including Ubavontuba) who like to sit around and prognosticate over physics they barely understand (See Ubavontubas claim that strapping rocket packs onto asteroids and throwing/dropping them at each other from gavitational infinity as proof of this). Did it occur to you in your self-righteous rampage that if you had simply done what Barakn has done and said "Well actually, the calculations show this, this, and this" that much of what has transpired could have been avoided?
No? Didn't think so.
My points are probably lost on you. For someone who has claimed the moral highground, you're doing a really poor job of keeping it.
Edit: As far as I'm concerned, the only person on this thread that gets bragging rights about proving me wrong is Barakn, because he's the only person that actually stepped up to the plate without jaw flapping.
I think the most ridiculous thing about some of the things being suggested on this thread, is the way some posters are carrying on, you'd think I had claimed to be a great physicist or something.
I haven't, and never have.
In fact, anybody with the inclination to read my signature (or go through my post history) can see that the opposite is true.
I've stated repeatedly that I am a chemist, not a physicist. A Chemist with a slightly more advanced understanding of physics then most people (having studied it at university for two years).
I've never claimed to have an indepth knowledge of physics. Sure, I can do it, as I have proved, more then once on this forum (a fact that I'm sure Barakn, Alphanumeric, Rpenner, and even Ubavontuba have to admit), but nowhere have I claimed to get it all right all the time.
Almost equally ridiculous is the fact that.
1) These calculations ignore angular momentum.
2) These calculations ignore the fact that it's a collision between quarks (as Rpenner pointed out) and you can't neccessarily say anything about the momentum of the black hole after the collision based on the momentum of the proton before hand.
3) The fact that I might have erred in a derivation doesn't change the fact that if these things are persistent and as easily formed as Ubavintuba would have us believe, then there should be a veritable sea of micro blackholes with their velocities in a thermal distribution, meaning that the earth should have encountered one with a velocity less then the earths escape velocity (by now) and, well, we're still here.
I haven't, and never have.
In fact, anybody with the inclination to read my signature (or go through my post history) can see that the opposite is true.
I've stated repeatedly that I am a chemist, not a physicist. A Chemist with a slightly more advanced understanding of physics then most people (having studied it at university for two years).
I've never claimed to have an indepth knowledge of physics. Sure, I can do it, as I have proved, more then once on this forum (a fact that I'm sure Barakn, Alphanumeric, Rpenner, and even Ubavontuba have to admit), but nowhere have I claimed to get it all right all the time.
Almost equally ridiculous is the fact that.
1) These calculations ignore angular momentum.
2) These calculations ignore the fact that it's a collision between quarks (as Rpenner pointed out) and you can't neccessarily say anything about the momentum of the black hole after the collision based on the momentum of the proton before hand.
3) The fact that I might have erred in a derivation doesn't change the fact that if these things are persistent and as easily formed as Ubavintuba would have us believe, then there should be a veritable sea of micro blackholes with their velocities in a thermal distribution, meaning that the earth should have encountered one with a velocity less then the earths escape velocity (by now) and, well, we're still here.
I believe that LHC will produce mini black holes that will not evaporate. Several reasons. First the idea that mini black holes will evaporate is cavalier wishful thinking. Would we accept such assurances from a biotech lab? Suppose the lab reported revolutionary benefits of conducting an experiment where they insert small pox genes into an influenza host--with the solemn assurance that any and all samples will immediately be destroyed. Would we just let them waltz on ahead? I think not.
The other reason I believe that the mini black holes will be stable is because I am advancing a revolutionary new model, the Dominium, that suggests that mini black holes will stay stable as voracious matter compacting beasts. Debate has been hot and heavy on my Scientific American blog. Just go to SciAm.com, then to community, and then serch for my name "Hasanuddin." I invite anyone to come on over and join the “fun.” You wouldn’t believe some of the harsh words that my detractors have against me. The funniest thing is that the people with the harshest words adamantly declare that they have never read the model. Go figure? Of those who have read the model, they have nothing but positive things to say…though they all hope that I am wrong about the stable mini black-holes, or, if I am right, that LHC can be stopped in time.
If you do chose to join in the discussion, please read the model first. You can download the half-version of the model, links to do that are contained within the threads of my SciAm blog or you can purchase the full book (the paperback is more complete) at online bookstores
The other reason I believe that the mini black holes will be stable is because I am advancing a revolutionary new model, the Dominium, that suggests that mini black holes will stay stable as voracious matter compacting beasts. Debate has been hot and heavy on my Scientific American blog. Just go to SciAm.com, then to community, and then serch for my name "Hasanuddin." I invite anyone to come on over and join the “fun.” You wouldn’t believe some of the harsh words that my detractors have against me. The funniest thing is that the people with the harshest words adamantly declare that they have never read the model. Go figure? Of those who have read the model, they have nothing but positive things to say…though they all hope that I am wrong about the stable mini black-holes, or, if I am right, that LHC can be stopped in time.
If you do chose to join in the discussion, please read the model first. You can download the half-version of the model, links to do that are contained within the threads of my SciAm blog or you can purchase the full book (the paperback is more complete) at online bookstores
In retrospect.
Given that the ideas I used were correct (conservation of linear momentum before and after the collision)
Given that the equations I used were correct and applied correctly.
Given that the constants I used were correct.
It would seem that I did something like drop a bracket, or mis type a number when feeding them into my calculator.
Given that the ideas I used were correct (conservation of linear momentum before and after the collision)
Given that the equations I used were correct and applied correctly.
Given that the constants I used were correct.
It would seem that I did something like drop a bracket, or mis type a number when feeding them into my calculator.
.
Hi guys!
Just dropped in briefly to see what's up....and to point to some aspects I pointed to many times before, but that seem to be easily forgotten in the heat of 'clashes', hehehe.
In such collisions, the kinetic energy is MUCH reduced and dissipated in many ways:
- in overcoming the electromagnetic/coulomb forces even before the masses/partons actually toouh/merge/rebound etc etc;
- in temporarily reducing/cancelling altogether the PRE-EXISTING ANGULAR MOMENTUM of some mass/partons constituents/products as they exit the messy 'event';
- in temporarily increasing (many times?) the PRE-EXISTING ANGULAR MOMENTUM of other constituents/products;
- the ELECTRIC CHARGES of the products/constiruents involved will react with the electromagnetic field lines of the Earth....so 'slowing' some and 'speeding up' others;
- during the collision-phase proper, the ONLY 'mass/energy' DENSITY of any 'unusual value' is that part of the MOST COMPRESSED mass/energy that would FLEETINGLY occur in the EXTREMELY TRANSIENT and only TWO-DIMENSINAL 'film' of REMNANT mass/energy which ITSELF is (before, during, after collision 'event') IMMEDIATELY/ALWAYS vulnerable to all sorts of:-
. CLASSICAL (coulomb/electromagnetic etc) TURBULENCE and;
. QUANTUM PERTURBATIONS...
...... that TOGETHER AND THROUGHOUT act to prevent any LONG TERM 'stable/coherent' properties OTHER THAN for CLASSICAL (NON-'black' density) FEATURES/PARTICLES formed in the collision.
That LAST aspect of MASS/ENERGY DENSITY is, in my opinion, the MOST MISSED aspect in the arguments/stances from BOTH SIDES in these debates.
I say this because it seems that all and sundry appear to 'tacitly accept' without demure the idea that it is the ENERGY DENSITY that determines/defines the 'status' of a GRAVITATIONAL[/b] BLACK HOLE 'feature'.
Nothing could be further from the truth....and it bothers me that BOTH SIDES are 'blithely' accepting the VERY IDEA that:
- 'MICRO-MASSED 'black holes' can EXIST AT ALL; let alone that
- such PUTATIVE ONLY MICRO-MASSED 'black holes' can also FORM AT ALL in STRONG-GRAVITY 'unconstrained' free micro-particle collisions involving ONLY MINISCULE TOTAL CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY STRENGTHS generated by the constituents/products before/during/after (the Earth's gravity not being involved in the 'event/products' collision/formation 'event' per se...except as a 'background' and NOT 'collision participant' factor!
Let's consider HOW a 'black hole' CAN BE made 'mass/energy' EXTREMELY DENSER than 'classical densities' IN THE FIRST PLACE; and also WHAT it is that KEEPS such 'extreme density' AT ALL:!
The clue is: a TOTAL MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY and the ASSOCIATED production/presence of a TOTAL MINIMUM MASS/ENERGY ABSOLUTE QUANTITY.
Yes! It is that TOTAL MINIMUM ABSOLUTE which determines whether the body ALREADY creates the 'self-gravity' OVERBURDEN PRESSURES that IS NECESSARY TO COMPRESS the core material into extreme densities and keep them there!
DENSITY is therefore ONLY an [u]incidental factor in gravitational feature' 'blackness/ stability' properties/behaviour.
The PRIMARY factor is TOTAL NECESSARY MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE MASS/GRAVITY per se!
Anything that is NOT of that MINIMUM mass/energy TOTAL QUANTITY per se IRRESPECTIVE of 'density', will NOT form/maintain sufficient GRAVITATIONAL CONTAINM,ENT/PRESSURE against all the CLASSICAL coulomb/electromagnetic forces trying to BLOW UP' the MINISCULE MASS/ENERGY TOTAL....simply because these OTHER FORCES are MANY MAGNITUDES STRONGER than the puny miniscule total gravity strength of micro mass/energy features.
This is why FREE NEUTRONS quickly 'decay' into proton-electron and etc etc etc...simply because their TOTAL CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY STRENGTH is incapable AT ALL of keeping it 'together' against the much greater foprces involved at that scale of mass/energy....irrespective of'density'.
Consider further:
Every NEUTRON STAR (extreme BOTH in mass/energy DENSITY and QUANTITY!) is hit with countless ultra-high energy particles. THAT energy density is ALREADY EXTREME, and any 'putative' 'black film' formed in a collision with its IRON 'shell' and inner neutronic contents SHOULD (ONLY IF others 'speculations/fears' are TRUE) ALSO produce a 'micro-black-hole' in an ALREADY EXTREMELY DENSE 'ENVIRONMENT'....which would produce a LARGER BLACK HOLE if the energy density argument was all there was to it! But there they are, neutron stars STILL.
Simply because, even IF any part of that neutron star was 'transiently' of even greater 'density' in a miniscule PART (where cosmic-ray proton collision occurs), the neutron star STILL HAS NOT the necessary MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE TOTAL energy/mass QUANTITY/GRAVITY to make it 'collapse'.
And so, if NO neutron star with pre-existing EXTREME DENSITIES but STILL SUB-CRITICAL MINIUM MASS/GRAVITY can form a black feature from being hit with a relativistic high-energy particle, the what hope in heck will a MICRO particle with MINUSCULE mass/energy TOTAL CUMULATIVE GRAVITY have of froming, let alone sustaining a 'black hole' feature whose density (of whatever MINUSCULE/PUNY mass it does have) could NEVER KEEP IT AT those densities simply by its PUNY 'cumulative absolute total' GRAVITY....which after all, is only as strong as the 'rest mass' of the proton irrsepective of its puny gravity well's gradients 'profile'.
Anyhow, that's all I wanted to remind everyone on BOTH 'sides' about.....becuase the arguments seem to be 'skirting' the actual relevant factors (in my opinion from the outset).
Cheers and please forgive the typos as I AM in a real hurry today! Have fun and be polite...both these things needn't cost anyrthing if one goes about it the right and courteous way! hehehe.
RC.
.
Hi guys!
Just dropped in briefly to see what's up....and to point to some aspects I pointed to many times before, but that seem to be easily forgotten in the heat of 'clashes', hehehe.
In such collisions, the kinetic energy is MUCH reduced and dissipated in many ways:
- in overcoming the electromagnetic/coulomb forces even before the masses/partons actually toouh/merge/rebound etc etc;
- in temporarily reducing/cancelling altogether the PRE-EXISTING ANGULAR MOMENTUM of some mass/partons constituents/products as they exit the messy 'event';
- in temporarily increasing (many times?) the PRE-EXISTING ANGULAR MOMENTUM of other constituents/products;
- the ELECTRIC CHARGES of the products/constiruents involved will react with the electromagnetic field lines of the Earth....so 'slowing' some and 'speeding up' others;
- during the collision-phase proper, the ONLY 'mass/energy' DENSITY of any 'unusual value' is that part of the MOST COMPRESSED mass/energy that would FLEETINGLY occur in the EXTREMELY TRANSIENT and only TWO-DIMENSINAL 'film' of REMNANT mass/energy which ITSELF is (before, during, after collision 'event') IMMEDIATELY/ALWAYS vulnerable to all sorts of:-
. CLASSICAL (coulomb/electromagnetic etc) TURBULENCE and;
. QUANTUM PERTURBATIONS...
...... that TOGETHER AND THROUGHOUT act to prevent any LONG TERM 'stable/coherent' properties OTHER THAN for CLASSICAL (NON-'black' density) FEATURES/PARTICLES formed in the collision.
That LAST aspect of MASS/ENERGY DENSITY is, in my opinion, the MOST MISSED aspect in the arguments/stances from BOTH SIDES in these debates.
I say this because it seems that all and sundry appear to 'tacitly accept' without demure the idea that it is the ENERGY DENSITY that determines/defines the 'status' of a GRAVITATIONAL[/b] BLACK HOLE 'feature'.
Nothing could be further from the truth....and it bothers me that BOTH SIDES are 'blithely' accepting the VERY IDEA that:
- 'MICRO-MASSED 'black holes' can EXIST AT ALL; let alone that
- such PUTATIVE ONLY MICRO-MASSED 'black holes' can also FORM AT ALL in STRONG-GRAVITY 'unconstrained' free micro-particle collisions involving ONLY MINISCULE TOTAL CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY STRENGTHS generated by the constituents/products before/during/after (the Earth's gravity not being involved in the 'event/products' collision/formation 'event' per se...except as a 'background' and NOT 'collision participant' factor!
Let's consider HOW a 'black hole' CAN BE made 'mass/energy' EXTREMELY DENSER than 'classical densities' IN THE FIRST PLACE; and also WHAT it is that KEEPS such 'extreme density' AT ALL:!
The clue is: a TOTAL MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY and the ASSOCIATED production/presence of a TOTAL MINIMUM MASS/ENERGY ABSOLUTE QUANTITY.
Yes! It is that TOTAL MINIMUM ABSOLUTE which determines whether the body ALREADY creates the 'self-gravity' OVERBURDEN PRESSURES that IS NECESSARY TO COMPRESS the core material into extreme densities and keep them there!
DENSITY is therefore ONLY an [u]incidental factor in gravitational feature' 'blackness/ stability' properties/behaviour.
The PRIMARY factor is TOTAL NECESSARY MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE MASS/GRAVITY per se!
Anything that is NOT of that MINIMUM mass/energy TOTAL QUANTITY per se IRRESPECTIVE of 'density', will NOT form/maintain sufficient GRAVITATIONAL CONTAINM,ENT/PRESSURE against all the CLASSICAL coulomb/electromagnetic forces trying to BLOW UP' the MINISCULE MASS/ENERGY TOTAL....simply because these OTHER FORCES are MANY MAGNITUDES STRONGER than the puny miniscule total gravity strength of micro mass/energy features.
This is why FREE NEUTRONS quickly 'decay' into proton-electron and etc etc etc...simply because their TOTAL CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY STRENGTH is incapable AT ALL of keeping it 'together' against the much greater foprces involved at that scale of mass/energy....irrespective of'density'.
Consider further:
Every NEUTRON STAR (extreme BOTH in mass/energy DENSITY and QUANTITY!) is hit with countless ultra-high energy particles. THAT energy density is ALREADY EXTREME, and any 'putative' 'black film' formed in a collision with its IRON 'shell' and inner neutronic contents SHOULD (ONLY IF others 'speculations/fears' are TRUE) ALSO produce a 'micro-black-hole' in an ALREADY EXTREMELY DENSE 'ENVIRONMENT'....which would produce a LARGER BLACK HOLE if the energy density argument was all there was to it! But there they are, neutron stars STILL.
Simply because, even IF any part of that neutron star was 'transiently' of even greater 'density' in a miniscule PART (where cosmic-ray proton collision occurs), the neutron star STILL HAS NOT the necessary MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE TOTAL energy/mass QUANTITY/GRAVITY to make it 'collapse'.
And so, if NO neutron star with pre-existing EXTREME DENSITIES but STILL SUB-CRITICAL MINIUM MASS/GRAVITY can form a black feature from being hit with a relativistic high-energy particle, the what hope in heck will a MICRO particle with MINUSCULE mass/energy TOTAL CUMULATIVE GRAVITY have of froming, let alone sustaining a 'black hole' feature whose density (of whatever MINUSCULE/PUNY mass it does have) could NEVER KEEP IT AT those densities simply by its PUNY 'cumulative absolute total' GRAVITY....which after all, is only as strong as the 'rest mass' of the proton irrsepective of its puny gravity well's gradients 'profile'.
Anyhow, that's all I wanted to remind everyone on BOTH 'sides' about.....becuase the arguments seem to be 'skirting' the actual relevant factors (in my opinion from the outset).
Cheers and please forgive the typos as I AM in a real hurry today! Have fun and be polite...both these things needn't cost anyrthing if one goes about it the right and courteous way! hehehe.
RC.
.
QUOTE (barakn+Feb 22 2008, 04:19 AM)
Yes, Trippy has made an error. Still doesn't explain why Uba is trying to get us to consider low-energy collisions when the math isn't the same.
I'm not trying to get you to consider low-energy collisions, only Trippy. He needs to go back to the basics.
I'm not trying to get you to consider low-energy collisions, only Trippy. He needs to go back to the basics.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 22 2008, 08:42 AM)
I've lost count of how many times he's claimed "Fat and lazy doesn't work"
That's not what I said. I've used some of those words, but not in the context you're implying.
You mean you can't find any references, after an exhaustive search.
You mean you can't find any references, after an exhaustive search.
I've also lost count of how many times he's claimed that the Center of Mass doesn't have a reference frame.
I never said that either. I just said it wasn't magically tied to the earth's rest frame (as you kept insisting it was).
That's not what I said. I've used some of those words, but not in the context you're implying.
