I'm wondering what happened to the idea that no matter ever would pass the Event Horizon?
It seems to have passed all horizons I know of. So, where do we stand on that subject today.
Do we accept that all matter will, in its own 'time', reach the 'center' of a black hole?
I would enjoy if you writing have links highlighting your thoughts, if possible:)
"Time is being stretched too. If you were to watch from a distant spaceship as a clock fell into a large black hole, you would see it ticking more and more slowly, and at the event horizon it would stop altogether. If you had a friend carrying the clock and he were to shine a light back toward you, you would see the light waves getting stretched out just like the ticks of the clock. This is called gravitational red shift. A light that started out blue would shift to red, then to infrared, then to radio wavelengths as it approached the event horizon. There the waves would become infinitely long and the light would wink out.
Your doomed friend would be utterly unaware of this. In his frame of reference, his clock and his blue light would be behaving normally (that’s relativity). He would not splatter off the event horizon because it is not a material surface; he would fall through it without noticing a change. Your desperate signals telling him to turn back would follow him into the hole, and he would receive them without difficulty. Perhaps he might respond with some poignant blue flashes of his own. But that last message would never reach you. Inside the event horizon, space is so curved that no path out of the hole exists, even for light. Once your friend penetrated the horizon, the darkness would close over him. You would not see his fate—to be ripped into his constituent particles as he approached the singularity."
From here.
They're very bright inside. Should take a look sometime.
I'm guessing you don't know the hypothesis I'm referring to BW?
I read it here one year ago about, and it stated that no matter falling into a BlacK Hole ever would pass the EV and also as a consequence of that all black holes we saw must have been created around the Big Bang. I thought it rather strange but there seemed to be a lot of support for it then.
So where did it go? Is there new evidence disputing it, or?
-----------
I found the article here.
I read it here one year ago about, and it stated that no matter falling into a BlacK Hole ever would pass the EV and also as a consequence of that all black holes we saw must have been created around the Big Bang. I thought it rather strange but there seemed to be a lot of support for it then.
So where did it go? Is there new evidence disputing it, or?
-----------
I found the article here.
If something falls into a black hole, it is accelerated to the maximum speed possible during which it is ripped apart on a quantum level. It is gone in a second. If you have fantastic technology to monitor it happening at a pico-second rate which can catch single photons, you may see some strange things but not if you haven't.
Sorry, Quartermass, but that was a completely untrue poser answer devoid of actual physics. Warn level increased.
QUOTE (rpenner+Mar 19 2009, 04:30 AM)
Sorry, Quartermass, but that was a completely untrue poser answer devoid of actual physics. Warn level increased.
Why don't you explain why I am wrong? Couldn't the wiki help you? You really don't like people who disagree with you, do you? Do you want just a forum full of sheep all with exactly the same information, so as sterile as desert sand? Apparently so.
User posted image: http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii8/janlvtt/Smileys/whacky084.gif
Why don't you explain why I am wrong? Couldn't the wiki help you? You really don't like people who disagree with you, do you? Do you want just a forum full of sheep all with exactly the same information, so as sterile as desert sand? Apparently so.
User posted image: http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii8/janlvtt/Smileys/whacky084.gif
QUOTE (Quatermass+Mar 18 2009, 08:25 PM)
If something falls into a black hole, it is accelerated to the maximum speed possible during which it is ripped apart on a quantum level. It is gone in a second. If you have fantastic technology to monitor it happening at a pico-second rate which can catch single photons, you may see some strange things but not if you haven't.
I'm not sure Quartermass, as matter moves in to the EV it should get a very large dose of energy and the atoms in it would giggle and the object might lose its 'coherence' spatially seen, so in that motto I think you are correct. But I'm not sure where that would happen. But as the nucleus is very stable (quarks and gluons) they will 'stick together' as mass until coming into that 'state' we don't know anything about, that is, somewhere after passing that EV. Even light itself, without any mass, follows the geodesic created by the BH:s gravity.
That 'maximum speed' you are thinking of will never be reached, it's like the analogy when that turtle gets a head-start and always will be that 'half-step' before the rabbit (?:). The difference being that this time it's true. As mass accelerates up to 'c' it will take it a 'infinite' amount of energy to reach that state, so for every 'half-step' nearer 'c' mass takes accelerating, the inertia (?) and momentum (relative mass) building will still keep it under 'c' no matter how long it accelerates. Also the universe will 'die' long before this as seen from the perspective of that object and with that the objects acceleration should disappear too (entropy) I think.
--------
But still?
Thinking of a spinning Black hole near 'c' ?
Won't that spin add to the mass, and where if so would matter 'break down'.
But, then again, 'time' as seen from that object will still take it to that restaurant at 'the end of time' before anything like that should happen, ah, I think :)
I'm not sure Quartermass, as matter moves in to the EV it should get a very large dose of energy and the atoms in it would giggle and the object might lose its 'coherence' spatially seen, so in that motto I think you are correct. But I'm not sure where that would happen. But as the nucleus is very stable (quarks and gluons) they will 'stick together' as mass until coming into that 'state' we don't know anything about, that is, somewhere after passing that EV. Even light itself, without any mass, follows the geodesic created by the BH:s gravity.
That 'maximum speed' you are thinking of will never be reached, it's like the analogy when that turtle gets a head-start and always will be that 'half-step' before the rabbit (?:). The difference being that this time it's true. As mass accelerates up to 'c' it will take it a 'infinite' amount of energy to reach that state, so for every 'half-step' nearer 'c' mass takes accelerating, the inertia (?) and momentum (relative mass) building will still keep it under 'c' no matter how long it accelerates. Also the universe will 'die' long before this as seen from the perspective of that object and with that the objects acceleration should disappear too (entropy) I think.
--------
But still?
Thinking of a spinning Black hole near 'c' ?
Won't that spin add to the mass, and where if so would matter 'break down'.
But, then again, 'time' as seen from that object will still take it to that restaurant at 'the end of time' before anything like that should happen, ah, I think :)
Well in the advent of a human for an example "sucked" into a black hole; initially your body wouldn't respond to the gravitational force because you would be experiencing free fall (weightless experience) similar to what astronauts experience. It wouldn't be until approximately (500,000k) or so from the center of the black hole, by then you would theoretically be stretched and ripped apart by the immense gravitational force
We can technically surmise the after effects. Initially is easily distinguished what behavior the black hole exhibits. There are many surrounding theories concerning black holes. Once an object or mass infiltrates the event horizon, it basically drops any satisfaction of ever exciting. In the relatively new, hot topic of 'naked singularities' which isn't conventionally proposed in college courses or at least ones offered to me, which is why I have to keep on the up n up about stuff today. Anyways there pertains stellar collapse case scenarios in which an event horizon is not created. Of course this is highly debated. In naked singularities both matter and radiation can enter and exit. So say hypothetically an electric charge which enters an uncharged black hole dramatically alters the distortion of space-time. Disorder in a black hole is equivalent to its surface area. Theoretically, new universes may be produced in black holes, whereas extremely high densities of space-time represent a violation in the standing laws of physics.
Also we have to realize whats going on within the interaction of a black hole. Heat is registered by negative energy that is continuously drawn in, instead of energy that emits from the black hole. The more negative energy that is being drawn in, the mass decreases. Actually the black hole divests its mass energy, precisely the same rate of heat radiation emission.