QUOTE
I could go on, but I can't be bothered.
You mean you can't find any references, after an exhaustive search.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I could go on, but I can't be bothered. |
You mean you can't find any references, after an exhaustive search.
I've also lost count of how many times he's claimed that the Center of Mass doesn't have a reference frame.
I never said that either. I just said it wasn't magically tied to the earth's rest frame (as you kept insisting it was).
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 23 2008, 06:52 PM)
That's not what I said. I've used some of those words, but not in the context you're implying.
You mean you can't find any references, after an exhaustive search.
I never said that either. I just said it wasn't magically tied to the earth's rest frame (as you kept insisting it was).
More Bull.
On all three counts.
You mean you can't find any references, after an exhaustive search.
I never said that either. I just said it wasn't magically tied to the earth's rest frame (as you kept insisting it was).
More Bull.
On all three counts.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 22 2008, 10:43 AM)
Irrelevant.
Actually, if you bothered to look into the facts before openeing your mouth, you'd realize something.
Ubavontubas first post to me was abusive - I stated that I believed someone else to be correct, he took the wrong end of the stick, got his nose out of joint and started abusing me. My attitude towards Ubavontuba is a direct reflection of his own actions.
That's not entirely true. You appeared to be rude to me, so I was rude in return. You protested, so I apologized. You've then continued to be consistently rude to me. So, it seems my first impression was correct.
Meaning you've no reasonable explanation.
Meaning you've no reasonable explanation.
And if I was 'completely oblivious' to 'how silly it was' why do you think i've commented multiple freaking times that I suspected there might have been an error in it?
...while consistently deriding me for not believing you.
It would never be below earth's escape velocity.
It would never be below earth's escape velocity.
You know, if you're going to hold me to my most recent statements, hold me to all of them, and stop being such a hypocrite. Don't just do it when it suites you. An erroneous derivation does not invalidate my approach.
I've pointed this out at least twice before: You tend to argue more than one side, trying to be right no matter what.
No, you weren't.
No, you weren't.
My approach (and assertions) were correct, however the value I derived was inaccurate because of a clumsy derivation - I'm even willing to admit that the approach I used was not neccessarily the best approach (I had a pm'd conversation with someone else about my approach a long time ago).
Looks like rpenner steered you over a cliff...
All along, I've stated you need to go back to basics.
All along, I've stated you need to go back to basics.
That in behaving in the same way as him, in spite of numerous requests/demands, that you lump yourself into a group of posters (including Ubavontuba) who like to sit around and prognosticate over physics they barely understand (See Ubavontubas claim that strapping rocket packs onto asteroids and throwing/dropping them at each other from gavitational infinity as proof of this).
You never even began to understand the point I was trying to make (just like you obviously don't understand collisions).
Did it ever occur to you that you might actually be wrong and that I might actually be right?
Did it ever occur to you that you might actually be wrong and that I might actually be right?
No? Didn't think so.
My points are probably lost on you. For someone who has claimed the moral highground, you're doing a really poor job of keeping it.
Ha!
So, you're saying ubavontuba's been right all along!
Actually, if you bothered to look into the facts before openeing your mouth, you'd realize something.
Ubavontubas first post to me was abusive - I stated that I believed someone else to be correct, he took the wrong end of the stick, got his nose out of joint and started abusing me. My attitude towards Ubavontuba is a direct reflection of his own actions.
That's not entirely true. You appeared to be rude to me, so I was rude in return. You protested, so I apologized. You've then continued to be consistently rude to me. So, it seems my first impression was correct.
QUOTE
Did you bother looking over the post that I linked to? No? Didn't think so, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous that statement was. Yes, I missed what some may consider an obvious error when I sat down and created a spreedsheet, however when I looked at the way the residual velocity was behaving, while it seemed odd, it didn't seem (neccessarily) completely unusual - i'd explain further, but 1) it's not worth my time, and 2) it's not really relevant.
Meaning you've no reasonable explanation.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Did you bother looking over the post that I linked to? No? Didn't think so, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous that statement was. Yes, I missed what some may consider an obvious error when I sat down and created a spreedsheet, however when I looked at the way the residual velocity was behaving, while it seemed odd, it didn't seem (neccessarily) completely unusual - i'd explain further, but 1) it's not worth my time, and 2) it's not really relevant. |
Meaning you've no reasonable explanation.
And if I was 'completely oblivious' to 'how silly it was' why do you think i've commented multiple freaking times that I suspected there might have been an error in it?
...while consistently deriding me for not believing you.
QUOTE
You're like a dog with a freaking bone. I have also stated, multiple times, many more times in fact, that "in some cases, the velocity might be below the escape velocity of the earth".
It would never be below earth's escape velocity.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're like a dog with a freaking bone. I have also stated, multiple times, many more times in fact, that "in some cases, the velocity might be below the escape velocity of the earth". |
It would never be below earth's escape velocity.
You know, if you're going to hold me to my most recent statements, hold me to all of them, and stop being such a hypocrite. Don't just do it when it suites you. An erroneous derivation does not invalidate my approach.
I've pointed this out at least twice before: You tend to argue more than one side, trying to be right no matter what.
QUOTE
I may have been a little clumsy in handling the equations (something that even you have to aknowledge is not always the case), however, I was correct in principle.
No, you weren't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I may have been a little clumsy in handling the equations (something that even you have to aknowledge is not always the case), however, I was correct in principle. |
No, you weren't.
My approach (and assertions) were correct, however the value I derived was inaccurate because of a clumsy derivation - I'm even willing to admit that the approach I used was not neccessarily the best approach (I had a pm'd conversation with someone else about my approach a long time ago).
Looks like rpenner steered you over a cliff...
QUOTE
I have asked/challenged, multiple times for people who disagree with me to do the calculations to prove it. Did you ever stop to consider, that maybe the tone I have used in some of my posts is a direct reflection of the fact that you haven't done this, and chosen to respond with the same sort of Jaw flapping as Ubavontuba?
All along, I've stated you need to go back to basics.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have asked/challenged, multiple times for people who disagree with me to do the calculations to prove it. Did you ever stop to consider, that maybe the tone I have used in some of my posts is a direct reflection of the fact that you haven't done this, and chosen to respond with the same sort of Jaw flapping as Ubavontuba? |
All along, I've stated you need to go back to basics.
That in behaving in the same way as him, in spite of numerous requests/demands, that you lump yourself into a group of posters (including Ubavontuba) who like to sit around and prognosticate over physics they barely understand (See Ubavontubas claim that strapping rocket packs onto asteroids and throwing/dropping them at each other from gavitational infinity as proof of this).
You never even began to understand the point I was trying to make (just like you obviously don't understand collisions).
QUOTE
Did it occur to you in your self-righteous rampage that if you had simply done what Barakn has done and said "Well actually, the calculations show this, this, and this" that much of what has transpired could have been avoided?
Did it ever occur to you that you might actually be wrong and that I might actually be right?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Did it occur to you in your self-righteous rampage that if you had simply done what Barakn has done and said "Well actually, the calculations show this, this, and this" that much of what has transpired could have been avoided? |
Did it ever occur to you that you might actually be wrong and that I might actually be right?
No? Didn't think so.
My points are probably lost on you. For someone who has claimed the moral highground, you're doing a really poor job of keeping it.
Ha!
QUOTE
Edit: As far as I'm concerned, the only person on this thread that gets bragging rights about proving me wrong is Barakn, because he's the only person that actually stepped up to the plate without jaw flapping.
So, you're saying ubavontuba's been right all along!
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 22 2008, 11:37 AM)
<SNIP>
3) The fact that I might have erred in a derivation doesn't change the fact that if these things are persistent and as easily formed as Ubavintuba would have us believe, then there should be a veritable sea of micro blackholes with their velocities in a thermal distribution,
And I've pointed out that just such a "veritable sea" exists, in the form of dark matter.
No. The conservation of momentum (both linear and angular) prevents this.
3) The fact that I might have erred in a derivation doesn't change the fact that if these things are persistent and as easily formed as Ubavintuba would have us believe, then there should be a veritable sea of micro blackholes with their velocities in a thermal distribution,
And I've pointed out that just such a "veritable sea" exists, in the form of dark matter.
QUOTE
meaning that the earth should have encountered one with a velocity less then the earths escape velocity (by now) and, well, we're still here.
No. The conservation of momentum (both linear and angular) prevents this.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 22 2008, 10:31 PM)
In retrospect.
Given that the ideas I used were correct (conservation of linear momentum before and after the collision)
But your answers DIDN'T conserve momentum!
Your equations were wrong! They were applied improperly!
Your equations were wrong! They were applied improperly!
Given that the constants I used were correct.
It would seem that I did something like drop a bracket, or mis type a number when feeding them into my calculator.
You know what they say about excuses...
This certainly doesn't excuse you for misunderstanding the basic principles. Had you understood the basic principles, you'd have realized you were in error from the beginning!
:
You're so funny.
And full of hot air.
My approach was based on the conservation of momentum.
Correct in principle.
I made an un-noticed error while feeding the data into the calculator.
Reasonable explanation.
The conversation wasn't with RPenner, and I never said it was. I don't know why you'd make this idiotic assumption.
No, I understood the point you were making. YOu argued that because you started with zero energy, and ended with zero energy, but the asteroids had energy in the middle, then the conservation of energy was violated - a point which was proved wrong, and you STILL argued the point - claiming that if I fed numbers into the equation, I'd find I was wrong.
WHen I called you out on that your response was "But you're missing the point entirely"
NO, because you're not correct. You don't understand linear momentum, you don't understand the conservation of momentum, you don't understand the conservation of energy, you've never presented a coherent argument or derivation to make your case, all you've ever done is flap your arms, and jump up and down screaming "I don't like it, it must be wrong."
No, I'm not, I'm saying you fluked it, but I was correct, and my approach was correct. You've argued that many different things it's impossible to say that you're right or wrong on any particular topic. You're worse then you claim I am.
Bullocks. It's been explained to you that the idea of a boltzman gas of micro-blackholes has been ruled out as the explanation for darkmatter, just like it's been explained to you what a thermal distribution actually means, which means that your contention that the conservation of momentum would prevent it from happening is pure bull.
Given that the ideas I used were correct (conservation of linear momentum before and after the collision)
But your answers DIDN'T conserve momentum!
QUOTE
Given that the equations I used were correct and applied correctly.
Your equations were wrong! They were applied improperly!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Given that the equations I used were correct and applied correctly. |
Your equations were wrong! They were applied improperly!
Given that the constants I used were correct.
It would seem that I did something like drop a bracket, or mis type a number when feeding them into my calculator.
You know what they say about excuses...
This certainly doesn't excuse you for misunderstanding the basic principles. Had you understood the basic principles, you'd have realized you were in error from the beginning!
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 23 2008, 06:01 AM)
More Bull.
On all three counts.
Fine then. Prove it.
On all three counts.
Fine then. Prove it.
:You're so funny.
And full of hot air.
My approach was based on the conservation of momentum.
Correct in principle.
I made an un-noticed error while feeding the data into the calculator.
Reasonable explanation.
The conversation wasn't with RPenner, and I never said it was. I don't know why you'd make this idiotic assumption.
No, I understood the point you were making. YOu argued that because you started with zero energy, and ended with zero energy, but the asteroids had energy in the middle, then the conservation of energy was violated - a point which was proved wrong, and you STILL argued the point - claiming that if I fed numbers into the equation, I'd find I was wrong.
WHen I called you out on that your response was "But you're missing the point entirely"
NO, because you're not correct. You don't understand linear momentum, you don't understand the conservation of momentum, you don't understand the conservation of energy, you've never presented a coherent argument or derivation to make your case, all you've ever done is flap your arms, and jump up and down screaming "I don't like it, it must be wrong."
No, I'm not, I'm saying you fluked it, but I was correct, and my approach was correct. You've argued that many different things it's impossible to say that you're right or wrong on any particular topic. You're worse then you claim I am.
Bullocks. It's been explained to you that the idea of a boltzman gas of micro-blackholes has been ruled out as the explanation for darkmatter, just like it's been explained to you what a thermal distribution actually means, which means that your contention that the conservation of momentum would prevent it from happening is pure bull.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 23 2008, 12:08 AM)
Anyhow, that's all I wanted to remind everyone on BOTH 'sides' about.....becuase the arguments seem to be 'skirting' the actual relevant factors (in my opinion from the outset).
Actually, the fact that you backed Trippy's assertions needs to be addressed first. Do you now see how they were wrong?
If you were wrong on basic principles there, do you think it's possible you might be wrong in other aspects as well?
If not, then there's nothing to discuss.
Actually, the fact that you backed Trippy's assertions needs to be addressed first. Do you now see how they were wrong?
If you were wrong on basic principles there, do you think it's possible you might be wrong in other aspects as well?
If not, then there's nothing to discuss.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 23 2008, 06:32 AM)
You're so funny.
Thanks!
98.6 degrees farenheit!
98.6 degrees farenheit!
My approach was based on the conservation of momentum.
On a misunderstood concept of it.
Wrong in principle.
Wrong in principle.
I made an un-noticed error while feeding the data into the calculator.
Which should have been readily apparent. It certainly was to me.
You mean, rationalization.
You mean, rationalization.
The conversation wasn't with RPenner, and I never said it was. I don't know why you'd make this idiotic assumption.
Because you thanked him many times for his support. Whomever it was with, owes you an apology.
See? Not even close. You STILL don't get it!
See? Not even close. You STILL don't get it!
WHen I called you out on that your response was "But you're missing the point entirely"
Because you were trying to apply math that was irrelevant to the setup.
Then why am I the one shown to be right, whereas you're the one that's been shown to be wrong?
Then why am I the one shown to be right, whereas you're the one that's been shown to be wrong?
No, I'm not, I'm saying you fluked it, but I was correct, and my approach was correct. You've argued that many different things it's impossible to say that you're right or wrong on any particular topic. You're worse then you claim I am.
I've been nothing but steadfast and consistent. ThePeanut understands this. Why is it so hard for you?
I never said it was a boltzmann gas. I agreed with your contention that it'd be a "veritable sea." Darkmatter halos fit this description quite well.
The individual particles can't defy the laws of physics.
:
You're so funny.
And full of hot air.
Hot air? ..... make that streaming-turds.
Thanks!
QUOTE
And full of hot air.
98.6 degrees farenheit!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And full of hot air. |
98.6 degrees farenheit!
My approach was based on the conservation of momentum.
On a misunderstood concept of it.
QUOTE
Correct in principle.
Wrong in principle.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Correct in principle. |
Wrong in principle.
I made an un-noticed error while feeding the data into the calculator.
Which should have been readily apparent. It certainly was to me.
QUOTE
Reasonable explanation.
You mean, rationalization.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Reasonable explanation. |
You mean, rationalization.
The conversation wasn't with RPenner, and I never said it was. I don't know why you'd make this idiotic assumption.
Because you thanked him many times for his support. Whomever it was with, owes you an apology.
QUOTE
No, I understood the point you were making. YOu argued that because you started with zero energy, and ended with zero energy, but the asteroids had energy in the middle, then the conservation of energy was violated - a point which was proved wrong, and you STILL argued the point - claiming that if I fed numbers into the equation, I'd find I was wrong.
See? Not even close. You STILL don't get it!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, I understood the point you were making. YOu argued that because you started with zero energy, and ended with zero energy, but the asteroids had energy in the middle, then the conservation of energy was violated - a point which was proved wrong, and you STILL argued the point - claiming that if I fed numbers into the equation, I'd find I was wrong. |
See? Not even close. You STILL don't get it!
WHen I called you out on that your response was "But you're missing the point entirely"
Because you were trying to apply math that was irrelevant to the setup.
QUOTE
NO, because you're not correct. You don't understand linear momentum, you don't understand the conservation of momentum, you don't understand the conservation of energy, you've never presented a coherent argument or derivation to make your case, all you've ever done is flap your arms, and jump up and down screaming "I don't like it, it must be wrong."
Then why am I the one shown to be right, whereas you're the one that's been shown to be wrong?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| NO, because you're not correct. You don't understand linear momentum, you don't understand the conservation of momentum, you don't understand the conservation of energy, you've never presented a coherent argument or derivation to make your case, all you've ever done is flap your arms, and jump up and down screaming "I don't like it, it must be wrong." |
Then why am I the one shown to be right, whereas you're the one that's been shown to be wrong?
No, I'm not, I'm saying you fluked it, but I was correct, and my approach was correct. You've argued that many different things it's impossible to say that you're right or wrong on any particular topic. You're worse then you claim I am.
I've been nothing but steadfast and consistent. ThePeanut understands this. Why is it so hard for you?
QUOTE
Bullocks. It's been explained to you that the idea of a boltzman gas of micro-blackholes has been ruled out as the explanation for darkmatter, just like it's been explained to you what a thermal distribution actually means, which means that your contention that the conservation of momentum would prevent it from happening is pure bull.
I never said it was a boltzmann gas. I agreed with your contention that it'd be a "veritable sea." Darkmatter halos fit this description quite well.
The individual particles can't defy the laws of physics.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 23 2008, 08:11 PM)
Thanks!
98.6 degrees farenheit!
On a misunderstood concept of it.
Wrong in principle.
Which should have been readily apparent. It certainly was to me.
You mean, rationalization.
Because you thanked him many times for his support. Whomever it was with, owes you an apology.
See? Not even close. You STILL don't get it!
Because you were trying to apply math that was irrelevant to the setup.
Then why am I the one shown to be right, whereas you're the one that's been shown to be wrong?
I've been nothing but steadfast and consistent. ThePeanut understands this. Why is it so hard for you?
I never said it was a boltzmann gas. I agreed with your contention that it'd be a "veritable sea." Darkmatter halos fit this description quite well.
The individual particles can't defy the laws of physics.
No you idiot.
You obviously still don't understand.
My Approach was correct.
The equations I used were correct (I have had this verified in PM's by other people, including Barakn, so unless you're going to start arguing that he's wrong...)
What I goofed was a conversion factor somewhere along the line. Converting from Joules to electron-volts, or some such thing.
You agreed that they had a thermal distribution not two posts ago, or have you still not learned what a boltzmann gas/Boltzmann distrobution are? And no, again, the idea that dark matter is microscopic black holes has been examined and ruled out.
And you haven't been steadfast and consistent, as an example, you claimed that not even a neutron star could capture a microscopic black hole, then went on to argue that microscopic black holes being captured by neutron stars and eaten alive were responsible for the apparent paucity of neutron stars.
Nowhere have I stated that the individual particles require to violate the laws of physics, this is purely your rubbish, based on the fact that you have no clue what a thermal distribution actually is.
98.6 degrees farenheit!
On a misunderstood concept of it.
Wrong in principle.
Which should have been readily apparent. It certainly was to me.
You mean, rationalization.
Because you thanked him many times for his support. Whomever it was with, owes you an apology.
See? Not even close. You STILL don't get it!
Because you were trying to apply math that was irrelevant to the setup.
Then why am I the one shown to be right, whereas you're the one that's been shown to be wrong?
I've been nothing but steadfast and consistent. ThePeanut understands this. Why is it so hard for you?
I never said it was a boltzmann gas. I agreed with your contention that it'd be a "veritable sea." Darkmatter halos fit this description quite well.
The individual particles can't defy the laws of physics.
No you idiot.
You obviously still don't understand.
My Approach was correct.
The equations I used were correct (I have had this verified in PM's by other people, including Barakn, so unless you're going to start arguing that he's wrong...)
What I goofed was a conversion factor somewhere along the line. Converting from Joules to electron-volts, or some such thing.
You agreed that they had a thermal distribution not two posts ago, or have you still not learned what a boltzmann gas/Boltzmann distrobution are? And no, again, the idea that dark matter is microscopic black holes has been examined and ruled out.
And you haven't been steadfast and consistent, as an example, you claimed that not even a neutron star could capture a microscopic black hole, then went on to argue that microscopic black holes being captured by neutron stars and eaten alive were responsible for the apparent paucity of neutron stars.
Nowhere have I stated that the individual particles require to violate the laws of physics, this is purely your rubbish, based on the fact that you have no clue what a thermal distribution actually is.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 23 2008, 06:32 AM)
:You're so funny.
And full of hot air.
Hot air? ..... make that streaming-turds.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 23 2008, 07:44 AM)
No you idiot.
See? Still rude...
No, it's you.
No, it's you.
My Approach was correct.
No it wasn't. If this were true, your results would reflect it.
If they were correct, how could you be so wrong? Obviously, they were wrong.
You may have used the proper form, but still, they were wrong.
If they were correct, how could you be so wrong? Obviously, they were wrong.
You may have used the proper form, but still, they were wrong.
What I goofed was a conversion factor somewhere along the line. Converting from Joules to electron-volts, or some such thing.
It doesn't matter where you flubbed it. These are basic principles. It should've been readily apparent.
I did? That's news to me. You got a quote?
I did? That's news to me. You got a quote?
or have you still not learned what a boltzmann gas/Boltzmann distrobution are?
I know what they are. I've only stated it's a hypothesis that's out there. I never stated I agree, or disagree with it.
No, it hasn't been ruled out. There was an article I referenced just recently. Did you miss it?
No, it hasn't been ruled out. There was an article I referenced just recently. Did you miss it?
And you haven't been steadfast and consistent, as an example, you claimed that not even a neutron star could capture a microscopic black hole, then went on to argue that microscopic black holes being captured by neutron stars and eaten alive were responsible for the apparent paucity of neutron stars.
That's not true and you've taken it out of context. This was in regards to an assertion that AlphaNumeric made. I merely explained the necessary consequences of his assertion.
You just can't see it.
You just can't see it.
this is purely your rubbish, based on the fact that you have no clue what a thermal distribution actually is.
I'm game. Explain it to me.
See? Still rude...
QUOTE
You obviously still don't understand.
No, it's you.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You obviously still don't understand. |
No, it's you.
My Approach was correct.
No it wasn't. If this were true, your results would reflect it.
QUOTE
The equations I used were correct (I have had this verified in PM's by other people, including Barakn, so unless you're going to start arguing that he's wrong...)
If they were correct, how could you be so wrong? Obviously, they were wrong.
You may have used the proper form, but still, they were wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The equations I used were correct (I have had this verified in PM's by other people, including Barakn, so unless you're going to start arguing that he's wrong...) |
If they were correct, how could you be so wrong? Obviously, they were wrong.
You may have used the proper form, but still, they were wrong.
What I goofed was a conversion factor somewhere along the line. Converting from Joules to electron-volts, or some such thing.
It doesn't matter where you flubbed it. These are basic principles. It should've been readily apparent.
QUOTE
You agreed that they had a thermal distribution not two posts ago,
I did? That's news to me. You got a quote?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You agreed that they had a thermal distribution not two posts ago, |
I did? That's news to me. You got a quote?
or have you still not learned what a boltzmann gas/Boltzmann distrobution are?
I know what they are. I've only stated it's a hypothesis that's out there. I never stated I agree, or disagree with it.
QUOTE
And no, again, the idea that dark matter is microscopic black holes has been examined and ruled out.
No, it hasn't been ruled out. There was an article I referenced just recently. Did you miss it?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And no, again, the idea that dark matter is microscopic black holes has been examined and ruled out. |
No, it hasn't been ruled out. There was an article I referenced just recently. Did you miss it?
And you haven't been steadfast and consistent, as an example, you claimed that not even a neutron star could capture a microscopic black hole, then went on to argue that microscopic black holes being captured by neutron stars and eaten alive were responsible for the apparent paucity of neutron stars.
That's not true and you've taken it out of context. This was in regards to an assertion that AlphaNumeric made. I merely explained the necessary consequences of his assertion.
QUOTE
Nowhere have I stated that the individual particles require to violate the laws of physics,
You just can't see it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Nowhere have I stated that the individual particles require to violate the laws of physics, |
You just can't see it.
this is purely your rubbish, based on the fact that you have no clue what a thermal distribution actually is.
I'm game. Explain it to me.
I got to thinking about what is happening, whether it is two protons becoming a black hole or the more likely scenario of two quarks. Black holes are allowed to have a charge and the scenarios involve the combination of two particles of either equal charge or uneven charge so that there's no chance of the charges canceling out to zero. I know of no reason (maybe by ignorance) that the black hole wouldn't acquire this net charge of the two objects. It would then act much like it did in its previous incarnation as a relativistic atomic nucleus, releasing Cerenkov radiation and scattering electrons. It would loose energy and momentum via the interaction of its charge with the Earth that it is passing through. It might be able to slow within escape velocity this way, leading me to again wonder why black holes haven't accumulated and swallowed the Earth up yet.
QUOTE (barakn+Feb 23 2008, 08:03 AM)
I got to thinking about what is happening, whether it is two protons becoming a black hole or the more likely scenario of two quarks. Black holes are allowed to have a charge and the scenarios involve the combination of two particles of either equal charge or uneven charge so that there's no chance of the charges canceling out to zero. I know of no reason (maybe by ignorance) that the black hole wouldn't acquire this net charge of the two objects. It would then act much like it did in its previous incarnation as a relativistic atomic nucleus, releasing Cerenkov radiation and scattering electrons. It would loose energy and momentum via the interaction of its charge with the Earth that it is passing through. It might be able to slow within escape velocity this way, leading me to again wonder why black holes haven't accumulated and swallowed the Earth up yet.
I've seen this before. It seems unlikely.
What mediates charge? How would it work in this situation?
I've seen this before. It seems unlikely.
What mediates charge? How would it work in this situation?
QUOTE (barakn+Feb 23 2008, 09:03 PM)
I got to thinking about what is happening, whether it is two protons becoming a black hole or the more likely scenario of two quarks. Black holes are allowed to have a charge and the scenarios involve the combination of two particles of either equal charge or uneven charge so that there's no chance of the charges canceling out to zero. I know of no reason (maybe by ignorance) that the black hole wouldn't acquire this net charge of the two objects. It would then act much like it did in its previous incarnation as a relativistic atomic nucleus, releasing Cerenkov radiation and scattering electrons. It would loose energy and momentum via the interaction of its charge with the Earth that it is passing through. It might be able to slow within escape velocity this way, leading me to again wonder why black holes haven't accumulated and swallowed the Earth up yet.
I had wondered about this - after all, reletavistic electrons are captured by the earth all the time.
I had wondered about this - after all, reletavistic electrons are captured by the earth all the time.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 23 2008, 09:02 PM)
See? Still rude...
No, it's you.
No it wasn't. If this were true, your results would reflect it.
If they were correct, how could you be so wrong? Obviously, they were wrong.
You may have used the proper form, but still, they were wrong.
It doesn't matter where you flubbed it. These are basic principles. It should've been readily apparent.
I did? That's news to me. You got a quote?
I know what they are. I've only stated it's a hypothesis that's out there. I never stated I agree, or disagree with it.
No, it hasn't been ruled out. There was an article I referenced just recently. Did you miss it?
That's not true and you've taken it out of context. This was in regards to an assertion that AlphaNumeric made. I merely explained the necessary consequences of his assertion.
You just can't see it.
I'm game. Explain it to me.
Oh god.
And again, you open your mouth and prove what I have to say.
My approach gives correct results, as verified by Barakan you nimrod. What was wrong was the fact that I fed the wrong numbers into the calculator. Making a typo does not invalidate a method.
It wasn't my method that was in error.
The equations were correct, the application was correct, the method was correct, the error I made was in not pressing 9 enough times on my calculator (for example, or maybe I made a mistake converting TeV into joules.
This does not invalidate my approach, nor does it make my approach wrong. IN fact, my approach gives the same numbers as Barakan when fed the correct numbers.
DO you get it yet?
And you wonder why I call you an idiot.
Why should I bother explaining to you.
1) You've had it explained to you before, and
2) You claim to understand it better then someone who can prove they've studied physics at University level.
You don't get it. Give up, and go away.
No, it's you.
No it wasn't. If this were true, your results would reflect it.
If they were correct, how could you be so wrong? Obviously, they were wrong.
You may have used the proper form, but still, they were wrong.
It doesn't matter where you flubbed it. These are basic principles. It should've been readily apparent.
I did? That's news to me. You got a quote?
I know what they are. I've only stated it's a hypothesis that's out there. I never stated I agree, or disagree with it.
No, it hasn't been ruled out. There was an article I referenced just recently. Did you miss it?
That's not true and you've taken it out of context. This was in regards to an assertion that AlphaNumeric made. I merely explained the necessary consequences of his assertion.
You just can't see it.
I'm game. Explain it to me.
Oh god.
And again, you open your mouth and prove what I have to say.
My approach gives correct results, as verified by Barakan you nimrod. What was wrong was the fact that I fed the wrong numbers into the calculator. Making a typo does not invalidate a method.
It wasn't my method that was in error.
The equations were correct, the application was correct, the method was correct, the error I made was in not pressing 9 enough times on my calculator (for example, or maybe I made a mistake converting TeV into joules.
This does not invalidate my approach, nor does it make my approach wrong. IN fact, my approach gives the same numbers as Barakan when fed the correct numbers.
DO you get it yet?
And you wonder why I call you an idiot.
Why should I bother explaining to you.
1) You've had it explained to you before, and
2) You claim to understand it better then someone who can prove they've studied physics at University level.
You don't get it. Give up, and go away.
Is this still going on? Talk about beating a dead horse!
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 23 2008, 08:30 AM)
Oh god.
And again, you open your mouth and prove what I have to say.
My approach gives correct results, as verified by Barakan you nimrod. What was wrong was the fact that I fed the wrong numbers into the calculator. Making a typo does not invalidate a method.
Being obviously wrong in principle means you don't understand what you're trying to calculate, to begin with!
The error you made was in not understanding how nonsensical your results were, before insisting they were correct.
The error you made was in not understanding how nonsensical your results were, before insisting they were correct.
This does not invalidate my approach, nor does it make my approach wrong. IN fact, my approach gives the same numbers as Barakan when fed the correct numbers.
It doesn't matter. Mistakes this large should be easily identified, on basic principles!
Do you?
Do you?
And you wonder why I call you an idiot.
I wonder this myself, seeing as it's you that's been wrong - all along!
You can't rationalize away such a gross error. There's no explanation that's acceptable beyond admitting you were completely wrong and you should've recognized it much sooner.
You can't rationalize away such a gross error. There's no explanation that's acceptable beyond admitting you were completely wrong and you should've recognized it much sooner.
1) You've had it explained to you before, and
2) You claim to understand it better then someone who can prove they've studied physics at University level.
Obviously, I understand it better than you. ThePeanut probably understands it better than me though.
Rather, it is you that doesn't get it. Why don't you go away?
And again, you open your mouth and prove what I have to say.
My approach gives correct results, as verified by Barakan you nimrod. What was wrong was the fact that I fed the wrong numbers into the calculator. Making a typo does not invalidate a method.
Being obviously wrong in principle means you don't understand what you're trying to calculate, to begin with!
QUOTE
It wasn't my method that was in error.
The equations were correct, the application was correct, the method was correct, the error I made was in not pressing 9 enough times on my calculator (for example, or maybe I made a mistake converting TeV into joules.
The equations were correct, the application was correct, the method was correct, the error I made was in not pressing 9 enough times on my calculator (for example, or maybe I made a mistake converting TeV into joules.
The error you made was in not understanding how nonsensical your results were, before insisting they were correct.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It wasn't my method that was in error. The equations were correct, the application was correct, the method was correct, the error I made was in not pressing 9 enough times on my calculator (for example, or maybe I made a mistake converting TeV into joules. |
The error you made was in not understanding how nonsensical your results were, before insisting they were correct.
This does not invalidate my approach, nor does it make my approach wrong. IN fact, my approach gives the same numbers as Barakan when fed the correct numbers.
It doesn't matter. Mistakes this large should be easily identified, on basic principles!
QUOTE
DO you get it yet?
Do you?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| DO you get it yet? |
Do you?
And you wonder why I call you an idiot.
I wonder this myself, seeing as it's you that's been wrong - all along!
QUOTE
Why should I bother explaining to you.
You can't rationalize away such a gross error. There's no explanation that's acceptable beyond admitting you were completely wrong and you should've recognized it much sooner.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why should I bother explaining to you. |
You can't rationalize away such a gross error. There's no explanation that's acceptable beyond admitting you were completely wrong and you should've recognized it much sooner.
1) You've had it explained to you before, and
2) You claim to understand it better then someone who can prove they've studied physics at University level.
Obviously, I understand it better than you. ThePeanut probably understands it better than me though.
QUOTE
You don't get it. Give up, and go away.
Rather, it is you that doesn't get it. Why don't you go away?
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 23 2008, 06:52 AM)
Actually, the fact that you backed Trippy's assertions needs to be addressed first. Do you now see how they were wrong?
If you were wrong on basic principles there, do you think it's possible you might be wrong in other aspects as well?
If not, then there's nothing to discuss.
If you'll recall, I disagreed with BOTH of you, hehehe. I pointed out that in the real world, such messy collisions involving so many 'barrier' energies and possible angular/spin combinations in the eventual products in the 'splatter' event within the Earth's magnetic fields and ambient field will produce MANY 'frames' for practically EACH product. Think of it as the collision 'event' becoming 'practically' STATIONARY ABSOLUTELY for the fraction of a nanosecond that all those energy barriers, energy 'sinks' and quantum properties/effects that come into play CHAOTICALLY. There is no guarantee WHICH product/component will go WHERE and in WHICH direction and LINEAR (straight-line) momentum and ANGULAR (spin) momentum until all those forces/products COMPLETE and SEPARATE their initial interaction(s)......ESPECIALLY IF it IS a mostly INelastic interaction (which it must be for the kinetic energies to come into play....otherwise an Elastic collision would merely transfer kinetic energy to the 'target' proton which would move off IN THE PLACE of the 'incoming' proton....AS PROTONS and other ORDINARY DENSITY products).
Anyhow, you get my drift. BOTH sides are full of ASSUMPTIONS I do not subscribe to in 'free' collision scenarios at such high energies....INCLUDING those assumptions about micro-mass black holes forming/existing AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Which reminds me. My last post had a formatting problem and came out much 'underlined' unintentionally. I meant to come back and clean it up but was distracted and never did. I will post it again for your benefit, as follows....
If you were wrong on basic principles there, do you think it's possible you might be wrong in other aspects as well?
If not, then there's nothing to discuss.
If you'll recall, I disagreed with BOTH of you, hehehe. I pointed out that in the real world, such messy collisions involving so many 'barrier' energies and possible angular/spin combinations in the eventual products in the 'splatter' event within the Earth's magnetic fields and ambient field will produce MANY 'frames' for practically EACH product. Think of it as the collision 'event' becoming 'practically' STATIONARY ABSOLUTELY for the fraction of a nanosecond that all those energy barriers, energy 'sinks' and quantum properties/effects that come into play CHAOTICALLY. There is no guarantee WHICH product/component will go WHERE and in WHICH direction and LINEAR (straight-line) momentum and ANGULAR (spin) momentum until all those forces/products COMPLETE and SEPARATE their initial interaction(s)......ESPECIALLY IF it IS a mostly INelastic interaction (which it must be for the kinetic energies to come into play....otherwise an Elastic collision would merely transfer kinetic energy to the 'target' proton which would move off IN THE PLACE of the 'incoming' proton....AS PROTONS and other ORDINARY DENSITY products).
Anyhow, you get my drift. BOTH sides are full of ASSUMPTIONS I do not subscribe to in 'free' collision scenarios at such high energies....INCLUDING those assumptions about micro-mass black holes forming/existing AT ALL IN THE FIRST PLACE.
Which reminds me. My last post had a formatting problem and came out much 'underlined' unintentionally. I meant to come back and clean it up but was distracted and never did. I will post it again for your benefit, as follows....
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 23 2008, 12:08 AM)
.
Hi guys!
Just dropped in briefly to see what's up....and to point to some aspects I pointed to many times before, but that seem to be easily forgotten in the heat of 'clashes', hehehe.