So technically a negative energy state possesses less energy than a state which has a zero gravitational field. This is possible because one could believe that this state is therefore empty, but actually contains virtual particles that make up a set of quantum vacuum states.
This is why Hawking's radiation although not specifically confirmed states that at a point of distance heat radiation would exhibit a flux of positive energy that scatters from the black hole.
We can technically surmise the after effects. Initially is easily distinguished what behavior the black hole exhibits. There are many surrounding theories concerning black holes. Once an object or mass infiltrates the event horizon, it basically drops any satisfaction of ever exciting. In the relatively new, hot topic of 'naked singularities' which isn't conventionally proposed in college courses or at least ones offered to me, which is why I have to keep on the up n up about stuff today. Anyways there pertains stellar collapse case scenarios in which an event horizon is not created. Of course this is highly debated. In naked singularities both matter and radiation can enter and exit. So say hypothetically an electric charge which enters an uncharged black hole dramatically alters the distortion of space-time. Disorder in a black hole is equivalent to its surface area. Theoretically, new universes may be produced in black holes, whereas extremely high densities of space-time represent a violation in the standing laws of physics.
Also we have to realize whats going on within the interaction of a black hole. Heat is registered by negative energy that is continuously drawn in, instead of energy that emits from the black hole. The more negative energy that is being drawn in, the mass decreases. Actually the black hole divests its mass energy, precisely the same rate of heat radiation emission.
So technically a negative energy state possesses less energy than a state which has a zero gravitational field. This is possible because one could believe that this state is therefore empty, but actually contains virtual particles that make up a set of quantum vacuum states.
This is why Hawking's radiation although not specifically confirmed states that at a point of distance heat radiation would exhibit a flux of positive energy that scatters from the black hole.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Mar 19 2009, 11:50 AM)
Why don't you explain why I am wrong? Couldn't the wiki help you? You really don't like people who disagree with you, do you? Do you want just a forum full of sheep all with exactly the same information, so as sterile as desert sand? Apparently so.
As usual, Kaneda falls back on "Can't Google/Wiki help you?!" when he knows full well Rpenner has read a great deal more on relativity than he has.
Come on Kaneda, don't you think people see your hypocrisy? Time and again you've shown you read nothing on topics like this, yet think you have all the answers and then, when you are inevitably corrected, you accuse others of lacking the proper education on the topic! Hypocrisy at its utmost!
You said :
"If something falls into a black hole, it is accelerated to the maximum speed possible during which it is ripped apart on a quantum level. It is gone in a second. If you have fantastic technology to monitor it happening at a pico-second rate which can catch single photons, you may see some strange things but not if you haven't."
Rpenner and I have been over this with you before. A black hole rips things apart by the force on the top of an object being different from the force on the bottom, ie falling in head first your head is pulled harder than your feet and you're ripped apart. The larger a black hole the less pronounced this effect is. For supermassive black holes the effect can be sufficiently slow building that you can pass into the event horizon before the different forces on your head and feet are enough to rip you apart. Want me to justify this with a bit of algebra?
The acceleration felt by an object a distance r from a mass M is GM/r^2. Suppose a person is h metres high, then the difference in accelerations between someone's head and someone's feet is GM/r^2 - GM/(r+h)^2 = (GM/r^2)(1 - 1/[1+h/r]^2). As r->infty this becomes 0, which is what you'd expect, away from the black hole you don't feel a difference between your head and feet. For distances larger than h we can do the following expansion :
(GM/r^2)(1 - 1/[1+h/r]^2) = (GM/r^2)(1 - [1-2h/r + O(h^2/r^2)]) = 2GMh/r^3 + O(1/r^4)
Setting G=1, ie nice units a Schwartzchild black hole the event horizon is at a distance r=2M. Therefore, on the event horizon the difference in accelerations between a person's head and feet is approximately 2Mh/(2M)^3 = h/4M^2. So the larger the black hole, the smaller the difference in accelerations on the event horizon. Therefore its not completely impossible to survive at least to the event horizon. But once inside you're doomed to be ripped apart eventually.
No doubt you'll complain about all this information being available online, which I am fully aware of. The problem is you dont' bother to find it and then make claims which contradict it. Every time you complain "OMG, that's so easy to find using Google!" you show how lazy you are because you didn't find it. The thing worse than being wrong on something is being wrong on something you couldn't be bothered to check.
As usual, Kaneda falls back on "Can't Google/Wiki help you?!" when he knows full well Rpenner has read a great deal more on relativity than he has.
Come on Kaneda, don't you think people see your hypocrisy? Time and again you've shown you read nothing on topics like this, yet think you have all the answers and then, when you are inevitably corrected, you accuse others of lacking the proper education on the topic! Hypocrisy at its utmost!
You said :
"If something falls into a black hole, it is accelerated to the maximum speed possible during which it is ripped apart on a quantum level. It is gone in a second. If you have fantastic technology to monitor it happening at a pico-second rate which can catch single photons, you may see some strange things but not if you haven't."
Rpenner and I have been over this with you before. A black hole rips things apart by the force on the top of an object being different from the force on the bottom, ie falling in head first your head is pulled harder than your feet and you're ripped apart. The larger a black hole the less pronounced this effect is. For supermassive black holes the effect can be sufficiently slow building that you can pass into the event horizon before the different forces on your head and feet are enough to rip you apart. Want me to justify this with a bit of algebra?
The acceleration felt by an object a distance r from a mass M is GM/r^2. Suppose a person is h metres high, then the difference in accelerations between someone's head and someone's feet is GM/r^2 - GM/(r+h)^2 = (GM/r^2)(1 - 1/[1+h/r]^2). As r->infty this becomes 0, which is what you'd expect, away from the black hole you don't feel a difference between your head and feet. For distances larger than h we can do the following expansion :
(GM/r^2)(1 - 1/[1+h/r]^2) = (GM/r^2)(1 - [1-2h/r + O(h^2/r^2)]) = 2GMh/r^3 + O(1/r^4)
Setting G=1, ie nice units a Schwartzchild black hole the event horizon is at a distance r=2M. Therefore, on the event horizon the difference in accelerations between a person's head and feet is approximately 2Mh/(2M)^3 = h/4M^2. So the larger the black hole, the smaller the difference in accelerations on the event horizon. Therefore its not completely impossible to survive at least to the event horizon. But once inside you're doomed to be ripped apart eventually.
No doubt you'll complain about all this information being available online, which I am fully aware of. The problem is you dont' bother to find it and then make claims which contradict it. Every time you complain "OMG, that's so easy to find using Google!" you show how lazy you are because you didn't find it. The thing worse than being wrong on something is being wrong on something you couldn't be bothered to check.
QUOTE (AlphaNumeric+Mar 23 2009, 02:44 PM)
So the larger the black hole, the smaller the difference in accelerations on the event horizon. Therefore its not completely impossible to survive at least to the event horizon.
Certainly, but...
If the black hole is large enough, 'eventually' could be quite a long time.
Are those tides mild enough to allow star systems to be enveloped and eventually doomed with no knowledge of that doom?
Certainly, but...
QUOTE
But once inside you're doomed to be ripped apart eventually.
If the black hole is large enough, 'eventually' could be quite a long time.
Are those tides mild enough to allow star systems to be enveloped and eventually doomed with no knowledge of that doom?
Neutron stars, yes.