In such collisions, the kinetic energy is MUCH reduced and dissipated in many ways:
- in overcoming the electromagnetic/coulomb forces even before the masses/partons actually toouh/merge/rebound etc etc;
- in temporarily reducing/cancelling altogether the PRE-EXISTING ANGULAR MOMENTUM of some mass/partons constituents/products as they exit the messy 'event';
- in temporarily increasing (many times?) the PRE-EXISTING ANGULAR MOMENTUM of other constituents/products;
- the ELECTRIC CHARGES of the products/constiruents involved will react with the electromagnetic field lines of the Earth....so 'slowing' some and 'speeding up' others;
- during the collision-phase proper, the ONLY 'mass/energy' DENSITY of any 'unusual value' is that part of the MOST COMPRESSED mass/energy that would FLEETINGLY occur in the EXTREMELY TRANSIENT and only TWO-DIMENSINAL 'film' of REMNANT mass/energy which ITSELF is (before, during, after collision 'event') IMMEDIATELY/ALWAYS vulnerable to all sorts of:-
. CLASSICAL (coulomb/electromagnetic etc) TURBULENCE and;
. QUANTUM PERTURBATIONS...
...... that TOGETHER AND THROUGHOUT act to prevent any LONG TERM 'stable/coherent' properties OTHER THAN for CLASSICAL (NON-'black' density) FEATURES/PARTICLES formed in the collision.
That LAST aspect of MASS/ENERGY DENSITY is, in my opinion, the MOST MISSED aspect in the arguments/stances from BOTH SIDES in these debates.
I say this because it seems that all and sundry appear to 'tacitly accept' without demure the idea that it is the ENERGY DENSITY that determines/defines the 'status' of a GRAVITATIONAL BLACK HOLE 'feature'.
Nothing could be further from the truth....and it bothers me that BOTH SIDES are 'blithely' accepting the VERY IDEA that:
- 'MICRO-MASSED 'black holes' can EXIST AT ALL; let alone that
- such PUTATIVE ONLY MICRO-MASSED 'black holes' can also FORM AT ALL in STRONG-GRAVITY 'unconstrained' free micro-particle collisions involving ONLY MINISCULE TOTAL CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY STRENGTHS generated by the constituents/products before/during/after (the Earth's gravity not being involved in the 'event/products' collision/formation 'event' per se...except as a 'background' and NOT 'collision participant' factor!
Let's consider HOW a 'black hole' CAN BE made 'mass/energy' EXTREMELY DENSER than 'classical densities' IN THE FIRST PLACE; and also WHAT it is that KEEPS such 'extreme density' AT ALL:!
The clue is: a TOTAL MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY and the ASSOCIATED production/presence of a TOTAL MINIMUM MASS/ENERGY ABSOLUTE QUANTITY.
Yes! It is that TOTAL MINIMUM ABSOLUTE which determines whether the body ALREADY creates the 'self-gravity' OVERBURDEN PRESSURES that IS NECESSARY TO COMPRESS the core material into extreme densities and keep them there!
DENSITY is therefore ONLY an incidental factor in gravitational feature' 'blackness/ stability' properties/behaviour.
The PRIMARY factor is TOTAL NECESSARY MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE MASS/GRAVITY per se!
Anything that is NOT of that MINIMUM mass/energy TOTAL QUANTITY per se IRRESPECTIVE of 'density', will NOT form/maintain sufficient GRAVITATIONAL CONTAINM,ENT/PRESSURE against all the CLASSICAL coulomb/electromagnetic forces trying to BLOW UP' the MINISCULE MASS/ENERGY TOTAL....simply because these OTHER FORCES are MANY MAGNITUDES STRONGER than the puny miniscule total gravity strength of micro mass/energy features.
This is why FREE NEUTRONS quickly 'decay' into proton-electron and etc etc etc...simply because their TOTAL CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY STRENGTH is incapable AT ALL of keeping it 'together' against the much greater foprces involved at that scale of mass/energy....irrespective of'density'.
Consider further:
Every NEUTRON STAR (extreme BOTH in mass/energy DENSITY and QUANTITY!) is hit with countless ultra-high energy particles. THAT energy density is ALREADY EXTREME, and any 'putative' 'black film' formed in a collision with its IRON 'shell' and inner neutronic contents SHOULD (ONLY IF others 'speculations/fears' are TRUE) ALSO produce a 'micro-black-hole' in an ALREADY EXTREMELY DENSE 'ENVIRONMENT'....which would produce a LARGER BLACK HOLE if the energy density argument was all there was to it! But there they are, neutron stars STILL.
Simply because, even IF any part of that neutron star was 'transiently' of even greater 'density' in a miniscule PART (where cosmic-ray proton collision occurs), the neutron star STILL HAS NOT the necessary MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE TOTAL energy/mass QUANTITY/GRAVITY to make it 'collapse'.
And so, if NO neutron star with pre-existing EXTREME DENSITIES but STILL SUB-CRITICAL MINIUM MASS/GRAVITY can form a black feature from being hit with a relativistic high-energy particle, the what hope in heck will a MICRO particle with MINUSCULE mass/energy TOTAL CUMULATIVE GRAVITY have of froming, let alone sustaining a 'black hole' feature whose density (of whatever MINUSCULE/PUNY mass it does have) could NEVER KEEP IT AT those densities simply by its PUNY 'cumulative absolute total' GRAVITY....which after all, is only as strong as the 'rest mass' of the proton irrsepective of its puny gravity well's gradients 'profile'.
Anyhow, that's all I wanted to remind everyone on BOTH 'sides' about.....becuase the arguments seem to be 'skirting' the actual relevant factors (in my opinion from the outset).
Cheers and please forgive the typos as I AM in a real hurry today! Have fun and be polite...both these things needn't cost anyrthing if one goes about it the right and courteous way! hehehe.
RC.
.
I will be busy for a couple of days, so you and everyone have plenty of time to thionk about (especially) the point about minimum total absolute MASS/GRAVITY strength PER SE) as THE defining factor for forming/maintaining ANY 'black feature' densities against the internal NON-gravity forces that want to 'rip it apart' FROM INSIDE...not to mention the PUNY strength of any 'micro MASSED' object compared to external gravity effects from CUMULATIVE STRONGER gravity filed/strength distortions on any NON-'normal' 'micro-massed' gravity well feature/gradients (as pointed to in an earlier post)...and of course all the QUANTUM effects on such a STILL MUCH PUTATIVE and SPECULATIVE assumed 'feature' as 'micro' black holes.
So, until BOTH 'sides' in these debates can satisfy all my doubts in the areas mentioned, I will continue to disagree with BOTH 'sides' in many aspects of the discussion.
Cheers all!
RC.
Hi guys!
Just dropped in briefly to see what's up....and to point to some aspects I pointed to many times before, but that seem to be easily forgotten in the heat of 'clashes', hehehe.
In such collisions, the kinetic energy is MUCH reduced and dissipated in many ways:
- in overcoming the electromagnetic/coulomb forces even before the masses/partons actually toouh/merge/rebound etc etc;
- in temporarily reducing/cancelling altogether the PRE-EXISTING ANGULAR MOMENTUM of some mass/partons constituents/products as they exit the messy 'event';
- in temporarily increasing (many times?) the PRE-EXISTING ANGULAR MOMENTUM of other constituents/products;
- the ELECTRIC CHARGES of the products/constiruents involved will react with the electromagnetic field lines of the Earth....so 'slowing' some and 'speeding up' others;
- during the collision-phase proper, the ONLY 'mass/energy' DENSITY of any 'unusual value' is that part of the MOST COMPRESSED mass/energy that would FLEETINGLY occur in the EXTREMELY TRANSIENT and only TWO-DIMENSINAL 'film' of REMNANT mass/energy which ITSELF is (before, during, after collision 'event') IMMEDIATELY/ALWAYS vulnerable to all sorts of:-
. CLASSICAL (coulomb/electromagnetic etc) TURBULENCE and;
. QUANTUM PERTURBATIONS...
...... that TOGETHER AND THROUGHOUT act to prevent any LONG TERM 'stable/coherent' properties OTHER THAN for CLASSICAL (NON-'black' density) FEATURES/PARTICLES formed in the collision.
That LAST aspect of MASS/ENERGY DENSITY is, in my opinion, the MOST MISSED aspect in the arguments/stances from BOTH SIDES in these debates.
I say this because it seems that all and sundry appear to 'tacitly accept' without demure the idea that it is the ENERGY DENSITY that determines/defines the 'status' of a GRAVITATIONAL BLACK HOLE 'feature'.
Nothing could be further from the truth....and it bothers me that BOTH SIDES are 'blithely' accepting the VERY IDEA that:
- 'MICRO-MASSED 'black holes' can EXIST AT ALL; let alone that
- such PUTATIVE ONLY MICRO-MASSED 'black holes' can also FORM AT ALL in STRONG-GRAVITY 'unconstrained' free micro-particle collisions involving ONLY MINISCULE TOTAL CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY STRENGTHS generated by the constituents/products before/during/after (the Earth's gravity not being involved in the 'event/products' collision/formation 'event' per se...except as a 'background' and NOT 'collision participant' factor!
Let's consider HOW a 'black hole' CAN BE made 'mass/energy' EXTREMELY DENSER than 'classical densities' IN THE FIRST PLACE; and also WHAT it is that KEEPS such 'extreme density' AT ALL:!
The clue is: a TOTAL MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY and the ASSOCIATED production/presence of a TOTAL MINIMUM MASS/ENERGY ABSOLUTE QUANTITY.
Yes! It is that TOTAL MINIMUM ABSOLUTE which determines whether the body ALREADY creates the 'self-gravity' OVERBURDEN PRESSURES that IS NECESSARY TO COMPRESS the core material into extreme densities and keep them there!
DENSITY is therefore ONLY an incidental factor in gravitational feature' 'blackness/ stability' properties/behaviour.
The PRIMARY factor is TOTAL NECESSARY MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE MASS/GRAVITY per se!
Anything that is NOT of that MINIMUM mass/energy TOTAL QUANTITY per se IRRESPECTIVE of 'density', will NOT form/maintain sufficient GRAVITATIONAL CONTAINM,ENT/PRESSURE against all the CLASSICAL coulomb/electromagnetic forces trying to BLOW UP' the MINISCULE MASS/ENERGY TOTAL....simply because these OTHER FORCES are MANY MAGNITUDES STRONGER than the puny miniscule total gravity strength of micro mass/energy features.
This is why FREE NEUTRONS quickly 'decay' into proton-electron and etc etc etc...simply because their TOTAL CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY STRENGTH is incapable AT ALL of keeping it 'together' against the much greater foprces involved at that scale of mass/energy....irrespective of'density'.
Consider further:
Every NEUTRON STAR (extreme BOTH in mass/energy DENSITY and QUANTITY!) is hit with countless ultra-high energy particles. THAT energy density is ALREADY EXTREME, and any 'putative' 'black film' formed in a collision with its IRON 'shell' and inner neutronic contents SHOULD (ONLY IF others 'speculations/fears' are TRUE) ALSO produce a 'micro-black-hole' in an ALREADY EXTREMELY DENSE 'ENVIRONMENT'....which would produce a LARGER BLACK HOLE if the energy density argument was all there was to it! But there they are, neutron stars STILL.
Simply because, even IF any part of that neutron star was 'transiently' of even greater 'density' in a miniscule PART (where cosmic-ray proton collision occurs), the neutron star STILL HAS NOT the necessary MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE TOTAL energy/mass QUANTITY/GRAVITY to make it 'collapse'.
And so, if NO neutron star with pre-existing EXTREME DENSITIES but STILL SUB-CRITICAL MINIUM MASS/GRAVITY can form a black feature from being hit with a relativistic high-energy particle, the what hope in heck will a MICRO particle with MINUSCULE mass/energy TOTAL CUMULATIVE GRAVITY have of froming, let alone sustaining a 'black hole' feature whose density (of whatever MINUSCULE/PUNY mass it does have) could NEVER KEEP IT AT those densities simply by its PUNY 'cumulative absolute total' GRAVITY....which after all, is only as strong as the 'rest mass' of the proton irrsepective of its puny gravity well's gradients 'profile'.
Anyhow, that's all I wanted to remind everyone on BOTH 'sides' about.....becuase the arguments seem to be 'skirting' the actual relevant factors (in my opinion from the outset).
Cheers and please forgive the typos as I AM in a real hurry today! Have fun and be polite...both these things needn't cost anyrthing if one goes about it the right and courteous way! hehehe.
RC.
.
I will be busy for a couple of days, so you and everyone have plenty of time to thionk about (especially) the point about minimum total absolute MASS/GRAVITY strength PER SE) as THE defining factor for forming/maintaining ANY 'black feature' densities against the internal NON-gravity forces that want to 'rip it apart' FROM INSIDE...not to mention the PUNY strength of any 'micro MASSED' object compared to external gravity effects from CUMULATIVE STRONGER gravity filed/strength distortions on any NON-'normal' 'micro-massed' gravity well feature/gradients (as pointed to in an earlier post)...and of course all the QUANTUM effects on such a STILL MUCH PUTATIVE and SPECULATIVE assumed 'feature' as 'micro' black holes.
So, until BOTH 'sides' in these debates can satisfy all my doubts in the areas mentioned, I will continue to disagree with BOTH 'sides' in many aspects of the discussion.
Cheers all!
RC.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 11:25 AM)
Being obviously wrong in principle means you don't understand what you're trying to calculate, to begin with!
The error you made was in not understanding how nonsensical your results were, before insisting they were correct.
It doesn't matter. Mistakes this large should be easily identified, on basic principles!
Do you?
I wonder this myself, seeing as it's you that's been wrong - all along!
You can't rationalize away such a gross error. There's no explanation that's acceptable beyond admitting you were completely wrong and you should've recognized it much sooner.
Obviously, I understand it better than you. ThePeanut probably understands it better than me though.
Rather, it is you that doesn't get it. Why don't you go away?
This must be some kind of an act, I find it hard to believe that you're genuinely this thick.
You're assertions that the basic principles I was espousing were wrong, is incorrect.
My calculations were based around the conservation of momentum.
I understood what I was trying to calculate.
And actually, I can rationalize the error you #######.
I was not completely wrong, my assertions were correct (and vindicated, even you've had to admit that the black hole slows down).
The fact that you've never attempted the calculations, and weren't able to say "I don't like it, it must be wrong" tells all of us that you don't understand it.
The fact that you can't understand classical results even when they're spoonfed to you tells us that you probably wouldn't understand relativistic results if they stood up and slapped you on the baldspot.
I get it, I understand it, I understand my errors, I understand why I made them, and I understand why I didn't catch them (and no, it's not through lack of knowledge as you've been insisting).
Meanwhile you're still struggling with the fact that my approach was based on the conservation of momentum, and was therefore conceptually correct. In fact, it was more then conceptually correct, because when Barakn used the same approach, he got the same numbers (the correct ones, that you've agreed with already).
So how's about actually reading what's posted on the thread before you go shooting your mouth off you idiot.
The error you made was in not understanding how nonsensical your results were, before insisting they were correct.
It doesn't matter. Mistakes this large should be easily identified, on basic principles!
Do you?
I wonder this myself, seeing as it's you that's been wrong - all along!
You can't rationalize away such a gross error. There's no explanation that's acceptable beyond admitting you were completely wrong and you should've recognized it much sooner.
Obviously, I understand it better than you. ThePeanut probably understands it better than me though.
Rather, it is you that doesn't get it. Why don't you go away?
This must be some kind of an act, I find it hard to believe that you're genuinely this thick.
You're assertions that the basic principles I was espousing were wrong, is incorrect.
My calculations were based around the conservation of momentum.
I understood what I was trying to calculate.
And actually, I can rationalize the error you #######.
I was not completely wrong, my assertions were correct (and vindicated, even you've had to admit that the black hole slows down).
The fact that you've never attempted the calculations, and weren't able to say "I don't like it, it must be wrong" tells all of us that you don't understand it.
The fact that you can't understand classical results even when they're spoonfed to you tells us that you probably wouldn't understand relativistic results if they stood up and slapped you on the baldspot.
I get it, I understand it, I understand my errors, I understand why I made them, and I understand why I didn't catch them (and no, it's not through lack of knowledge as you've been insisting).
Meanwhile you're still struggling with the fact that my approach was based on the conservation of momentum, and was therefore conceptually correct. In fact, it was more then conceptually correct, because when Barakn used the same approach, he got the same numbers (the correct ones, that you've agreed with already).
So how's about actually reading what's posted on the thread before you go shooting your mouth off you idiot.
QUOTE (Brakan PM+)
Using your numbers and starting with your equation 2:
γ=E/mc²
=1.84x10^-4 J/(1.671 x10^-27 kg *(2.9979 x 10^8 m/s)²)
=1,225,200
Back to equation 1:
V/c = √(1-1/γ²)
=√(1-1/1,225,200²)
=√.9999999999993338
=.9999999999996669
Calculator error seems like the only logical candidate.
So not incorrect approach.
Try and get it through your thick skull - the approach was correct, the execution was flawed (most likely a calculator error, or an erroneous conversion).
You're wrong Ubavontuba, get over it.
γ=E/mc²
=1.84x10^-4 J/(1.671 x10^-27 kg *(2.9979 x 10^8 m/s)²)
=1,225,200
Back to equation 1:
V/c = √(1-1/γ²)
=√(1-1/1,225,200²)
=√.9999999999993338
=.9999999999996669
Calculator error seems like the only logical candidate.
So not incorrect approach.
Try and get it through your thick skull - the approach was correct, the execution was flawed (most likely a calculator error, or an erroneous conversion).
You're wrong Ubavontuba, get over it.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 23 2008, 10:34 PM)
If you'll recall, I disagreed with BOTH of you,
This is unacceptable. Here's a portion of our prior argument on this issue (based on my prior comment to AlphaNumeric; "Like how the earth couldn't capture cosmic ray induced nano black holes.")... bolds added:
This is unacceptable. Here's a portion of our prior argument on this issue (based on my prior comment to AlphaNumeric; "Like how the earth couldn't capture cosmic ray induced nano black holes.")... bolds added:
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Dec 13 2007, 06:44 AM)
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Dec 11 2007, 08:43 PM)
Now let's also remember that IF most of the MOMENTUM energies are used in overcoming the repulsive COULOMB forces before the particles can FUSE into a sufficient 'point-concentrated' mass (if we ignore for the moment the very important likelyhood that collision-front deformations would be severe, and result in 2-D 'sideways splatter' pattern of matter/energy which cannot form a central event mass/energy concentration etc), then there is LITTLE or NO MOMENTUM left for a nano-hole product to move off at any great speed (even IF it can be formed as you claim, hehehe).
OH NO! It's the Trippy argument all over again!
Are you trying to suggest that two colliding objects of equal mass and momentum do not collide and stop in the center of their energy/momentum? But rather, they stop relative to some preferred observer? I think not!
Spent where? Where's the center of mass/energy for the two colliding bodies? It certainly isn't preferential to the earth.
Spent where? Where's the center of mass/energy for the two colliding bodies? It certainly isn't preferential to the earth.
Hence, since most of the incoming cosmic-ray particle's MOMENTUM/KINETIC ENERGY (and hence 'velocity force') is SPENT in overcoming the COULOMB (REPULSION) electomagnetic forces between itself and the 'target' particle, then (IF such nano-holes can be produced in collisions between high energy 'free' particles), then they would be SLOW-MOVING after the collision.
You're viewing the "target particle" as somehow being fixed, as if it's inert.
Oh RC! I am deeply dissapointed in this assessment.
Oh RC! I am deeply dissapointed in this assessment.
The conclusions from all this?
(1) IF nano-holes can be produced in free collisions, then the earth and every planet/star should have been 'eaten' by such nano-holes formed in their upper atmosphere; simply because most of their momentum/velocity-energy has been used up in its INelastic collision formation processes.
Not true. I suppose it must be natural to have this preferred reference frame bias though. It seems common enough.
Or, they smash through the earth like I contend.
As can plainly be seen, you were agreeing with Trippy's contention. You've tried to sidestep this since, but you never admitted the error. Until you do, we have nothing further to discuss.
OH NO! It's the Trippy argument all over again!
Are you trying to suggest that two colliding objects of equal mass and momentum do not collide and stop in the center of their energy/momentum? But rather, they stop relative to some preferred observer? I think not!
QUOTE
So your claim that the earth couldn't capture cosmic-ray induced nano-holes is NOT CONSISTENT with the fact that initial momentum energies have been SPENT in INELASTIC process of 'fusing' the particles into the dangerous energy concentrations you fear.
Spent where? Where's the center of mass/energy for the two colliding bodies? It certainly isn't preferential to the earth.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| So your claim that the earth couldn't capture cosmic-ray induced nano-holes is NOT CONSISTENT with the fact that initial momentum energies have been SPENT in INELASTIC process of 'fusing' the particles into the dangerous energy concentrations you fear. |
Spent where? Where's the center of mass/energy for the two colliding bodies? It certainly isn't preferential to the earth.
Hence, since most of the incoming cosmic-ray particle's MOMENTUM/KINETIC ENERGY (and hence 'velocity force') is SPENT in overcoming the COULOMB (REPULSION) electomagnetic forces between itself and the 'target' particle, then (IF such nano-holes can be produced in collisions between high energy 'free' particles), then they would be SLOW-MOVING after the collision.
You're viewing the "target particle" as somehow being fixed, as if it's inert.
QUOTE
After which the ONLY way such a cosmic ray induced nano-hole could speed up again and leave the earth would be if it was THEN accelerated by electromagnetic or other repulsive forces sufficient to overcome earth's gravity effect on the nano-hole.
Oh RC! I am deeply dissapointed in this assessment.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| After which the ONLY way such a cosmic ray induced nano-hole could speed up again and leave the earth would be if it was THEN accelerated by electromagnetic or other repulsive forces sufficient to overcome earth's gravity effect on the nano-hole. |
Oh RC! I am deeply dissapointed in this assessment.
The conclusions from all this?
(1) IF nano-holes can be produced in free collisions, then the earth and every planet/star should have been 'eaten' by such nano-holes formed in their upper atmosphere; simply because most of their momentum/velocity-energy has been used up in its INelastic collision formation processes.
Not true. I suppose it must be natural to have this preferred reference frame bias though. It seems common enough.
QUOTE
BUT we are still here. Hence no nano-holes can form from free collisions. OR they are RE-accelerated away from those bodies.
Or, they smash through the earth like I contend.
As can plainly be seen, you were agreeing with Trippy's contention. You've tried to sidestep this since, but you never admitted the error. Until you do, we have nothing further to discuss.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 23 2008, 11:11 PM)
This must be some kind of an act, I find it hard to believe that you're genuinely this thick.
I'm "thick?" ...I'm "thick?" Who of us was the one that endlessy propagated a blatantly erroneous argument? Was it me? No! It was YOU!
If you understood the conservation of momentum, your argument would've appeared as blantantly false to you... as it was to me.
If you understood the conservation of momentum, your argument would've appeared as blantantly false to you... as it was to me.
I understood what I was trying to calculate.
An obvious lie.
So then, do you understand the difference between a rationalization and a well grounded argument?
So then, do you understand the difference between a rationalization and a well grounded argument?
I was not completely wrong, my assertions were correct (and vindicated, even you've had to admit that the black hole slows down).
You were completely wrong, your assertions were absolutely incorrect (and NOT vindicated), and I never said the black hole "slows down."
I calculated this a long time ago... long before you joined in. Too bad you missed it.
I calculated this a long time ago... long before you joined in. Too bad you missed it.
The fact that you can't understand classical results even when they're spoonfed to you tells us that you probably wouldn't understand relativistic results if they stood up and slapped you on the baldspot.
I had it right, you had it wrong... so you must mean you couldn't understand classical results even when they were spoon-fed to you, and you definitely couldn't understand relativistic results.
So you think if you make a math error that indicates things fall up rather than down that you'd be justified in arguing the point? That's how obvious your error was to me!
So you think if you make a math error that indicates things fall up rather than down that you'd be justified in arguing the point? That's how obvious your error was to me!
Meanwhile you're still struggling with the fact that my approach was based on the conservation of momentum, and was therefore conceptually correct. In fact, it was more then conceptually correct, because when Barakn used the same approach, he got the same numbers (the correct ones, that you've agreed with already).
But your results DID NOT CONSERVE MOMENTUM!
How about simply coming clean and admitting I was right, you were wrong, and therefore my arguments regarding the LHC experiment are valid and yours are not?
I'm "thick?" ...I'm "thick?" Who of us was the one that endlessy propagated a blatantly erroneous argument? Was it me? No! It was YOU!
QUOTE
You're assertions that the basic principles I was espousing were wrong, is incorrect.
My calculations were based around the conservation of momentum.
My calculations were based around the conservation of momentum.
If you understood the conservation of momentum, your argument would've appeared as blantantly false to you... as it was to me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You're assertions that the basic principles I was espousing were wrong, is incorrect. My calculations were based around the conservation of momentum. |
If you understood the conservation of momentum, your argument would've appeared as blantantly false to you... as it was to me.
I understood what I was trying to calculate.
An obvious lie.
QUOTE
And actually, I can rationalize the error you #######.
So then, do you understand the difference between a rationalization and a well grounded argument?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And actually, I can rationalize the error you #######. |
So then, do you understand the difference between a rationalization and a well grounded argument?
I was not completely wrong, my assertions were correct (and vindicated, even you've had to admit that the black hole slows down).
You were completely wrong, your assertions were absolutely incorrect (and NOT vindicated), and I never said the black hole "slows down."
QUOTE
The fact that you've never attempted the calculations, and weren't able to say "I don't like it, it must be wrong" tells all of us that you don't understand it.
I calculated this a long time ago... long before you joined in. Too bad you missed it.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fact that you've never attempted the calculations, and weren't able to say "I don't like it, it must be wrong" tells all of us that you don't understand it. |
I calculated this a long time ago... long before you joined in. Too bad you missed it.
The fact that you can't understand classical results even when they're spoonfed to you tells us that you probably wouldn't understand relativistic results if they stood up and slapped you on the baldspot.
I had it right, you had it wrong... so you must mean you couldn't understand classical results even when they were spoon-fed to you, and you definitely couldn't understand relativistic results.
QUOTE
I get it, I understand it, I understand my errors, I understand why I made them, and I understand why I didn't catch them (and no, it's not through lack of knowledge as you've been insisting).
So you think if you make a math error that indicates things fall up rather than down that you'd be justified in arguing the point? That's how obvious your error was to me!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I get it, I understand it, I understand my errors, I understand why I made them, and I understand why I didn't catch them (and no, it's not through lack of knowledge as you've been insisting). |
So you think if you make a math error that indicates things fall up rather than down that you'd be justified in arguing the point? That's how obvious your error was to me!
Meanwhile you're still struggling with the fact that my approach was based on the conservation of momentum, and was therefore conceptually correct. In fact, it was more then conceptually correct, because when Barakn used the same approach, he got the same numbers (the correct ones, that you've agreed with already).
But your results DID NOT CONSERVE MOMENTUM!
QUOTE
So how's about actually reading what's posted on the thread before you go shooting your mouth off you idiot.
How about simply coming clean and admitting I was right, you were wrong, and therefore my arguments regarding the LHC experiment are valid and yours are not?
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 23 2008, 11:19 PM)
So not incorrect approach.
Try and get it through your thick skull - the approach was correct, the execution was flawed (most likely a calculator error, or an erroneous conversion).
You're wrong Ubavontuba, get over it.
No. You're wrong. You've been wrong all along, and you're still wrong!
Try and get it through your thick skull - the approach was correct, the execution was flawed (most likely a calculator error, or an erroneous conversion).
You're wrong Ubavontuba, get over it.
No. You're wrong. You've been wrong all along, and you're still wrong!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 07:26 PM)
No. You're wrong. You've been wrong all along, and you're still wrong!
No.
You were wrong.
You said that my approach was wrong, when it was correct.
My approach:
Use energy to calculate Velocity or incoming Proton.
Make assumption about blackhole mass (maximize blackhole mass).
Assume Momentum of blackhole is the same as Momentum of Proton.
Calculate velocity of Blackhole.
I'm sorry if that's too complicated for you, but it's quite correct.
The method was correct, the final answer wasn't.
However, you have argued that the method was incorrect, which makes you wrong.
No.
You were wrong.
You said that my approach was wrong, when it was correct.
My approach:
Use energy to calculate Velocity or incoming Proton.
Make assumption about blackhole mass (maximize blackhole mass).
Assume Momentum of blackhole is the same as Momentum of Proton.
Calculate velocity of Blackhole.
I'm sorry if that's too complicated for you, but it's quite correct.
The method was correct, the final answer wasn't.
However, you have argued that the method was incorrect, which makes you wrong.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 24 2008, 06:43 AM)
No.
You were wrong.
I was right. You've already admitted it.
You were not correct.
You were not correct.
My approach:
Use energy to calculate Velocity or incoming Proton.
Make assumption about blackhole mass (maximize blackhole mass).
Assume Momentum of blackhole is the same as Momentum of Proton.
Calculate velocity of Blackhole.
...and totally muff it.
The result was so blatantly wrong that it should've been obvious from the beginning. The only way it wouldn't have been obvious is if you don't understand the basic concepts.
The result was so blatantly wrong that it should've been obvious from the beginning. The only way it wouldn't have been obvious is if you don't understand the basic concepts.
However, you have argued that the method was incorrect, which makes you wrong.
When did I argue the method? Your application of "the method" was wrong, which makes you wrong.
You were wrong.
I was right. You've already admitted it.
QUOTE
You said that my approach was wrong, when it was correct.
You were not correct.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| You said that my approach was wrong, when it was correct. |
You were not correct.
My approach:
Use energy to calculate Velocity or incoming Proton.
Make assumption about blackhole mass (maximize blackhole mass).
Assume Momentum of blackhole is the same as Momentum of Proton.
Calculate velocity of Blackhole.
...and totally muff it.
QUOTE
I'm sorry if that's too complicated for you, but it's quite correct.
The method was correct, the final answer wasn't.
The method was correct, the final answer wasn't.
The result was so blatantly wrong that it should've been obvious from the beginning. The only way it wouldn't have been obvious is if you don't understand the basic concepts.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I'm sorry if that's too complicated for you, but it's quite correct. The method was correct, the final answer wasn't. |
The result was so blatantly wrong that it should've been obvious from the beginning. The only way it wouldn't have been obvious is if you don't understand the basic concepts.
However, you have argued that the method was incorrect, which makes you wrong.
When did I argue the method? Your application of "the method" was wrong, which makes you wrong.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 07:15 PM)
I'm "thick?" ...I'm "thick?" Who of us was the one that endlessy propagated a blatantly erroneous argument? Was it me? No! It was YOU!
The argument was not in error. The calculation was, that you can't tell the difference between the two says as much about your ability to do physics as your ineptitude with the conservation of energy.
The argument was not in error. The calculation was, that you can't tell the difference between the two says as much about your ability to do physics as your ineptitude with the conservation of energy.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 07:15 PM)
If you understood the conservation of momentum, your argument would've appeared as blantantly false to you... as it was to me.
Not neccessarily. Idiot.
Not neccessarily. Idiot.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 07:15 PM)
An obvious lie.
The only liar here is you. All you've done is flap your gums and wave your arms.
The only liar here is you. All you've done is flap your gums and wave your arms.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 07:15 PM)
You were completely wrong, your assertions were absolutely incorrect (and NOT vindicated), and I never said the black hole "slows down."
No, my assertions were correct. And that's exactly my point, thanks for making it for me. I've maintained that the blackhole slows down the whole dam time, a point that you have fought tooth and nail against. The point is, that even in ThePeanuts scenario, the blackhole MUST SLOW DOWN.
No, my assertions were correct. And that's exactly my point, thanks for making it for me. I've maintained that the blackhole slows down the whole dam time, a point that you have fought tooth and nail against. The point is, that even in ThePeanuts scenario, the blackhole MUST SLOW DOWN.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 07:15 PM)
I calculated this a long time ago... long before you joined in. Too bad you missed it.
Bull. You haven't calulated Jack#### if you had, you would have quoted it/linked to it by now.
Bull. You haven't calulated Jack#### if you had, you would have quoted it/linked to it by now.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 07:15 PM)
I had it right, you had it wrong... so you must mean you couldn't understand classical results even when they were spoon-fed to you, and you definitely couldn't understand relativistic results.
And yet.... You're the one that argued that dropping an asteroid on the earth violated the conservation of energy, and you're also the one that said that the equations I spoonfed you were wrong. So... Who's having trouble with classical results? It sure isn't me.
And yet.... You're the one that argued that dropping an asteroid on the earth violated the conservation of energy, and you're also the one that said that the equations I spoonfed you were wrong. So... Who's having trouble with classical results? It sure isn't me.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 07:15 PM)
So you think if you make a math error that indicates things fall up rather than down that you'd be justified in arguing the point? That's how obvious your error was to me!
And no, to suggest this is just frigging stupid ya friggin mo! Try and understand, for a moment, that the results I got were in line with what I was expecting. I don't expect gravity make things fall upwards ya friggin mo, so, if I came across something that did, I'd go back through my equations until I found the error. You really have absolutely no clue do you.
And no, to suggest this is just frigging stupid ya friggin mo! Try and understand, for a moment, that the results I got were in line with what I was expecting. I don't expect gravity make things fall upwards ya friggin mo, so, if I came across something that did, I'd go back through my equations until I found the error. You really have absolutely no clue do you.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 07:15 PM)
But your results DID NOT CONSERVE MOMENTUM!
YOU NEVER PROVED THAT. Neither did ThePeanut - ThePeanut just pointed out that if you used the initial velocity I was citing, you got significantly lower energies.
YOU NEVER PROVED THAT. Neither did ThePeanut - ThePeanut just pointed out that if you used the initial velocity I was citing, you got significantly lower energies.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 07:15 PM)
How about simply coming clean and admitting I was right, you were wrong, and therefore my arguments regarding the LHC experiment are valid and yours are not?
You were NOT correct, because you argued my approach was erroneous. It was not my approach that was in error. Your arguments regarding saftey at the LHC are still based in ignorance, and based incorrect. Your arguments are invalid, and you have yet to disprove any of my (other) arguments.
You were NOT correct, because you argued my approach was erroneous. It was not my approach that was in error. Your arguments regarding saftey at the LHC are still based in ignorance, and based incorrect. Your arguments are invalid, and you have yet to disprove any of my (other) arguments.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 07:56 PM)
I was right. You've already admitted it.
You were not correct.
...and totally muff it.
The result was so blatantly wrong that it should've been obvious from the beginning. The only way it wouldn't have been obvious is if you don't understand the basic concepts.
When did I argue the method? Your application of "the method" was wrong, which makes you wrong.
Utter Bull.
My application of the method was correct.
You really have no concept do you?
The approach I took was accurate and correct. It fell over because somewhere, when I calculated the velocity of the cosmic ray proton, the figure I calculated was too low. That occured, because either I screwed up converting between Electron-volts and joules, or I miscounted the number of 9's in the answer.
End. Of. Story.
You were not correct.
...and totally muff it.
The result was so blatantly wrong that it should've been obvious from the beginning. The only way it wouldn't have been obvious is if you don't understand the basic concepts.
When did I argue the method? Your application of "the method" was wrong, which makes you wrong.
Utter Bull.
My application of the method was correct.
You really have no concept do you?
The approach I took was accurate and correct. It fell over because somewhere, when I calculated the velocity of the cosmic ray proton, the figure I calculated was too low. That occured, because either I screwed up converting between Electron-volts and joules, or I miscounted the number of 9's in the answer.
End. Of. Story.
QUOTE
QUOTE (ThePeanut @ Feb 22 2008, 10:46 PM)
Look it's not overly important, the last thing I'll say on the matter is that in my case, I initially posted an example demonstrating that the COM frame would have to move in the case of RealityCheck's scenario where he suggested the MBH would have little or no velocity relative to earth due to some sort of "splatter effect".
You argued there was a glaring error in my example because I was only considering one-dimension, I disagreed because it wouldn't change the conclusion, (COM must move, regardless of the number of dimensions we consider the two particle system in, in order for the MBH to have little or no velocity relative to earth (which violates momentum conservation).