Cores of stars, yes. Their outer atmospheres will be shredded by a mere million-solar-mass black hole like the Milky Way boasts.
But star systems? Probably not.
For a hypothetical black hole of 4 billion solar masses, the radius of the event horizon is about 79 AU. The tidal forces would seriously perturb even the orbit of Mercury about the Sun.
Cores of stars, yes. Their outer atmospheres will be shredded by a mere million-solar-mass black hole like the Milky Way boasts.
But star systems? Probably not.
For a hypothetical black hole of 4 billion solar masses, the radius of the event horizon is about 79 AU. The tidal forces would seriously perturb even the orbit of Mercury about the Sun.
I think that the appearence of an infinite red shift of any object falling through the event horizon would constitute a black hole in General Relativity.
Mitch Raemsch
Moderator: User banned for 21 days for unrelated post. As cited in that post, user does not have a basis for an informed opinion about GR.
Mitch Raemsch
Moderator: User banned for 21 days for unrelated post. As cited in that post, user does not have a basis for an informed opinion about GR.
AN. what about a spinning BH near 'c'. Wouldn't that bring in gravitational 'forces' in a sidelong manner too, acting on the body? As it forms a spiraling action towards the BH:s center shouldn't those 'forces' be accelerated too? Another thing I've read here btw, the idea of while falling being 'weightless' and therefore not acted upon, to me it seems that gravity still would act unequally upon the body as it acts on 'mass' not weight?
yor_on -- "spinning near c" makes no sense in physics since the rate of rotation is measured in radians/second not meters/second. So c has the wrong units.
But there is an upper limit to angular momentum for a black hole of a given mass. Beyond this limit it is still possible to have a singularity but not the event horizon of a black hole. This is an example of a naked singularity.
But there is an upper limit to angular momentum for a black hole of a given mass. Beyond this limit it is still possible to have a singularity but not the event horizon of a black hole. This is an example of a naked singularity.
I thought my question was about a BH rotating near 'c', not about what SI unit you use to describe that rotation? Even if you measure angular velocity in 'radian per second' you can convert it into meters, if knowing the radius of the circle that is rotating, the conversion formula is.
v = omega*r
Where v is velocity, omega is angular speed (rad/s), and r is the radius.
As far as I understand it you can, theoretically at least, have something 'jiggle' near to 'c'? As for saying that you can't have a BH rotating near 'c' containing a 'event horizon', I don't know, although all that I've read about have seemed to be 'ordinary' black holes containing Event Horizons.
Black holes spinning near 'c' and their consequences
v = omega*r
Where v is velocity, omega is angular speed (rad/s), and r is the radius.
As far as I understand it you can, theoretically at least, have something 'jiggle' near to 'c'? As for saying that you can't have a BH rotating near 'c' containing a 'event horizon', I don't know, although all that I've read about have seemed to be 'ordinary' black holes containing Event Horizons.
Black holes spinning near 'c' and their consequences
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 6 2009, 09:26 PM)
AlphaNumeric. A question you have yet to answer. If I am Kaneda, why when I was banned did I take over a year off instead of just coming back immediately in this Quatermass alias? It worked for pupamancur a number of times. Still waiting for an answer.
Kaneda flitters in and out of activity, as the account on SciForums shows. Besides, there's no requirement for you to return immediately. Saying "Stuff it, I can't be bothered with that place" and then many months later thinking "I'll have a look and see if that arrogant jerk AlphaNumeric is still there" or "Is PhysOrg still infested with idiots?" is hardly out of the relms of possibility, now is it?
Kaneda flitters in and out of activity, as the account on SciForums shows. Besides, there's no requirement for you to return immediately. Saying "Stuff it, I can't be bothered with that place" and then many months later thinking "I'll have a look and see if that arrogant jerk AlphaNumeric is still there" or "Is PhysOrg still infested with idiots?" is hardly out of the relms of possibility, now is it?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 6 2009, 09:26 PM)
I have some news for "you and Rpenner". Black holes spin. ALL black holes spin. Supermassive black holes have been shown to spin at almost light speed. Tidal forces will rip you apart like putting your hand on a grinding wheel, one layer at a time.
Of course all actual black holes spin, the changes of a system forming with no angular momentum are staggeringly small. But that still doesn't make what you said right.
The force on an object falling into a black hole depend on the mass, charge and spin of the black hole and the object itself, as well as the distance between them (obviously). A sufficiently massive black hole, spinning quickly or not, would still allow an infalling person to pass through the event horizon before being ripped apart. Wether such massive black holes are physically possible (ie the required mass might be in the range of billions of galaxies!) is another question, but the fact it's possible means that your statement about the tidal forces isn't carte blanch correct, but is actually a particular case.
The force on an object falling into a black hole depend on the mass, charge and spin of the black hole and the object itself, as well as the distance between them (obviously). A sufficiently massive black hole, spinning quickly or not, would still allow an infalling person to pass through the event horizon before being ripped apart. Wether such massive black holes are physically possible (ie the required mass might be in the range of billions of galaxies!) is another question, but the fact it's possible means that your statement about the tidal forces isn't carte blanch correct, but is actually a particular case.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 6 2009, 09:26 PM)
Now to explain what an event horizon is to you.
Oh please do, it's something my 4th year graduate course lectured by a Cambridge professor who had Hawking as a PhD supervisor forgot to mention, as has my supervisor when we discuss using black holes in string theory to construct QCD models. 
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 6 2009, 09:26 PM)
It is the point where you need to travel faster than light to escape it. It doesn't matter whether it is a ten solar mass black hole or a ten billion solar mass black hole. It is exactly the same, so therefore the forces are exactly the same. Such forces are not a respecter of maths. They'll rip you to microscopic shreds
No, there's a difference between space-time curvature and the rate of change of the space-time curvature. Have a look here, that's the lecture notes of the course I mentioned I sat.
As an example, consider the scalar quantity R_abcd R^abcd., where obviously R_abcd is the Riemann curvature tensor. When you compute it for a Schwarzchild black hole (doing it for the Kerr one is too messy to post) you find it's 48M^2/r^6. The event horizon is ar r = 2M, so R_abcd R^abcd = 3/4M^4. So the larger the mass (M) of the black hole the smaller the space-time curvature is at the event horizon. Yes, it sounds odd but that's because the link between what the formal definition of an event horizon and such things as curvature is not as clean cut as one might naively assume. And you are very naive.
As an example, consider the scalar quantity R_abcd R^abcd., where obviously R_abcd is the Riemann curvature tensor. When you compute it for a Schwarzchild black hole (doing it for the Kerr one is too messy to post) you find it's 48M^2/r^6. The event horizon is ar r = 2M, so R_abcd R^abcd = 3/4M^4. So the larger the mass (M) of the black hole the smaller the space-time curvature is at the event horizon. Yes, it sounds odd but that's because the link between what the formal definition of an event horizon and such things as curvature is not as clean cut as one might naively assume. And you are very naive.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 6 2009, 09:26 PM)
Such forces are not a respecter of maths. They'll rip you to microscopic shreds, despite all your equations saying they cannot do that.
Okay, let's think about this for a moment. You, using no maths and just what you have summised from reading about the properties of black holes from books, magazines and website, know more about the behaviour of black holes than the people who developed GR, found black hole solutions, computed the properties, published papers on them, then wrote pop science books on them, which the magazines you read get their information from?
Yeah, that's logical!
ALL your information comes from sources which get their information from sources which get their information from cut down lay man explanations of maths beyond your comprehension, done by people who've dedicated their lives to general relativity. My information comes directly from the mouths of said GR dedicated people. And I can actually do some of the maths.
What evidence do you have you're right? You have your definition of a black hole, which isn't precise, rigorous or justified. How can you have any grasp of the specific and perhaps counter intuitive behaviour of space-time, a concept so complicated even now few people doing physics really grasp it, when you don't know any quantitative things. Why do black holes follow your intuition and guesses yet 'such forces are not a respecter of maths'. Why do your guesses on a topic you know nothing about, haven't done, can't do and refuse to read somehow trump everything else?
Yeah, that's logical!
ALL your information comes from sources which get their information from sources which get their information from cut down lay man explanations of maths beyond your comprehension, done by people who've dedicated their lives to general relativity. My information comes directly from the mouths of said GR dedicated people. And I can actually do some of the maths.
What evidence do you have you're right? You have your definition of a black hole, which isn't precise, rigorous or justified. How can you have any grasp of the specific and perhaps counter intuitive behaviour of space-time, a concept so complicated even now few people doing physics really grasp it, when you don't know any quantitative things. Why do black holes follow your intuition and guesses yet 'such forces are not a respecter of maths'. Why do your guesses on a topic you know nothing about, haven't done, can't do and refuse to read somehow trump everything else?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 6 2009, 09:26 PM)
A planet approaches a SMBH. It will be broken apart by gravity as it gets "close", into ever smaller pieces. Now according to you, only a few of the largest of these pieces will be destroyed as they enter the event horizon. Almost all of the stuff will have been broken up into small pieces and dust and so get through the event horizon intact. DOH!
No, I didn't say that. I said it's possible to have sufficiently large black holes which allow a person to pass the event horizon before being ripped to shreads. I didn't give any specific size, nor did I say anything about a planet breaking up into large chunks, as your strawman talks about. You put words into my mouth. A clear sign of dishonesty.
For any 'normal' size black hole, including 'super massive' ones (ie a billion solar masses), the forces are enough to destroy objects long before the event horizon is reached. For staggeringly massive black holes, perhaps billions of galaxies in mass, its possible to get to the event horizon. I even gave the formula, derivation and all, in my post, h/4M^2. Put in the units, h=2 and factors of c and find out when h/4M^2 is larger than say 5 times Earth surface gravity. That'll give you the mass of a black hole which doesn't have a strong enough tidal force on the event horizon to pull your head from your feet.
If you haven't managed it in 48 hours I'll show you the workings.
That is very plainly put and quite understandable by those of us naive in maths, thank you.
Why should that be a naive assumption, if I don't get it backwards?
For any 'normal' size black hole, including 'super massive' ones (ie a billion solar masses), the forces are enough to destroy objects long before the event horizon is reached. For staggeringly massive black holes, perhaps billions of galaxies in mass, its possible to get to the event horizon. I even gave the formula, derivation and all, in my post, h/4M^2. Put in the units, h=2 and factors of c and find out when h/4M^2 is larger than say 5 times Earth surface gravity. That'll give you the mass of a black hole which doesn't have a strong enough tidal force on the event horizon to pull your head from your feet.
If you haven't managed it in 48 hours I'll show you the workings.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 6 2009, 09:26 PM)
Why should I want information that is obviously wrong? If I wanted to be a clod, I'd call myself AlphaNumeric and post boastful nonsense all the time.
Boastful nonsense which I can back up with citations and references, that means I don't have to resort to putting words in people's mouths, that got me a Masters and which can be found in any good book on relativity. Not that you've read any such books.
If my derivation is wrong, show where. Show your workings of how the forces on an object approaching a black hole is independent of the mass of the black hole. Or am I right in thinking you can't?
If my derivation is wrong, show where. Show your workings of how the forces on an object approaching a black hole is independent of the mass of the black hole. Or am I right in thinking you can't?
QUOTE
As an example, consider the scalar quantity R_abcd R^abcd., where obviously R_abcd is the Riemann curvature tensor. When you compute it for a Schwarzchild black hole (doing it for the Kerr one is too messy to post) you find it's 48M^2/r^6. The event horizon is ar r = 2M, so R_abcd R^abcd = 3/4M^4. So the larger the mass (M) of the black hole the smaller the space-time curvature is at the event horizon. Yes, it sounds odd but that's because the link between what the formal definition of an event horizon and such things as curvature is not as clean cut as one might naively assume.
That is very plainly put and quite understandable by those of us naive in maths, thank you.
Why should that be a naive assumption, if I don't get it backwards?
People generally think of gravity as a 'pull'. Stronger gravity = more pull until eventually even light can't get away. But it's not that straight forward in GR. It's the amount of curvature which prevents light escaping, but the force you might feel depends on (arm wavingly) the rate the curvature is changing. Another thing is that the size of the event horizon radius is linear with mass, R = 2M. This is quite an odd behaviour. For instance, if you just work out the increase in the radius of a ball of material when you double the mass you find the radius increases by a factor of the cube root of 2. This isn't true for black holes.
The acceleration felt by an object a distance r from a mass M is a=M/r^2, at least in Newtonian physics with G=1. But putting in the R=2M value you get a = 1/4M. So the acceleration an object feels at the event horizon of a black hole gets smaller as the mass gets bigger. This is because doubling the mass doubles the radius, but with gravity being an inverse square behaviour if you double the distance you quarter the force. ie : M/r^2 -> (2M)/(2r)^2 = M/2r^2, the force is halved.
It's this behaviour of the event horizon size which skews all the GR results from what you might naively expect a spherical blob of matter to do.
Kaneda/Quatrermass has always been unable to grasp this and resorts to "Black holes don't follow your maths!" arguments, which reduce to "Black holes follow my uninformed, bias, ignorant guesses!".
The acceleration felt by an object a distance r from a mass M is a=M/r^2, at least in Newtonian physics with G=1. But putting in the R=2M value you get a = 1/4M. So the acceleration an object feels at the event horizon of a black hole gets smaller as the mass gets bigger. This is because doubling the mass doubles the radius, but with gravity being an inverse square behaviour if you double the distance you quarter the force. ie : M/r^2 -> (2M)/(2r)^2 = M/2r^2, the force is halved.
It's this behaviour of the event horizon size which skews all the GR results from what you might naively expect a spherical blob of matter to do.
Kaneda/Quatrermass has always been unable to grasp this and resorts to "Black holes don't follow your maths!" arguments, which reduce to "Black holes follow my uninformed, bias, ignorant guesses!".
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 07:22 PM)
Explain what space is and how it can be curved by gravity, just to show that you are not making things up.
I have my BS detector at the ready.
What the?
I have my BS detector at the ready.
What the?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 07:13 PM)
As I said, maths just produces a better class of idiot. Show me physical proof of your maths on black holes, to show that it is not just messing about with numbers. Or am I right in thinking you can't?
What does "physical proof of maths" even mean? This is often the type of thing said by someone who doesn't know the first thing about Einsteins relativity (for example). Working within the framework of general relativity, black holes arise as certain types of solutions to the EFEs. These solutions contain parameters similar to those seen in classical gravity, so we identify with them the labels "charge", "angular momentum" etc.
Where are you getting your knowledge/intuition of black holes? Don't tell me: a wiki article you didn't understand and a brief skim of a pop-science book?