You negged me leaving the helpful comment "Idiot"
I'll tell you what though, I'll be more cordial to you from now on if you give me the same courtesy, deal?
Ok whatever, all I'll say is that increasing the energy of the cosmic ray proton leads to an increase in the velocity of the COM of the system relative to earth. Given the inelastic nature of the collision, the collision result will be moving along with the COM and therefore higher energy cosmic rays results in faster moving MBH's.
From a qualitative perspective, we wouldn't expect a slow moving object hitting a stationary ball in an inelastic collision to result in the two objects zooming off at relativistic speeds nor would be expect an object traveling at relativistic speeds colliding with a stationary object to result in the two balls proceeding at very slow speeds.
Ok whatever, all I'll say is that increasing the energy of the cosmic ray proton leads to an increase in the velocity of the COM of the system relative to earth. Given the inelastic nature of the collision, the collision result will be moving along with the COM and therefore higher energy cosmic rays results in faster moving MBH's.
From a qualitative perspective, we wouldn't expect a slow moving object hitting a stationary ball in an inelastic collision to result in the two objects zooming off at relativistic speeds nor would be expect an object traveling at relativistic speeds colliding with a stationary object to result in the two balls proceeding at very slow speeds.
You're like a dog with a freaking bone. I have also stated, multiple times, many more times in fact, that "in some cases, the velocity might be below the escape velocity of the earth".
You know, if you're going to hold me to my most recent statements, hold me to all of them, and stop being such a hypocrite.
Even if I did cherry-pick statements (I haven't deliberately), I've never accused you of taking me out of context / cherry picking my statements so hypocrite isn't the correct term.
In any event, your calculation doesn't demonstrate how "in some cases, the velocity might be below the escape velocity of earth" either, in fact in the example you have used, all energy is used in the MBH formation so all black holes would be formed with the same velocity and therefore none would have a velocity below earths escape velocity.
You would need to come up with a different collision model whereby, for example MBH production is formed from the collision of two quarks only (as barakn and rpenner have suggested). You would then have a situation where the velocities of MBH's formed in these events would be distributed, with varying velocities, around a mean velocity co-moving with the COM frame and you could calculate the probability of a particular MBH having a velocity less than earths escape velocity.
I suspect the probability is extremely slim though considering the very high speed of the COM in earths frame.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (ThePeanut @ Feb 22 2008, 10:46 PM) You've been rude to me from the outset, simply because I disagreed with you, that smacks of arrogance. My tone in response to your posts is simply a consequence of your rudeness. I bet you wouldn't be calling me an arrogant jackass if I had agreed with you and made rude, smart-alec comments to ubavnotuba (something you do all the time). Irrelevant. Actually, if you bothered to look into the facts before openeing your mouth, you'd realize something. Ubavontubas first post to me was abusive - I stated that I believed someone else to be correct, he took the wrong end of the stick, got his nose out of joint and started abusing me. My attitude towards Ubavontuba is a direct reflection of his own actions. |
Look it's not overly important, the last thing I'll say on the matter is that in my case, I initially posted an example demonstrating that the COM frame would have to move in the case of RealityCheck's scenario where he suggested the MBH would have little or no velocity relative to earth due to some sort of "splatter effect".
You argued there was a glaring error in my example because I was only considering one-dimension, I disagreed because it wouldn't change the conclusion, (COM must move, regardless of the number of dimensions we consider the two particle system in, in order for the MBH to have little or no velocity relative to earth (which violates momentum conservation).
You negged me leaving the helpful comment "Idiot"
I'll tell you what though, I'll be more cordial to you from now on if you give me the same courtesy, deal?
QUOTE
Did you bother looking over the post that I linked to? No? Didn't think so, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous that statement was. Yes, I missed what some may consider an obvious error when I sat down and created a spreedsheet, however when I looked at the way the residual velocity was behaving, while it seemed odd, it didn't seem (neccessarily) completely unusual - i'd explain further, but 1) it's not worth my time, and 2) it's not really relevant.
And if I was 'completely oblivious' to 'how silly it was' why do you think i've commented multiple freaking times that I suspected there might have been an error in it?
And if I was 'completely oblivious' to 'how silly it was' why do you think i've commented multiple freaking times that I suspected there might have been an error in it?
Ok whatever, all I'll say is that increasing the energy of the cosmic ray proton leads to an increase in the velocity of the COM of the system relative to earth. Given the inelastic nature of the collision, the collision result will be moving along with the COM and therefore higher energy cosmic rays results in faster moving MBH's.
From a qualitative perspective, we wouldn't expect a slow moving object hitting a stationary ball in an inelastic collision to result in the two objects zooming off at relativistic speeds nor would be expect an object traveling at relativistic speeds colliding with a stationary object to result in the two balls proceeding at very slow speeds.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Did you bother looking over the post that I linked to? No? Didn't think so, otherwise you'd realize how ridiculous that statement was. Yes, I missed what some may consider an obvious error when I sat down and created a spreedsheet, however when I looked at the way the residual velocity was behaving, while it seemed odd, it didn't seem (neccessarily) completely unusual - i'd explain further, but 1) it's not worth my time, and 2) it's not really relevant. And if I was 'completely oblivious' to 'how silly it was' why do you think i've commented multiple freaking times that I suspected there might have been an error in it? |
Ok whatever, all I'll say is that increasing the energy of the cosmic ray proton leads to an increase in the velocity of the COM of the system relative to earth. Given the inelastic nature of the collision, the collision result will be moving along with the COM and therefore higher energy cosmic rays results in faster moving MBH's.
From a qualitative perspective, we wouldn't expect a slow moving object hitting a stationary ball in an inelastic collision to result in the two objects zooming off at relativistic speeds nor would be expect an object traveling at relativistic speeds colliding with a stationary object to result in the two balls proceeding at very slow speeds.
You're like a dog with a freaking bone. I have also stated, multiple times, many more times in fact, that "in some cases, the velocity might be below the escape velocity of the earth".
You know, if you're going to hold me to my most recent statements, hold me to all of them, and stop being such a hypocrite.
Even if I did cherry-pick statements (I haven't deliberately), I've never accused you of taking me out of context / cherry picking my statements so hypocrite isn't the correct term.
In any event, your calculation doesn't demonstrate how "in some cases, the velocity might be below the escape velocity of earth" either, in fact in the example you have used, all energy is used in the MBH formation so all black holes would be formed with the same velocity and therefore none would have a velocity below earths escape velocity.
You would need to come up with a different collision model whereby, for example MBH production is formed from the collision of two quarks only (as barakn and rpenner have suggested). You would then have a situation where the velocities of MBH's formed in these events would be distributed, with varying velocities, around a mean velocity co-moving with the COM frame and you could calculate the probability of a particular MBH having a velocity less than earths escape velocity.
I suspect the probability is extremely slim though considering the very high speed of the COM in earths frame.
QUOTE
QUOTE (ThePeanut @ Feb 22 2008, 09:11 PM)
"Fat and lazy doesn't work" is an excellent analogy. The context of it was in response to your line of thinking that increasing the (rest) mass of the MBH automatically implies a decrease in the velocity of the MBH (relative to earth).
I'm not convinced you don't still subscribe to this line of thinking either.
This is actually the same line of thinking except the opposite, a lower (rest) mass of the MBH does not imply that the MBH must move faster (relative to earth), in fact, on average, MBH velocity will remain the same even if only a small amount of the total energy of the cosmic ray proton is converted into MBH rest energy.
In this context I could say "small and speedy" doesn't work.
This is actually the same line of thinking except the opposite, a lower (rest) mass of the MBH does not imply that the MBH must move faster (relative to earth), in fact, on average, MBH velocity will remain the same even if only a small amount of the total energy of the cosmic ray proton is converted into MBH rest energy.
In this context I could say "small and speedy" doesn't work.
I have asked/challenged, multiple times for people who disagree with me to do the calculations to prove it. Did you ever stop to consider, that maybe the tone I have used in some of my posts is a direct reflection of the fact that you haven't done this, and chosen to respond with the same sort of Jaw flapping as Ubavontuba? That in behaving in the same way as him, in spite of numerous requests/demands, that you lump yourself into a group of posters (including Ubavontuba) who like to sit around and prognosticate over physics they barely understand (See Ubavontubas claim that strapping rocket packs onto asteroids and throwing/dropping them at each other from gavitational infinity as proof of this). Did it occur to you in your self-righteous rampage that if you had simply done what Barakn has done and said "Well actually, the calculations show this, this, and this" that much of what has transpired could have been avoided?
I pointed out the error you made in underestimating the velocity of the cosmic ray proton. I calculated what your velocity meant the cosmic ray would only have an energy of about 1.05 TeV. I then calculated what the velocity of the cosmic ray proton should be (my result was very close to Barakn's - .9999999999996c vs .999999999999667c. I said that this meant your Lorentz factor would be out by a factor of 1,000 and therefore your cosmic ray momentum was underestimated by a factor of about 1,000.
I didn't check your calculations initially because I hoped I wouldn't need to. I tried to get you to see that your result clearly wasn't correct because it violated the conservation of momentum, and that this should've been clear by inspection, (i.e. without the need for me to perform any calculations) - the velocity of the COM relative to earth slowed dramatically after the collision if the MBH has a resulting velocity of just 239m/s. When it was apparent you weren't going to reconsider your calculations I pointed out that the velocity of the cosmic ray was too low, which prompted Barakn to step in and do the calculations.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| QUOTE (ThePeanut @ Feb 22 2008, 09:11 PM) Gee really? Thats kind of obvious isn't it? Why would you need to make this particular point? Your initial calculation was directed at ubavontuba I believe. I don't recall him saying the MBH would have the same velocity as the cosmic ray proton. Do you have a quote saying otherwise? I've lost count of how many times he's claimed "Fat and lazy doesn't work" |
"Fat and lazy doesn't work" is an excellent analogy. The context of it was in response to your line of thinking that increasing the (rest) mass of the MBH automatically implies a decrease in the velocity of the MBH (relative to earth).
I'm not convinced you don't still subscribe to this line of thinking either.
QUOTE
It occurs to me to mention, that when I figured the mass of the (alleged) black hole I assumed that all of the total energy of the proton became the rest energy of the black hole. Another possible interpretation of what I said with the partons is that if only 2% of the total energy of the cosmic ray proton is converted into black hole rest energy, then the result is a black that is light enough, and has sufficient momentum to acheive escape velocity - a point that I have tried to make previously, but managed to mis-state.
This is actually the same line of thinking except the opposite, a lower (rest) mass of the MBH does not imply that the MBH must move faster (relative to earth), in fact, on average, MBH velocity will remain the same even if only a small amount of the total energy of the cosmic ray proton is converted into MBH rest energy.
In this context I could say "small and speedy" doesn't work.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| It occurs to me to mention, that when I figured the mass of the (alleged) black hole I assumed that all of the total energy of the proton became the rest energy of the black hole. Another possible interpretation of what I said with the partons is that if only 2% of the total energy of the cosmic ray proton is converted into black hole rest energy, then the result is a black that is light enough, and has sufficient momentum to acheive escape velocity - a point that I have tried to make previously, but managed to mis-state. |
This is actually the same line of thinking except the opposite, a lower (rest) mass of the MBH does not imply that the MBH must move faster (relative to earth), in fact, on average, MBH velocity will remain the same even if only a small amount of the total energy of the cosmic ray proton is converted into MBH rest energy.
In this context I could say "small and speedy" doesn't work.
I have asked/challenged, multiple times for people who disagree with me to do the calculations to prove it. Did you ever stop to consider, that maybe the tone I have used in some of my posts is a direct reflection of the fact that you haven't done this, and chosen to respond with the same sort of Jaw flapping as Ubavontuba? That in behaving in the same way as him, in spite of numerous requests/demands, that you lump yourself into a group of posters (including Ubavontuba) who like to sit around and prognosticate over physics they barely understand (See Ubavontubas claim that strapping rocket packs onto asteroids and throwing/dropping them at each other from gavitational infinity as proof of this). Did it occur to you in your self-righteous rampage that if you had simply done what Barakn has done and said "Well actually, the calculations show this, this, and this" that much of what has transpired could have been avoided?
I pointed out the error you made in underestimating the velocity of the cosmic ray proton. I calculated what your velocity meant the cosmic ray would only have an energy of about 1.05 TeV. I then calculated what the velocity of the cosmic ray proton should be (my result was very close to Barakn's - .9999999999996c vs .999999999999667c. I said that this meant your Lorentz factor would be out by a factor of 1,000 and therefore your cosmic ray momentum was underestimated by a factor of about 1,000.
I didn't check your calculations initially because I hoped I wouldn't need to. I tried to get you to see that your result clearly wasn't correct because it violated the conservation of momentum, and that this should've been clear by inspection, (i.e. without the need for me to perform any calculations) - the velocity of the COM relative to earth slowed dramatically after the collision if the MBH has a resulting velocity of just 239m/s. When it was apparent you weren't going to reconsider your calculations I pointed out that the velocity of the cosmic ray was too low, which prompted Barakn to step in and do the calculations.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 24 2008, 06:59 AM)
The argument was not in error.
If it was wrong, then by definition it was in error.
You're very funny. Why can't you just admit you were wrong and I was right, and just leave it at that?
You're very funny. Why can't you just admit you were wrong and I was right, and just leave it at that?
Not neccessarily. Idiot.
Yes, necessarily.
You're the one that's insisting you're right and I'm wrong, after already admitting it was the other way around. You can't have it both ways. By necessity, one way or the other is a lie.
You're the one that's insisting you're right and I'm wrong, after already admitting it was the other way around. You can't have it both ways. By necessity, one way or the other is a lie.
No, my assertions were correct. And that's exactly my point, thanks for making it for me.
So now you're going to go back and insist that the black hole stops relative only to the earth again? Haven't you already admitted that this assertion is wrong?
How does it do that?
How does it do that?
Bull. You haven't calulated Jack#### if you had, you would have quoted it/linked to it by now.
It's so old I don't even know where it is anymore. I think Walter L. Wagner has his own (even earlier) version on his website. That should be good enough for you.
And you STILL don't get it. You never did, and obviously, you never will.
And you STILL don't get it. You never did, and obviously, you never will.
And no, to suggest this is just frigging stupid ya friggin mo! Try and understand, for a moment, that the results I got were in line with what I was expecting. I don't expect gravity make things fall upwards ya friggin mo, so, if I came across something that did, I'd go back through my equations until I found the error. You really have absolutely no clue do you.
But you think a high-energy collision with an earthbound particle having no residual momentum relative to the earth is perfectly reasonable? Do you see? You obviously DO NOT understand the conservation of momentum!
The proof is in the pudding. You also cited much higher energy.
The proof is in the pudding. You also cited much higher energy.
You were NOT correct, because you argued my approach was erroneous.
If your approach achieves obviously false results, then there's something wrong with it. The method might be valid, or not. It doesn't matter. Results matter.
Obviously, my argument with the CERN safety argument concerning cosmic ray collisions is valid. What other arguments are you referring too?
P.S. You shouldn't feel too bad about being wrong concerning the cosmic ray collisions. Even the CERN folks muffed that one. You've lots of company.
If it was wrong, then by definition it was in error.
QUOTE
The calculation was (in error), that you can't tell the difference between the two says as much about your ability to do physics as your ineptitude with the conservation of energy.
You're very funny. Why can't you just admit you were wrong and I was right, and just leave it at that?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The calculation was (in error), that you can't tell the difference between the two says as much about your ability to do physics as your ineptitude with the conservation of energy. |
You're very funny. Why can't you just admit you were wrong and I was right, and just leave it at that?
Not neccessarily. Idiot.
Yes, necessarily.
QUOTE
The only liar here is you. All you've done is flap your gums and wave your arms.
You're the one that's insisting you're right and I'm wrong, after already admitting it was the other way around. You can't have it both ways. By necessity, one way or the other is a lie.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The only liar here is you. All you've done is flap your gums and wave your arms. |
You're the one that's insisting you're right and I'm wrong, after already admitting it was the other way around. You can't have it both ways. By necessity, one way or the other is a lie.
No, my assertions were correct. And that's exactly my point, thanks for making it for me.
So now you're going to go back and insist that the black hole stops relative only to the earth again? Haven't you already admitted that this assertion is wrong?
QUOTE
I've maintained that the blackhole slows down the whole dam time, a point that you have fought tooth and nail against. The point is, that even in ThePeanuts scenario, the blackhole MUST SLOW DOWN.
How does it do that?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I've maintained that the blackhole slows down the whole dam time, a point that you have fought tooth and nail against. The point is, that even in ThePeanuts scenario, the blackhole MUST SLOW DOWN. |
How does it do that?
Bull. You haven't calulated Jack#### if you had, you would have quoted it/linked to it by now.
It's so old I don't even know where it is anymore. I think Walter L. Wagner has his own (even earlier) version on his website. That should be good enough for you.
QUOTE
And yet.... You're the one that argued that dropping an asteroid on the earth violated the conservation of energy, and you're also the one that said that the equations I spoonfed you were wrong. So... Who's having trouble with classical results? It sure isn't me.
And you STILL don't get it. You never did, and obviously, you never will.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| And yet.... You're the one that argued that dropping an asteroid on the earth violated the conservation of energy, and you're also the one that said that the equations I spoonfed you were wrong. So... Who's having trouble with classical results? It sure isn't me. |
And you STILL don't get it. You never did, and obviously, you never will.
And no, to suggest this is just frigging stupid ya friggin mo! Try and understand, for a moment, that the results I got were in line with what I was expecting. I don't expect gravity make things fall upwards ya friggin mo, so, if I came across something that did, I'd go back through my equations until I found the error. You really have absolutely no clue do you.
But you think a high-energy collision with an earthbound particle having no residual momentum relative to the earth is perfectly reasonable? Do you see? You obviously DO NOT understand the conservation of momentum!
QUOTE
YOU NEVER PROVED THAT. Neither did ThePeanut - ThePeanut just pointed out that if you used the initial velocity I was citing, you got significantly lower energies.
The proof is in the pudding. You also cited much higher energy.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| YOU NEVER PROVED THAT. Neither did ThePeanut - ThePeanut just pointed out that if you used the initial velocity I was citing, you got significantly lower energies. |
The proof is in the pudding. You also cited much higher energy.
You were NOT correct, because you argued my approach was erroneous.
If your approach achieves obviously false results, then there's something wrong with it. The method might be valid, or not. It doesn't matter. Results matter.
QUOTE
It was not my approach that was in error. Your arguments regarding saftey at the LHC are still based in ignorance, and based incorrect. Your arguments are invalid, and you have yet to disprove any of my (other) arguments.
Obviously, my argument with the CERN safety argument concerning cosmic ray collisions is valid. What other arguments are you referring too?
P.S. You shouldn't feel too bad about being wrong concerning the cosmic ray collisions. Even the CERN folks muffed that one. You've lots of company.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 08:28 PM)
If it was wrong, then by definition it was in error.
No. I've already explained this to you half a dozen times now.
No. I've already explained this to you half a dozen times now.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 08:28 PM)
You're very funny. Why can't you just admit you were wrong and I was right, and just leave it at that?
Why can't you admit you were wrong? And you wern't correct, not one of your assertions has withstood scruitany.
Why can't you admit you were wrong? And you wern't correct, not one of your assertions has withstood scruitany.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 08:28 PM)
Yes, necessarily.
No, not really. Get over it.
No, not really. Get over it.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 08:28 PM)
You're the one that's insisting you're right and I'm wrong, after already admitting it was the other way around. You can't have it both ways. By necessity, one way or the other is a lie.
No, you idiot. Get it right. My approach was correct, the derivations were correct, I used the correct formulae in the correct places. It was the final answer that was erroneous, you're just apparently too thick to understand the difference.
No, you idiot. Get it right. My approach was correct, the derivations were correct, I used the correct formulae in the correct places. It was the final answer that was erroneous, you're just apparently too thick to understand the difference.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 08:28 PM)
So now you're going to go back and insist that the black hole stops relative only to the earth again? Haven't you already admitted that this assertion is wrong?
Pfft, no, you idiot. That's not what I said. I said the blackhole slows down.
Pfft, no, you idiot. That's not what I said. I said the blackhole slows down.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 08:28 PM)
How does it do that?
I've already explained it to you, and it's been born out by both Barakn's calculations, and by thePeanuts scenario. See, here you are, right here, saying that the blackhole doesn't slow down, inspite of having stated mere posts ago that you have never said any such thing. And you wonder why noone takes you seriously.
I've already explained it to you, and it's been born out by both Barakn's calculations, and by thePeanuts scenario. See, here you are, right here, saying that the blackhole doesn't slow down, inspite of having stated mere posts ago that you have never said any such thing. And you wonder why noone takes you seriously.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 08:28 PM)
It's so old I don't even know where it is anymore. I think Walter L. Wagner has his own (even earlier) version on his website. That should be good enough for you.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 08:28 PM)
And you STILL don't get it. You never did, and obviously, you never will.
There's nothing to get. Your assertion was proven wrong, end of story. Anything past that is irrelevant. Any mythical point that you still haven't made is irrelevant. Your noise on the issue is irrelevant.
There's nothing to get. Your assertion was proven wrong, end of story. Anything past that is irrelevant. Any mythical point that you still haven't made is irrelevant. Your noise on the issue is irrelevant.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 08:28 PM)
But you think a high-energy collision with an earthbound particle having no residual momentum relative to the earth is perfectly reasonable? Do you see? You obviously DO NOT understand the conservation of momentum!
No, I do understand the conservation of momentum you idiot.
No, I do understand the conservation of momentum you idiot.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 08:28 PM)
The proof is in the pudding. You also cited much higher energy.
Bull.
Bull.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 08:28 PM)
If your approach achieves obviously false results, then there's something wrong with it. The method might be valid, or not. It doesn't matter. Results matter.
More Bull.
More Bull.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 08:28 PM)
Obviously, my argument with the CERN safety argument concerning cosmic ray collisions is valid. What other arguments are you referring too?
P.S. You shouldn't feel too bad about being wrong concerning the cosmic ray collisions. Even the CERN folks muffed that one. You've lots of company.
Still more bull.
P.S. You shouldn't feel too bad about being wrong concerning the cosmic ray collisions. Even the CERN folks muffed that one. You've lots of company.
Still more bull.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 24 2008, 07:48 AM)
No. I've already explained this to you half a dozen times now.
Please define the term: error. Do you even know what it means?
Do you remember awhile back telling me that you'd have no problem admitting you're wrong, if in fact you were found to be wrong? Was that just another lie?
Because I've been right, all along!
Because I've been right, all along!
And you wern't correct, not one of your assertions has withstood scruitany.
They have all withstood scrutiny... every single blessed one. Which one might you be disagreeing with now?
So then you're admitting that you don't understand the conservation of momentum. Otherwise, your argument would've appeared as blatantly false to you... as it was to me.
So then you're admitting that you don't understand the conservation of momentum. Otherwise, your argument would've appeared as blatantly false to you... as it was to me.
No, you idiot. Get it right. My approach was correct, the derivations were correct, I used the correct formulae in the correct places. It was the final answer that was erroneous, you're just apparently too thick to understand the difference.
No you idiot. Get it right. Your approach doesn't matter. You were wrong in fact and in principle. You're just apparently too thick to understand.
How does it do that? Does it have it's own propulsion device?
How does it do that? Does it have it's own propulsion device?
I've already explained it to you, and it's been born out by both Barakn's calculations, and by thePeanuts scenario. See, here you are, right here, saying that the blackhole doesn't slow down, inspite of having stated mere posts ago that you have never said any such thing. And you wonder why noone takes you seriously.
Do you even understand that "slow down" is a relative term?
What assertion of mine's been proven wrong? You don't even know the point of that discussion. You never did! I say so, throughout.
What assertion of mine's been proven wrong? You don't even know the point of that discussion. You never did! I say so, throughout.
No, I do understand the conservation of momentum you idiot.
Then why didn't you see that your assertions were obviously, blatantly, incontrovertibly, indisputably, and undeniably breaking the conservation of momentum?
Articulate, aren't we?
Articulate, aren't we?
More Bull.
That's not a credible argument.
That's not a particularly persuasive argument either. You can do better.
Please define the term: error. Do you even know what it means?
Do you remember awhile back telling me that you'd have no problem admitting you're wrong, if in fact you were found to be wrong? Was that just another lie?
QUOTE
Why can't you admit you were wrong?
Because I've been right, all along!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Why can't you admit you were wrong? |
Because I've been right, all along!
And you wern't correct, not one of your assertions has withstood scruitany.
They have all withstood scrutiny... every single blessed one. Which one might you be disagreeing with now?
QUOTE
No, not really. Get over it.
So then you're admitting that you don't understand the conservation of momentum. Otherwise, your argument would've appeared as blatantly false to you... as it was to me.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| No, not really. Get over it. |
So then you're admitting that you don't understand the conservation of momentum. Otherwise, your argument would've appeared as blatantly false to you... as it was to me.
No, you idiot. Get it right. My approach was correct, the derivations were correct, I used the correct formulae in the correct places. It was the final answer that was erroneous, you're just apparently too thick to understand the difference.
No you idiot. Get it right. Your approach doesn't matter. You were wrong in fact and in principle. You're just apparently too thick to understand.
QUOTE
Pfft, no, you idiot. That's not what I said. I said the blackhole slows down.
How does it do that? Does it have it's own propulsion device?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Pfft, no, you idiot. That's not what I said. I said the blackhole slows down. |
How does it do that? Does it have it's own propulsion device?
I've already explained it to you, and it's been born out by both Barakn's calculations, and by thePeanuts scenario. See, here you are, right here, saying that the blackhole doesn't slow down, inspite of having stated mere posts ago that you have never said any such thing. And you wonder why noone takes you seriously.
Do you even understand that "slow down" is a relative term?
QUOTE
There's nothing to get. Your assertion was proven wrong, end of story. Anything past that is irrelevant. Any mythical point that you still haven't made is irrelevant. Your noise on the issue is irrelevant.
What assertion of mine's been proven wrong? You don't even know the point of that discussion. You never did! I say so, throughout.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| There's nothing to get. Your assertion was proven wrong, end of story. Anything past that is irrelevant. Any mythical point that you still haven't made is irrelevant. Your noise on the issue is irrelevant. |
What assertion of mine's been proven wrong? You don't even know the point of that discussion. You never did! I say so, throughout.
No, I do understand the conservation of momentum you idiot.
Then why didn't you see that your assertions were obviously, blatantly, incontrovertibly, indisputably, and undeniably breaking the conservation of momentum?
QUOTE
Bull.
Articulate, aren't we?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Bull. |
Articulate, aren't we?
More Bull.
That's not a credible argument.
QUOTE
Still more bull.
That's not a particularly persuasive argument either. You can do better.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 24 2008, 06:10 AM)
This is unacceptable. Here's a portion of our prior argument on this issue (based on my prior comment to AlphaNumeric; "Like how the earth couldn't capture cosmic ray induced nano black holes.")... bolds added:
OH NO! It's the Trippy argument all over again!
Are you trying to suggest that two colliding objects of equal mass and momentum do not collide and stop in the center of their energy/momentum? But rather, they stop relative to some preferred observer? I think not!
Spent where? Where's the center of mass/energy for the two colliding bodies? It certainly isn't preferential to the earth.
You're viewing the "target particle" as somehow being fixed, as if it's inert.
Oh RC! I am deeply dissapointed in this assessment.
Not true. I suppose it must be natural to have this preferred reference frame bias though. It seems common enough.
Or, they smash through the earth like I contend.
As can plainly be seen, you were agreeing with Trippy's contention. You've tried to sidestep this since, but you never admitted the error. Until you do, we have nothing further to discuss.
Hi uba!
No mate. You are 'understanding' my comments in the contexts/assumptions of both your/others' 'scenarios'....a scenario that I say is NOT to be analysed in the usual manner as both 'sides' are doing.
I claerly said that the 'event' results in MANY 'frames' for all sorts of 'products' issuing from the event.....MEANING that while much mass continues in the original line of the incopming proton, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE that in EVERY CASE any 'putative' black hole is going to 'exit' that event centre in that same direction. In fact, depending on the DYNAMIC INTERPLAY of all the forces/charges/turbulence/quantum uncertainties involved, the 'putative' micro-hole feature may exit BACKWARDS along the original line....or slow to a RANGE of velocities DEPENDING ON WHERE THE OTHER PRODUCTS and LINEAR/ANGULAR (spin) 'kinetic/momentum/other' energy 'sinks' are going after the event is 'settled' and 'explodes' away from the event space.
Also, there are the collision analyses that I disagree with on both sides. Take for example your suggestion to Trippy to understand the basics of momentum in your 'low energy' collision of cae/truck. I say that is totally irrelevant and misleading in that the car/truck have NO ANGULAR MOMENTUM PROPERTIES (no spin) and NO ENERGY BARRIERS (coulomb etc) forces surrounding them as WHOLE BODIES. So whereas the car/truck 'kinetic energies' are absorbed AS 'random LINEAR MOMENTUM 'kinetic energy' HEAT spread over their BULK of MYRIAD particle constituents throughout the two 'merged' bodies, SINGLE 'free' particles have SPIN, and any 'kinetic energy' is dissipated by ANGULAR MOMENTUM kinetic energy' AS WELL as any LINEAR MOMENTUM 'kinetic energy' of the SINGLE PARTICLES.
Moreover, whereas there are REPULSIVE BARRIERS/FORCES associated with EACH WHOLE BODY particle in 'free particle' collisions, there is no analogous WHOLE BODY repulsive 'barrier energy/forces between car and truck...so NO such kinetic energy 'sinks' are involved in low energy, macro body collisions AT ALL.
Still further, at the MACRO SCALE of car/truck collision 'event center', there is NO QUANTUM UNCERTAINTLY FORCES/EFFECTS in the 'absolute' spacetime processes 'location/frame' sense...since the macro body collision event 'starting constituents' and 'product constituents', as well as the overall event 'space' is NOT subject to such 'absolute' spacetime location/frame quantum fluctuations/uncrtainty effects/forces.
See? The car and truck momentum analysis (quite apart from the relativity factors already mentioned by barakn and others) does not involve all these other nano/quantum scale/particle natures/properties or whole-body 'barriers' and 'forces' and 'energy sinks' etc that make INelsatic 'free particle' collisions VASTLY DIFFERENT from, and cannot be analysed like, 'normal' macro-body type collisions which EFFECTIVELY INVOLVE MYRIAD 'BOUND' PARTICLES IN MACRO BULK BODIES way ABOVE the nano/quantum world in which the cosmic ray proton and atmospheric proton collision occurs.
Hint: the analysis in an EXTENDED MACRO-SCALE SPACETIME EVENT CENTRE is QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT to MICRO is only relevant to MICRO analysis of POINT-LIKE QUANTUM-SCALE EVENT CENTRES where OTHER MORE POWERFUL ENERGIES/BARRIERS are involved that are INSIGNIFICANT in the macro scale collisions/event centres. Not to mention that in macro car/truck event, the Earth;s magnetic fields and other magnetic fields have NO significant ramifications for the 'event centre' and its MACRO BULK starting/product contituents.
Anyhow, please take the time to actually comprehend what I have been getting at that is DIFFERENT FROM BOTH 'sides' so far in these discussions. OK? I disagree with both of you. Any 'apparent' 'agreement' you 'perceive' is due to you 'misreading' what I have been saying re the collision analysis IN ALL ITS FACETS.
.
Now that I have cleared that up, perhaps you will suppress your misplaced indignation and think further on the OTHER even more important aspect of TOTAL MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY STRENGTH requirement for GETTING AND KEEPING 'extreme' densities PER SE in the first and all cases....that being the DEFINING REQUIREMENT to form/maintain any extreme density 'featurte' AGAINST INTERNAL COULOMB/DYNAMIC ETC FORCES which will in the absence of such cumulative minimum absolute gravity 'containment' effect.
This aspect is the crucial one that you and others must resolve in order to 'allow' micro-holes to form/exist AT ALL as speculated. OK?
The IMPORTANT thing being that, NO MATTER HOW 'sharp' a micro-MASSED partlicle 'density' may have, the overall CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY STRENGTH is PUNY IN ABSOLUTE CUMULATIVE GRAVITY TERMS/EFFECT/INTERACTION....not to metion that quantum scale effects will IMMEDIATELY make any putative' SHARP' gradient vulnerable and UNCERTAIN at best, and most likely DISRUPTED IMMEDIATELY to 'extend' to normal gradient and allow the particle to 'extend with it to 'normal' particle densities.
So, take a few days to think about all MY OWN posted points AS I MEANT THEM and not as you/others may have 'misread' them, hehehe.
Perhaps next week I will have more time to spare. I will see how things have gone then.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
OH NO! It's the Trippy argument all over again!
Are you trying to suggest that two colliding objects of equal mass and momentum do not collide and stop in the center of their energy/momentum? But rather, they stop relative to some preferred observer? I think not!
Spent where? Where's the center of mass/energy for the two colliding bodies? It certainly isn't preferential to the earth.
You're viewing the "target particle" as somehow being fixed, as if it's inert.
Oh RC! I am deeply dissapointed in this assessment.
Not true. I suppose it must be natural to have this preferred reference frame bias though. It seems common enough.
Or, they smash through the earth like I contend.
As can plainly be seen, you were agreeing with Trippy's contention. You've tried to sidestep this since, but you never admitted the error. Until you do, we have nothing further to discuss.
Hi uba!
No mate. You are 'understanding' my comments in the contexts/assumptions of both your/others' 'scenarios'....a scenario that I say is NOT to be analysed in the usual manner as both 'sides' are doing.
I claerly said that the 'event' results in MANY 'frames' for all sorts of 'products' issuing from the event.....MEANING that while much mass continues in the original line of the incopming proton, THERE IS NO GUARANTEE that in EVERY CASE any 'putative' black hole is going to 'exit' that event centre in that same direction. In fact, depending on the DYNAMIC INTERPLAY of all the forces/charges/turbulence/quantum uncertainties involved, the 'putative' micro-hole feature may exit BACKWARDS along the original line....or slow to a RANGE of velocities DEPENDING ON WHERE THE OTHER PRODUCTS and LINEAR/ANGULAR (spin) 'kinetic/momentum/other' energy 'sinks' are going after the event is 'settled' and 'explodes' away from the event space.
Also, there are the collision analyses that I disagree with on both sides. Take for example your suggestion to Trippy to understand the basics of momentum in your 'low energy' collision of cae/truck. I say that is totally irrelevant and misleading in that the car/truck have NO ANGULAR MOMENTUM PROPERTIES (no spin) and NO ENERGY BARRIERS (coulomb etc) forces surrounding them as WHOLE BODIES. So whereas the car/truck 'kinetic energies' are absorbed AS 'random LINEAR MOMENTUM 'kinetic energy' HEAT spread over their BULK of MYRIAD particle constituents throughout the two 'merged' bodies, SINGLE 'free' particles have SPIN, and any 'kinetic energy' is dissipated by ANGULAR MOMENTUM kinetic energy' AS WELL as any LINEAR MOMENTUM 'kinetic energy' of the SINGLE PARTICLES.
Moreover, whereas there are REPULSIVE BARRIERS/FORCES associated with EACH WHOLE BODY particle in 'free particle' collisions, there is no analogous WHOLE BODY repulsive 'barrier energy/forces between car and truck...so NO such kinetic energy 'sinks' are involved in low energy, macro body collisions AT ALL.
Still further, at the MACRO SCALE of car/truck collision 'event center', there is NO QUANTUM UNCERTAINTLY FORCES/EFFECTS in the 'absolute' spacetime processes 'location/frame' sense...since the macro body collision event 'starting constituents' and 'product constituents', as well as the overall event 'space' is NOT subject to such 'absolute' spacetime location/frame quantum fluctuations/uncrtainty effects/forces.
See? The car and truck momentum analysis (quite apart from the relativity factors already mentioned by barakn and others) does not involve all these other nano/quantum scale/particle natures/properties or whole-body 'barriers' and 'forces' and 'energy sinks' etc that make INelsatic 'free particle' collisions VASTLY DIFFERENT from, and cannot be analysed like, 'normal' macro-body type collisions which EFFECTIVELY INVOLVE MYRIAD 'BOUND' PARTICLES IN MACRO BULK BODIES way ABOVE the nano/quantum world in which the cosmic ray proton and atmospheric proton collision occurs.