What does "physical proof of maths" even mean? This is often the type of thing said by someone who doesn't know the first thing about Einsteins relativity (for example). Working within the framework of general relativity, black holes arise as certain types of solutions to the EFEs. These solutions contain parameters similar to those seen in classical gravity, so we identify with them the labels "charge", "angular momentum" etc.
Where are you getting your knowledge/intuition of black holes? Don't tell me: a wiki article you didn't understand and a brief skim of a pop-science book?
Quatermass
The one only several miles across will have a gravity GRADIENT(IE difference in gravitational force at r+1 ft, compared to that at r, r being, in this case, a distance just outside the event horizon) that is much more steep than a solar system sized one. The gravitational force will be the same at the event horizon, but the gradient will be much smaller at various distances from it. This is directly porportional to the ratio of one foot to several miles vs. one foot to a solar system.
It is not the strength of the gravity field that causes things to be ripped apart, it is the gravity gradient.
Grumpy
QUOTE
if you have a BH several miles across and you have one the size of a solar system, it isn't really going to make that much difference to you close up.
The one only several miles across will have a gravity GRADIENT(IE difference in gravitational force at r+1 ft, compared to that at r, r being, in this case, a distance just outside the event horizon) that is much more steep than a solar system sized one. The gravitational force will be the same at the event horizon, but the gradient will be much smaller at various distances from it. This is directly porportional to the ratio of one foot to several miles vs. one foot to a solar system.
It is not the strength of the gravity field that causes things to be ripped apart, it is the gravity gradient.
Grumpy
Inside Blackholes:
http://jilawww.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/intro.html
This page contains a series of discussions of what you would see as you fell into a black hole, and a series of animations based on relativistic calculations for the various slotuions (that's right, it treats more than one solution) and discusses some of the physics behind the various aspects and misconcpetions around blackholes.
As it says on the front page:
"What really happens inside black holes?
This is not an artist's impression.
It is a general relativistic volume-rendering
of a super-computed simulation. "
http://jilawww.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/intro.html
This page contains a series of discussions of what you would see as you fell into a black hole, and a series of animations based on relativistic calculations for the various slotuions (that's right, it treats more than one solution) and discusses some of the physics behind the various aspects and misconcpetions around blackholes.
As it says on the front page:
"What really happens inside black holes?
This is not an artist's impression.
It is a general relativistic volume-rendering
of a super-computed simulation. "
Oh, and here's an ARXIV paper that discusses what an observer inside a blackhole might see, and comes to the conclusion that Trinocular vision might prove to be advantageous.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4717v1
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.4717v1
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 10 2009, 07:26 AM)
Trippy. My internet is such that even 10 MB would take about an hour to download so I saved the page for another time. Even just changing a page is a matter of clicking it and waiting. Some comments however.
Neither my fault, nor my problem. Of course, the fact that it would take a while to download the animations is no reason not to go and look at the page (remember, you do have the choice of turning images off in your browser).
Neither my fault, nor my problem. Of course, the fact that it would take a while to download the animations is no reason not to go and look at the page (remember, you do have the choice of turning images off in your browser).
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 10 2009, 07:26 AM)
ALL black holes spin, as do all large masses in space so there is no such thing as a black hole that does not spin.
Prove it.
Prove it.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 10 2009, 07:26 AM)
Wormholes take incredible amounts of energy, such that even in a black hole, one would probably only go a very short distance and not leave it in any way. I don't know if the author here thinks a black hole in our universe might have a corresponding spot in another universe so it could link the two?
I thought it was quite clear what he was saying in this regard, he explicitly states it several times on the page dealing with Reissner-Nordstrom blackholes, it's even stated at the top of the page in big letters surrounded by an angry bee frame.
I thought it was quite clear what he was saying in this regard, he explicitly states it several times on the page dealing with Reissner-Nordstrom blackholes, it's even stated at the top of the page in big letters surrounded by an angry bee frame.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 10 2009, 07:26 AM)
It sounds extremely unlikely to me. This is stuff I ditched over three decades ago as unlikely.
You're opinion, and you're entitled to it.
You're opinion, and you're entitled to it.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 10 2009, 07:26 AM)
You do not pass through an event horizon at near light speed. The force will be sufficient that it will try to accelerate you to light speed which means unless you are Superman you will suddenly become hard radiation.
This is, at best, nonsensical (and unique to you).
This is, at best, nonsensical (and unique to you).
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 10 2009, 07:26 AM)
You are not going to find your way about inside a black hole unless you are made of intelligent fundamental particles.
But that's not what it says anywhere is it?
I have a growing suspicion that the same person may have been responsible for this post:
http://www.bautforum.com/530599-post15.html
Because it seems that Andrew Hamilton has done a bunch of work on precisely that sort of thing, a substantial amount of which seems to have been published in peer reviewed literature.
But that's not what it says anywhere is it?
I have a growing suspicion that the same person may have been responsible for this post:
http://www.bautforum.com/530599-post15.html
Because it seems that Andrew Hamilton has done a bunch of work on precisely that sort of thing, a substantial amount of which seems to have been published in peer reviewed literature.
G'day from the land of ozzzzzz
Thes links alter the way we understand black holes.
Beam-like Excitations of Kerr-Schild Geometry and Semiclassical Mechanism of Black-Hole Evaporation
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2365
Authors: Alexander Burinskii
(Submitted on 13 Mar 2009)
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3551
Links below 2 off
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131
Rotating "Black Holes" with Holes in the Horizon
Authors: Alexander Burinskii, Emilio Elizalde, Sergi R. Hildebrandt, Giulio Magli
(Submitted on 24 Nov 2005 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2006 (this version, v2))
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3551
Links below 2 off
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131
Rotating "Black Holes" with Holes in the Horizon
Authors: Alexander Burinskii, Emilio Elizalde, Sergi R. Hildebrandt, Giulio Magli
(Submitted on 24 Nov 2005 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2006 (this version, v2))
Abstract: Kerr-Schild solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell field equations, containing semi-infinite axial singular lines, are investigated.
It is shown that axial singularities break up the black hole, forming holes in the horizon. As a result, a tube-like region appears which allows matter to escape from the interior without crossing the horizon. It is argued that axial singularities of this kind, leading to very narrow beams, can be created in black holes by external electromagnetic or gravitational excitations and may be at the origin of astrophysically observable effects such as jet formation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3551
Aligned electromagnetic excitations of a black hole and their impact on its quantum horizon
Authors: Alexander Burinskii, Emilio Elizalde, Sergi R. Hildebrandt, Giulio Magli
(Submitted on 24 May 2007 (v1), last revised 29 Dec 2008 (this version, v5))
Thes links alter the way we understand black holes.
Beam-like Excitations of Kerr-Schild Geometry and Semiclassical Mechanism of Black-Hole Evaporation
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.2365
Authors: Alexander Burinskii
(Submitted on 13 Mar 2009)
QUOTE
Abstract: It has been shown (gr-qc/0511131) that exact solutions for electromagnetic (EM) excitations of the Kerr-Schild (KS) geometry form outgoing beams which have very strong back reaction to metric and break the BH horizon. As a result, interaction of a BH with EM vacuum covers the horizon by a set of fluctuating microholes (0705.3551[hep-th]). We show here that twosheeted twistor structure of the KS geometry corresponds to a holographic structure of quantum BH spacetimes, and scattering of the ingoing vacuum take place on the holographically dual 2+1 source of the Kerr BH. We obtain the corresponding exact KS solutions and show that outgoing radiation contains two components: a) the singular set of the beam pulses which are responsible for the transparency of the horizon and regular component which are responsible for BH evaporation.
regular component which are responsible for BH evaporation. http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3551
Links below 2 off
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131
Rotating "Black Holes" with Holes in the Horizon
Authors: Alexander Burinskii, Emilio Elizalde, Sergi R. Hildebrandt, Giulio Magli
(Submitted on 24 Nov 2005 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2006 (this version, v2))
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Abstract: It has been shown (gr-qc/0511131) that exact solutions for electromagnetic (EM) excitations of the Kerr-Schild (KS) geometry form outgoing beams which have very strong back reaction to metric and break the BH horizon. As a result, interaction of a BH with EM vacuum covers the horizon by a set of fluctuating microholes (0705.3551[hep-th]). We show here that twosheeted twistor structure of the KS geometry corresponds to a holographic structure of quantum BH spacetimes, and scattering of the ingoing vacuum take place on the holographically dual 2+1 source of the Kerr BH. We obtain the corresponding exact KS solutions and show that outgoing radiation contains two components: a) the singular set of the beam pulses which are responsible for the transparency of the horizon and regular component which are responsible for BH evaporation. |
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3551
Links below 2 off
http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0511131
Rotating "Black Holes" with Holes in the Horizon
Authors: Alexander Burinskii, Emilio Elizalde, Sergi R. Hildebrandt, Giulio Magli
(Submitted on 24 Nov 2005 (v1), last revised 3 Jul 2006 (this version, v2))
Abstract: Kerr-Schild solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell field equations, containing semi-infinite axial singular lines, are investigated.
It is shown that axial singularities break up the black hole, forming holes in the horizon. As a result, a tube-like region appears which allows matter to escape from the interior without crossing the horizon. It is argued that axial singularities of this kind, leading to very narrow beams, can be created in black holes by external electromagnetic or gravitational excitations and may be at the origin of astrophysically observable effects such as jet formation.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0705.3551
Aligned electromagnetic excitations of a black hole and their impact on its quantum horizon
Authors: Alexander Burinskii, Emilio Elizalde, Sergi R. Hildebrandt, Giulio Magli
(Submitted on 24 May 2007 (v1), last revised 29 Dec 2008 (this version, v5))
QUOTE
Abstract: We show that elementary aligned electromagnetic excitations of black holes, as coming from exact Kerr-Schild solutions, represent light-like beam pulses which have a very strong back reaction on the metric and change the topology of the horizon.
Based on York's proposal, that elementary deformations of the BH horizon are related with elementary vacuum fluctuations, we analyze deformation of the horizon caused by the beam-like vacuum fluctuations and obtain a very specific feature of the topological deformations of the horizon. In particular, we show how the beams pierce the horizon, forming a multitude of micro holes in it. A conjecture is taken into consideration, that these specific excitations are connected with the conformal-analytic properties of the Kerr geometry and are at the base of the emission mechanism.
Based on York's proposal, that elementary deformations of the BH horizon are related with elementary vacuum fluctuations, we analyze deformation of the horizon caused by the beam-like vacuum fluctuations and obtain a very specific feature of the topological deformations of the horizon. In particular, we show how the beams pierce the horizon, forming a multitude of micro holes in it. A conjecture is taken into consideration, that these specific excitations are connected with the conformal-analytic properties of the Kerr geometry and are at the base of the emission mechanism.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 9 2009, 07:26 PM)
My internet is such that even 10 MB would take about an hour to download...
WOW!
Go to a donut shop if you have wireless.
WOW!
Go to a donut shop if you have wireless.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 9 2009, 06:49 PM)
It means evidence to show that the maths is right. I'm sure you could give me the maths behind a singularity as I'm also sure that you cannot show that one can really exist. You certainly cannot point to one to show they exist.
As I suspected, you're confused between mathematics and the use of mathematics. What you meant to say is "show me proof that Einstein's theory of gravity is correct".
And I'm happy to argue about Einstein's general relativity. Where shall we start? What do you know?
As I suspected, you're confused between mathematics and the use of mathematics. What you meant to say is "show me proof that Einstein's theory of gravity is correct".
And I'm happy to argue about Einstein's general relativity. Where shall we start? What do you know?
Trippy. Show me something around the size of a moon or larger that does not spin (and is not gravitationally locked).
What's the point in talking about wormholes in black holes if (a) they are not provable and ( they don't go anywhere.
Yes, of course all that hard gamma radiation we detect from black holes is an optical illusion because as we are told on this forum, anything can get through the event horizon of a black hole intact by simply going with the flow. Even planets will be broken up into just the right sized chunks to go through the EH intact. If a living man can get through, how hard can it be for a lump of rock?
How to find your way inside black holes as the first page states.
Has anyone here posted anything like Mr Hamilton's work?
What's the point in talking about wormholes in black holes if (a) they are not provable and (
they don't go anywhere.Yes, of course all that hard gamma radiation we detect from black holes is an optical illusion because as we are told on this forum, anything can get through the event horizon of a black hole intact by simply going with the flow. Even planets will be broken up into just the right sized chunks to go through the EH intact. If a living man can get through, how hard can it be for a lump of rock?
How to find your way inside black holes as the first page states.
Has anyone here posted anything like Mr Hamilton's work?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 11 2009, 05:01 PM)
We are not talking GR here but singularities.
Are you joking? They are called singularities because the relevant solutions to Einstein's field equations are singular. Seriously, do you know anything about this subject?
Are you joking? They are called singularities because the relevant solutions to Einstein's field equations are singular. Seriously, do you know anything about this subject?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 12 2009, 04:58 AM)
Trippy. Show me something around the size of a moon or larger that does not spin (and is not gravitationally locked).
First off, this is a logical fallacy, it's an argument from personal incredulity "I can't believe this is possible, therefore it isn't". (as incidentally, are many of your arguments i've noted.
Secondly, this isn't what I said, nor have I claimed that black holes don't spin. I'm not going to claim to know whether or not black holes spin, I do however know that based on experiments looking for evidence of frame dragging from dying pulse trains that there are quite low limits on the angular velocity of blackholes. I'd provide you with a link to back up this assertion, but lets face it, you've already as good as said that you won't download it to read it because you're internet is too slow.
First off, this is a logical fallacy, it's an argument from personal incredulity "I can't believe this is possible, therefore it isn't". (as incidentally, are many of your arguments i've noted.
Secondly, this isn't what I said, nor have I claimed that black holes don't spin. I'm not going to claim to know whether or not black holes spin, I do however know that based on experiments looking for evidence of frame dragging from dying pulse trains that there are quite low limits on the angular velocity of blackholes. I'd provide you with a link to back up this assertion, but lets face it, you've already as good as said that you won't download it to read it because you're internet is too slow.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 12 2009, 04:58 AM)
What's the point in talking about wormholes in black holes if (a) they are not provable and ( they don't go anywhere.