Hint: the analysis in an EXTENDED MACRO-SCALE SPACETIME EVENT CENTRE is QUALITATIVELY DIFFERENT to MICRO is only relevant to MICRO analysis of POINT-LIKE QUANTUM-SCALE EVENT CENTRES where OTHER MORE POWERFUL ENERGIES/BARRIERS are involved that are INSIGNIFICANT in the macro scale collisions/event centres. Not to mention that in macro car/truck event, the Earth;s magnetic fields and other magnetic fields have NO significant ramifications for the 'event centre' and its MACRO BULK starting/product contituents.
Anyhow, please take the time to actually comprehend what I have been getting at that is DIFFERENT FROM BOTH 'sides' so far in these discussions. OK? I disagree with both of you. Any 'apparent' 'agreement' you 'perceive' is due to you 'misreading' what I have been saying re the collision analysis IN ALL ITS FACETS.
.
Now that I have cleared that up, perhaps you will suppress your misplaced indignation and think further on the OTHER even more important aspect of TOTAL MINIMUM CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY STRENGTH requirement for GETTING AND KEEPING 'extreme' densities PER SE in the first and all cases....that being the DEFINING REQUIREMENT to form/maintain any extreme density 'featurte' AGAINST INTERNAL COULOMB/DYNAMIC ETC FORCES which will in the absence of such cumulative minimum absolute gravity 'containment' effect.
This aspect is the crucial one that you and others must resolve in order to 'allow' micro-holes to form/exist AT ALL as speculated. OK?
The IMPORTANT thing being that, NO MATTER HOW 'sharp' a micro-MASSED partlicle 'density' may have, the overall CUMULATIVE ABSOLUTE GRAVITY STRENGTH is PUNY IN ABSOLUTE CUMULATIVE GRAVITY TERMS/EFFECT/INTERACTION....not to metion that quantum scale effects will IMMEDIATELY make any putative' SHARP' gradient vulnerable and UNCERTAIN at best, and most likely DISRUPTED IMMEDIATELY to 'extend' to normal gradient and allow the particle to 'extend with it to 'normal' particle densities.
So, take a few days to think about all MY OWN posted points AS I MEANT THEM and not as you/others may have 'misread' them, hehehe.
Perhaps next week I will have more time to spare. I will see how things have gone then.
Cheers all!
RC.
.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 07:53 AM)
Please define the term: error. Do you even know what it means?
Do you remember awhile back telling me that you'd have no problem admitting you're wrong, if in fact you were found to be wrong? Was that just another lie?
Because I've been right, all along!
They have all withstood scrutiny... every single blessed one. Which one might you be disagreeing with now?
So then you're admitting that you don't understand the conservation of momentum. Otherwise, your argument would've appeared as blatantly false to you... as it was to me.
No you idiot. Get it right. Your approach doesn't matter. You were wrong in fact and in principle. You're just apparently too thick to understand.
How does it do that? Does it have it's own propulsion device?
Do you even understand that "slow down" is a relative term?
What assertion of mine's been proven wrong? You don't even know the point of that discussion. You never did! I say so, throughout.
Then why didn't you see that your assertions were obviously, blatantly, incontrovertibly, indisputably, and undeniably breaking the conservation of momentum?
Another steaming pile of dairy effluent.
1) I know exactly what error means.
2) A correct equation fed erroneous numbers will produce erroneous results. I have not had any trouble admitting that the numbers I fed into the equations (and method) I was using were wrong. The point is that the approach was right, and the very same equations I used produce correct results when fed the correct initial proton velocity.
The fact that you can not understand this suggests that you did not understand what I posted quoting Barakn in a PM to me, and that in all likelyhood you didn't bother reading it (which would not surprise me).
3) You have not been right all around.
4) None of your assertions have withstood scruitiny.
5) You're argument amounted to "I don't like it, it's wrong" There are reasons why it did not seem blatantly wrong. Reasons that I am disinclined to discuss with you (because they're none of your buisiness) and you've demonstrated no ability to understand them.
6) Approach matters, I was correct in principle.
7) See previous discussion with thepeanut in which thepeanut agreed that the blackhole slows down when considered from either the Center of mass frame, or the earths frame.
8) Do not understand that because we're considering things from the earths perspective (because the original question related to the earths frame) that when I use relative terms, it should automatically be considered in that frame, unless otherwise stated? I thought you were smart enough to figure that out for yourself, guess I should have expected less from someone who needed "Perpendicular to the direction of motion" defined for them.
9) My assertions used the conservation of momentum as a starting point. I've lost count of how many times I've stated this.
The fact that you continue to insist that the blackhole does not slow down, suggests that you do not understand anything thepeanut has had to say.
Do you remember awhile back telling me that you'd have no problem admitting you're wrong, if in fact you were found to be wrong? Was that just another lie?
Because I've been right, all along!
They have all withstood scrutiny... every single blessed one. Which one might you be disagreeing with now?
So then you're admitting that you don't understand the conservation of momentum. Otherwise, your argument would've appeared as blatantly false to you... as it was to me.
No you idiot. Get it right. Your approach doesn't matter. You were wrong in fact and in principle. You're just apparently too thick to understand.
How does it do that? Does it have it's own propulsion device?
Do you even understand that "slow down" is a relative term?
What assertion of mine's been proven wrong? You don't even know the point of that discussion. You never did! I say so, throughout.
Then why didn't you see that your assertions were obviously, blatantly, incontrovertibly, indisputably, and undeniably breaking the conservation of momentum?
Another steaming pile of dairy effluent.
1) I know exactly what error means.
2) A correct equation fed erroneous numbers will produce erroneous results. I have not had any trouble admitting that the numbers I fed into the equations (and method) I was using were wrong. The point is that the approach was right, and the very same equations I used produce correct results when fed the correct initial proton velocity.
The fact that you can not understand this suggests that you did not understand what I posted quoting Barakn in a PM to me, and that in all likelyhood you didn't bother reading it (which would not surprise me).
3) You have not been right all around.
4) None of your assertions have withstood scruitiny.
5) You're argument amounted to "I don't like it, it's wrong" There are reasons why it did not seem blatantly wrong. Reasons that I am disinclined to discuss with you (because they're none of your buisiness) and you've demonstrated no ability to understand them.
6) Approach matters, I was correct in principle.
7) See previous discussion with thepeanut in which thepeanut agreed that the blackhole slows down when considered from either the Center of mass frame, or the earths frame.
8) Do not understand that because we're considering things from the earths perspective (because the original question related to the earths frame) that when I use relative terms, it should automatically be considered in that frame, unless otherwise stated? I thought you were smart enough to figure that out for yourself, guess I should have expected less from someone who needed "Perpendicular to the direction of motion" defined for them.
9) My assertions used the conservation of momentum as a starting point. I've lost count of how many times I've stated this.
The fact that you continue to insist that the blackhole does not slow down, suggests that you do not understand anything thepeanut has had to say.
I actually made a song called "Atom Smasher" that covers the dangers of the LHC and particle accelerators.
Ebenonce - Atom smasher
Also have you guys seen the website LHC Concerns
Yep.
Ebenonce - Atom smasher
Also have you guys seen the website LHC Concerns
Yep.
QUOTE (RealityCheck+Feb 24 2008, 10:31 PM)
Hi uba!
No mate. You are 'understanding' my comments in the contexts/assumptions of both your/others' 'scenarios'....a scenario that I say is NOT to be analysed in the usual manner as both 'sides' are doing.
Sorry, I'm already in an argument with someone that can't simply admit he was wrong... I'm not interested in another.
Another time, perhaps.
No mate. You are 'understanding' my comments in the contexts/assumptions of both your/others' 'scenarios'....a scenario that I say is NOT to be analysed in the usual manner as both 'sides' are doing.
Sorry, I'm already in an argument with someone that can't simply admit he was wrong... I'm not interested in another.
Another time, perhaps.
QUOTE (Trippy+Feb 24 2008, 11:19 PM)
Another steaming pile of dairy effluent.
Are you like in the fourth grade?
Judging from the ridiculous assertions below, you apparently don't.
Judging from the ridiculous assertions below, you apparently don't.
2) A correct equation fed erroneous numbers will produce erroneous results. I have not had any trouble admitting that the numbers I fed into the equations (and method) I was using were wrong. The point is that the approach was right, and the very same equations I used produce correct results when fed the correct initial proton velocity.
So? How does that improve the situation? Do you think the guy feeding the faulty telemetry into the crashed Mars probe got rewarded for using "the right approach" while using the wrong numbers?
Why does it matter? You were wrong! You've been wrong all along! You had numerous opportunities to get it right, and you didn't!
Why does it matter? You were wrong! You've been wrong all along! You had numerous opportunities to get it right, and you didn't!
3) You have not been right all around.
Yes, I have.
Didn't you just admit that my assertion regarding the relative velocity with the earth was correct? That's one, right?
Didn't you just admit that my assertion regarding the relative velocity with the earth was correct? That's one, right?
5) You're argument amounted to "I don't like it, it's wrong" There are reasons why it did not seem blatantly wrong. Reasons that I am disinclined to discuss with you (because they're none of your buisiness) and you've demonstrated no ability to understand them.
Ha! You only say that because you know it's inexcusable.
No, results matter. You were wrong.
No, results matter. You were wrong.
7) See previous discussion with thepeanut in which thepeanut agreed that the blackhole slows down when considered from either the Center of mass frame, or the earths frame.
It seems apparent that once again, you didn't understand his arguments. No surprise there.
You're funny. It doesn't matter what frame you are referencing. If something "slows down," it's experiencing an acceleration. If it speeds up, it's also experiencing an acceleration. They are the same thing! Only the perspective changes.
You're funny. It doesn't matter what frame you are referencing. If something "slows down," it's experiencing an acceleration. If it speeds up, it's also experiencing an acceleration. They are the same thing! Only the perspective changes.
9) My assertions used the conservation of momentum as a starting point. I've lost count of how many times I've stated this.
You could state it a million times and you'd still be just as wrong. The fact is, the arguments you presented defied the conservation of momentum.
Again, how does it "slow down?"
I think you might be trying to say that the black hole's relative velocity with the earth is slower than the cosmic ray's relative velocity with the earth. This is true. The black hole itself doesn't slow down though.
P.S. Trippy, I'm all done with this petty argument. I've won the main point. It's time to move on.
Are you like in the fourth grade?
QUOTE
1) I know exactly what error means.
Judging from the ridiculous assertions below, you apparently don't.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 1) I know exactly what error means. |
Judging from the ridiculous assertions below, you apparently don't.
2) A correct equation fed erroneous numbers will produce erroneous results. I have not had any trouble admitting that the numbers I fed into the equations (and method) I was using were wrong. The point is that the approach was right, and the very same equations I used produce correct results when fed the correct initial proton velocity.
So? How does that improve the situation? Do you think the guy feeding the faulty telemetry into the crashed Mars probe got rewarded for using "the right approach" while using the wrong numbers?
QUOTE
The fact that you can not understand this suggests that you did not understand what I posted quoting Barakn in a PM to me, and that in all likelyhood you didn't bother reading it (which would not surprise me).
Why does it matter? You were wrong! You've been wrong all along! You had numerous opportunities to get it right, and you didn't!
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| The fact that you can not understand this suggests that you did not understand what I posted quoting Barakn in a PM to me, and that in all likelyhood you didn't bother reading it (which would not surprise me). |
Why does it matter? You were wrong! You've been wrong all along! You had numerous opportunities to get it right, and you didn't!
3) You have not been right all around.
Yes, I have.
QUOTE
4) None of your assertions have withstood scruitiny.
Didn't you just admit that my assertion regarding the relative velocity with the earth was correct? That's one, right?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 4) None of your assertions have withstood scruitiny. |
Didn't you just admit that my assertion regarding the relative velocity with the earth was correct? That's one, right?
5) You're argument amounted to "I don't like it, it's wrong" There are reasons why it did not seem blatantly wrong. Reasons that I am disinclined to discuss with you (because they're none of your buisiness) and you've demonstrated no ability to understand them.
Ha! You only say that because you know it's inexcusable.
QUOTE
6) Approach matters, I was correct in principle.
No, results matter. You were wrong.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 6) Approach matters, I was correct in principle. |
No, results matter. You were wrong.
7) See previous discussion with thepeanut in which thepeanut agreed that the blackhole slows down when considered from either the Center of mass frame, or the earths frame.
It seems apparent that once again, you didn't understand his arguments. No surprise there.
QUOTE
8) Do not understand that because we're considering things from the earths perspective (because the original question related to the earths frame) that when I use relative terms, it should automatically be considered in that frame, unless otherwise stated? I thought you were smart enough to figure that out for yourself, guess I should have expected less from someone who needed "Perpendicular to the direction of motion" defined for them.
You're funny. It doesn't matter what frame you are referencing. If something "slows down," it's experiencing an acceleration. If it speeds up, it's also experiencing an acceleration. They are the same thing! Only the perspective changes.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| 8) Do not understand that because we're considering things from the earths perspective (because the original question related to the earths frame) that when I use relative terms, it should automatically be considered in that frame, unless otherwise stated? I thought you were smart enough to figure that out for yourself, guess I should have expected less from someone who needed "Perpendicular to the direction of motion" defined for them. |
You're funny. It doesn't matter what frame you are referencing. If something "slows down," it's experiencing an acceleration. If it speeds up, it's also experiencing an acceleration. They are the same thing! Only the perspective changes.
9) My assertions used the conservation of momentum as a starting point. I've lost count of how many times I've stated this.
You could state it a million times and you'd still be just as wrong. The fact is, the arguments you presented defied the conservation of momentum.
QUOTE
The fact that you continue to insist that the black hole does not slow down, suggests that you do not understand anything thepeanut has had to say.
Again, how does it "slow down?"
I think you might be trying to say that the black hole's relative velocity with the earth is slower than the cosmic ray's relative velocity with the earth. This is true. The black hole itself doesn't slow down though.
P.S. Trippy, I'm all done with this petty argument. I've won the main point. It's time to move on.
QUOTE (Ebenonce+Feb 25 2008, 03:18 AM)
I actually made a song called "Atom Smasher" that covers the dangers of the LHC and particle accelerators.
Ebenonce - Atom smasher
Also have you guys seen the website LHC Concerns
Yep.
Yes! This is really cool stuff. You all need to check it out!
Ebenonce - Atom smasher
Also have you guys seen the website LHC Concerns
Yep.
Yes! This is really cool stuff. You all need to check it out!
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 06:39 PM)
Are you like in the fourth grade?
Blah. Blah. Blah.
Blah. Blah. Blah.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 06:39 PM)
Judging from the ridiculous assertions below, you apparently don't.
Oh bull. It's yet more proof you have no idea what you're talking about.
Oh bull. It's yet more proof you have no idea what you're talking about.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 06:39 PM)
So? How does that improve the situation? Do you think the guy feeding the faulty telemetry into the crashed Mars probe got rewarded for using "the right approach" while using the wrong numbers?
Irrelevant.
Irrelevant.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 06:39 PM)
Why does it matter? You were wrong! You've been wrong all along! You had numerous opportunities to get it right, and you didn't!
The final answer was wrong, the approach was right, get over yourself, you're wrong when you say my approach was wrong, and you're wrong when you say I was completely wrong.
The final answer was wrong, the approach was right, get over yourself, you're wrong when you say my approach was wrong, and you're wrong when you say I was completely wrong.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 06:39 PM)
Yes, I have.
No, you haven't.
No, you haven't.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 06:39 PM)
Didn't you just admit that my assertion regarding the relative velocity with the earth was correct? That's one, right?
No, I admitted that the magnitude I calculated was incorrect, my approach was correct, my principles were correct, my formulae were were correct, my concepts were corrext.
No, I admitted that the magnitude I calculated was incorrect, my approach was correct, my principles were correct, my formulae were were correct, my concepts were corrext.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 06:39 PM)
Ha! You only say that because you know it's inexcusable.
Oh bull, I say that because you have displayed zero empathy towards any other human being. Barakn understood whyt I made the mistake I did, as did thepeanut.
Oh bull, I say that because you have displayed zero empathy towards any other human being. Barakn understood whyt I made the mistake I did, as did thepeanut.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 06:39 PM)
No, results matter. You were wrong.
No, everything except for the number spat out at the end were wrong.
No, everything except for the number spat out at the end were wrong.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 06:39 PM)
It seems apparent that once again, you didn't understand his arguments. No surprise there.
HAH! You claim to understand the conservation of momentum, and yet you can't figure out for yourself why the alleged blackhole would be travelling slower then the original proton. Idiot. What do you think? The black hole travels faster? At the same speed? 'Cause those are the only other two options.
HAH! You claim to understand the conservation of momentum, and yet you can't figure out for yourself why the alleged blackhole would be travelling slower then the original proton. Idiot. What do you think? The black hole travels faster? At the same speed? 'Cause those are the only other two options.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 06:39 PM)
You're funny. It doesn't matter what frame you are referencing. If something "slows down," it's experiencing an acceleration. If it speeds up, it's also experiencing an acceleration. They are the same thing! Only the perspective changes.
Well Duh, why don't you get thepeanut to explain it to you ya friggin mor0n.
Well Duh, why don't you get thepeanut to explain it to you ya friggin mor0n.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 06:39 PM)
You could state it a million times and you'd still be just as wrong. The fact is, the arguments you presented defied the conservation of momentum.
They. Were. Based. On. The. Conservation. Of. Momentum.
They. Were. Based. On. The. Conservation. Of. Momentum.
QUOTE (ubavontuba+Feb 25 2008, 06:39 PM)
Again, how does it "slow down?"
I think you might be trying to say that the black hole's relative velocity with the earth is slower than the cosmic ray's relative velocity with the earth. This is true. The black hole itself doesn't slow down though.
I think you might be trying to say that the black hole's relative velocity with the earth is slower than the cosmic ray's relative velocity with the earth. This is true. The black hole itself doesn't slow down though.