Why ask me? I'm not Hamilton. I haven't authored any papers on rotating black hole solutions. My best guess would be that they're included because they're part of the mathmatical solution to a rotating black hole, but with the caveat that using one may be an impossibility because of the mass inflation instability.
they don't go anywhere.Why ask me? I'm not Hamilton. I haven't authored any papers on rotating black hole solutions. My best guess would be that they're included because they're part of the mathmatical solution to a rotating black hole, but with the caveat that using one may be an impossibility because of the mass inflation instability.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 12 2009, 04:58 AM)
Yes, of course all that hard gamma radiation we detect from black holes is an optical illusion because as we are told on this forum, anything can get through the event horizon of a black hole intact by simply going with the flow. Even planets will be broken up into just the right sized chunks to go through the EH intact. If a living man can get through, how hard can it be for a lump of rock?
This is wrong, and an argument from personal incredulity (or perhaps ignorance) you still haven't understood how tidal forces vary with distance, and so the meaning of this simple fact escapes you.
This is wrong, and an argument from personal incredulity (or perhaps ignorance) you still haven't understood how tidal forces vary with distance, and so the meaning of this simple fact escapes you.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 12 2009, 04:58 AM)
How to find your way inside black holes as the first page states.
Congratulations on missing entirely the point that I was making.
Congratulations on missing entirely the point that I was making.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 12 2009, 04:58 AM)
Has anyone here posted anything like Mr Hamilton's work?
Why don't you go and look instead of expecting everybody else to do your heavy lifting for you.
Why don't you go and look instead of expecting everybody else to do your heavy lifting for you.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 14 2009, 09:29 PM)
I was under the impression that all known physics was supposed to break down in a singularity but you seem to be saying it doesn't. Explain, O knowledgeable one.
Please, stop using the Internet as a means to advertise your ignorance. If you didn't know why "singularities" were named as such, then that just means you don't know much physics. However, if you were willing to enter into a debate on the formation of Black Holes and be ignorant of such basic knowledge, you deserve no sympathy.
Given that I have told you that "singularities" are labelled as such because the corresponding solutions of the EFEs on some Lorentzian manifold M are "singular" there, you should be able to infer (assuming you're not an absolute cretin), what Einstein's theory of gravity can tell us about that particular point on our spacetime manifold M.
Please, stop using the Internet as a means to advertise your ignorance. If you didn't know why "singularities" were named as such, then that just means you don't know much physics. However, if you were willing to enter into a debate on the formation of Black Holes and be ignorant of such basic knowledge, you deserve no sympathy.
Given that I have told you that "singularities" are labelled as such because the corresponding solutions of the EFEs on some Lorentzian manifold M are "singular" there, you should be able to infer (assuming you're not an absolute cretin), what Einstein's theory of gravity can tell us about that particular point on our spacetime manifold M.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 08:13 PM)
ALL large bodies in space spin. ALL of them. I suspect it is a property of gravity.
It's called angular momentum and its a conserved quantity.
It's called angular momentum and its a conserved quantity.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 08:13 PM)
The biggest black hole so far is 18 billion solar masses. I can't really see one running into 10^20 solar masses, so even if what you say is possible, the question is academic.
Its academic if you're thinking of a human surviving but smaller stronger objects are able to survive into smaller black holes. I've given the formula, put in some numbers yourself.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 08:13 PM)
You are then saying that there is no difference between going towards a stationary black hole and one spinning at near light speed?
You don't use linear speeds to describe angular velocities of rotations. And the constraints on the upper bound on the angular velocity of a black hole are more involved than just 'light speed'. And there is a difference, just depends what you're considering.
Rotating black holes, particularly near extremal ones, are more about tangential forces than radial ones, when considering being ripped apart.
Rotating black holes, particularly near extremal ones, are more about tangential forces than radial ones, when considering being ripped apart.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 08:13 PM)
Obviously curvature would be less for a bigger BH, as it would be for a larger ball, but if you have a BH several miles across and you have one the size of a solar system, it isn't really going to make that much difference to you close up. As you orbit it, getting ever closer, centrifugal force would force your blood away from the BH and away from your direction of travel, killing you very quickly as it literally pours through your skin. It still has the same event horizon with the same speed limit to it so you'll be virtually at light speed when you are near it and turn into energy as you actually reach it as matter is forced past it's maximum speed. There is a slight matter of a few trillion gauss of magnetism but I suppose you'd ignore that?
Its funny how you throw in a comment about "Oh you're just approximating by ignoring magnetic fields" at the end of a paragraph which is entirely arm wavey with comments like " it isn't really going to make that much difference to you close up". Close up to what? The singularity or EH? How big is the orbit? "so you'll be virtually at light speed", virtually? How precise.
I've already thrown in a bit of maths and its clear it's beyond you so if I wanted to dial up the details to be precise I'm certain I'd go over your head. You're being much more vague about the details than me.
I've already thrown in a bit of maths and its clear it's beyond you so if I wanted to dial up the details to be precise I'm certain I'd go over your head. You're being much more vague about the details than me.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 08:13 PM)
I don't need to know how to make a car to drive a car. Similarly, I can see what is obviously wrong with what is claimed of black holes, as in singularities. Maths just makes a better class of idiots. Maths on BH's often is little more than semi-informed guesswork which until we finally get to a black hole and we find some way of looking inside (maybe using FTL particles as an "X-Ray" machine), we cannot know if those guesses are right. To claim they are now is vain boasting.
If you bothered to read much on relativity you'd know its the view of the physics community that there's some quantum gravity thing going on in the centre of black holes which we don't understand so the singularity is not actually a singularity in reality. Pretty much every single property of black holes is independent of the centre being a singularity or some very very small but non-singular object. But honest research is too much like hard work for you, it would seem.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 08:13 PM)
If you believe something as fragile as a human being can get into an SMBH alive, then why should not small rocks too? As rocks get ever closer, they will break up into smaller and smaller pieces till they too can enter a black hole intact, so why all this nonsense about gamma rays being emitted if just about everything enters a black hole intact and is only destroyed inside the event horizon?
*sigh* I said its possible for person to pass into the EH alive for a sufficiently large black hole. Not all, not most, not 'typical size'.
Read what I say, rather than falling over yourself to take a pot shot at me for something you misunderstood or deliberately twisted.
Read what I say, rather than falling over yourself to take a pot shot at me for something you misunderstood or deliberately twisted.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 08:13 PM)
A bit of goal post moving when you refuse to give a size to these black holes which can allow someone to fall into them safely. Far be it for me to put words in your mouth, though I might walk in and have a look around.
Errr.... I derived the equation for the tidal force for you. Aren't you savvy enough to put in numbers yourself? The fact you couldn't do that little step yourself reveals just how little you can do of this area of physics. Heck, putting in values to an equation is childs play. Go find a 9 year old with a calculator.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 08:13 PM)
As long as there is an event horizon, there is a gravitational pull which causes it, no matter what size the BH.
Force and space-time curvature are not synonymous. I've explained it. I've even derived it. Where's the back up for your claims? Oh yeah, nowhere.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 08:13 PM)
As I said, maths just produces a better class of idiot. Show me physical proof of your maths on black holes, to show that it is not just messing about with numbers. Or am I right in thinking you can't?
You can't use maths to prove something about physical reality. Mathematical derivations in a physics model are only as valid as the postulates of the physics model. I never claimed to have 'mathematical proof singularities really exist'. However, the derivation of the decreasing event horizon force as mass increases is from general relativity, which is extremely well tested and the dynamics of a spinning, charged black hole are, at a distance, identical to a spinning charged spherical mass, like the Sun or Earth and GR models of the solar system are very very accurate.
You are creating a strawman either deliberately or through ignorance and lack of understanding.
You are creating a strawman either deliberately or through ignorance and lack of understanding.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 08:13 PM)
Explain what space is and how it can be curved by gravity, just to show that you are not making things up.
I have my BS detector at the ready.
I have my BS detector at the ready.
Another strawman. I didn't say anything like that. I said that the force felt by an object is not synonymous with the space-time curvature about the object. It's more complicated and subtle than that. My derivation of the tidal force around a black hole demonstrates as much.
The one who is making things up is you. You're claiming things about gravity and black holes which have nothing but your guesses to back them up. At least my use of GR has 90 years of development and experimental tests to back them up. You can't have a go at us for using mathematical physics to justify what we say when that physics has a lot of evidence and you use nothing.
The one who is making things up is you. You're claiming things about gravity and black holes which have nothing but your guesses to back them up. At least my use of GR has 90 years of development and experimental tests to back them up. You can't have a go at us for using mathematical physics to justify what we say when that physics has a lot of evidence and you use nothing.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 08:13 PM)
This is stuff I ditched over three decades ago as unlikely.
By 'ditched' I'm guessing you dont' mean you learnt the relevant physics and then decided to stop, you just said "Nah, not right".
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 8 2009, 08:13 PM)
You do not pass through an event horizon at near light speed. The force will be sufficient that it will try to accelerate you to light speed which means unless you are Superman you will suddenly become hard radiation.
Can you give me the formula for the force difference felt by an object of length L a distance r (assume L<<r) from a black hole, where the radial line makes an angle A with the equator, whose mass is M, charge is Q and has angular momentum J, just so we can see where you're getting your claims from?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 15 2009, 09:50 AM)
Trippy
You don't have any evidence of what you claim so have resorted to bluster.
Even if this is true, it doesn't change the nature of your statement - it's still an appeal from personal incredulity - you can't imagine a black hole spinning therefore you imagine that they spin.
You don't have any evidence of what you claim so have resorted to bluster.
Even if this is true, it doesn't change the nature of your statement - it's still an appeal from personal incredulity - you can't imagine a black hole spinning therefore you imagine that they spin.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 15 2009, 09:50 AM)
The sound you hear is of goal posts being moved. The site you claimed told all actually does not seem to have a clue, getting even the very basics about black holes wrong.
Your unfounded opinion. For the record, here's what I actually said:
Your unfounded opinion. For the record, here's what I actually said:
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 9 2009, 11:05 AM)
Inside Blackholes:
http://jilawww.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/intro.html
This page contains a series of discussions of what you would see as you fell into a black hole, and a series of animations based on relativistic calculations for the various slotuions (that's right, it treats more than one solution) and discusses some of the physics behind the various aspects and misconcpetions around blackholes.
As it says on the front page:
"What really happens inside black holes?
This is not an artist's impression.
It is a general relativistic volume-rendering
of a super-computed simulation. "
http://jilawww.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/intro.html
This page contains a series of discussions of what you would see as you fell into a black hole, and a series of animations based on relativistic calculations for the various slotuions (that's right, it treats more than one solution) and discusses some of the physics behind the various aspects and misconcpetions around blackholes.
As it says on the front page:
"What really happens inside black holes?
This is not an artist's impression.
It is a general relativistic volume-rendering
of a super-computed simulation. "
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 15 2009, 09:50 AM)
Some serious backtracking going on here.
Some serious BS going on here (i've made no claims one way or the other about the likelihood of wormholes - you bought it up:
Some serious BS going on here (i've made no claims one way or the other about the likelihood of wormholes - you bought it up:
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 10 2009, 07:26 AM)
Wormholes take incredible amounts of energy, such that even in a black hole, one would probably only go a very short distance and not leave it in any way. I don't know if the author here thinks a black hole in our universe might have a corresponding spot in another universe so it could link the two? It sounds extremely unlikely to me. This is stuff I ditched over three decades ago as unlikely.
To which I responded, suggesting you needed to take a second look at the page:
To which I responded, suggesting you needed to take a second look at the page:
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 10 2009, 09:23 AM)
I thought it was quite clear what he was saying in this regard, he explicitly states it several times on the page dealing with Reissner-Nordstrom blackholes, it's even stated at the top of the page in big letters surrounded by an angry bee frame.
To which you asked:
To which you asked:
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 12 2009, 04:58 AM)
What's the point in talking about wormholes in black holes if (a) they are not provable and ( they don't go anywhere.
And I replied (taking your post in good faith, and assuming it was a genuine question):
they don't go anywhere.And I replied (taking your post in good faith, and assuming it was a genuine question):
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 12 2009, 02:24 PM)
Why ask me? I'm not Hamilton. I haven't authored any papers on rotating black hole solutions. My best guess would be that they're included because they're part of the mathmatical solution to a rotating black hole, but with the caveat that using one may be an impossibility because of the mass inflation instability.
To which you've responded with obviously false allegations of back tracking.
You stated that the Author seemed to be advocating the existence of wormholes as a means of transportation, and that these might be found in black holes. I pointed out that on the relevant page the author had quite clearly stated that this wasn't the case. You stated that is that's what he believed, then why include them at all. I stated that ultimately I didn't know, but that I suspected that it might have something to do with the fact that they're a solution to the equations, and that maybe their non-existence was because of the mass inflation instability.
To which you've responded with obviously false allegations of back tracking.
You stated that the Author seemed to be advocating the existence of wormholes as a means of transportation, and that these might be found in black holes. I pointed out that on the relevant page the author had quite clearly stated that this wasn't the case. You stated that is that's what he believed, then why include them at all. I stated that ultimately I didn't know, but that I suspected that it might have something to do with the fact that they're a solution to the equations, and that maybe their non-existence was because of the mass inflation instability.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 10 2009, 07:26 AM)
When I debate with creationists, they tell me I am wrong but neglect to say why, muttering something about not understanding. If a human being can get into a black hole alive as some here claim, then you'd have difficulty finding a lump off rock, broken up by tidal stresses on the way in to a size where they are a size no longer affected that would not make it intact into a black hole too, which is clearly nonsense.
More BS, it's already been explained to you, and on the page I linked to, it clearly states that a human would undergoe spaghettification approximately 1 second before 'impact' (with the singularity) irrespective of the size of the black hole.
More BS, it's already been explained to you, and on the page I linked to, it clearly states that a human would undergoe spaghettification approximately 1 second before 'impact' (with the singularity) irrespective of the size of the black hole.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 10 2009, 07:26 AM)
There goes that creation style debating again.
How to answer when you don't know the answer.
These comments lack any depth that I can actually respond to.
How to answer when you don't know the answer.
These comments lack any depth that I can actually respond to.
This just comes down to 1/4M saying, 'I don't believe it', with nothing to back it up.
Don´t really know what you guys are arguing about - there is no such thing as a BH. Black Hole is a pre-QM concept - and I know some will claim that QM merely re-defined BH´s - not so. QM clearly demonstrates that Black Holes radiate and this is precisely the opposite to what was envisaged in the original definition of a BH - something from which nothing can escape. This is not a re-definition - it is a diametric contradiction of the original concept. End of story - exit Black Holes!!
I don't believe quantum mechanics would say something can escape a black hole after passing the even horizon, but before.
However, you can snub Stephen Hawking all you like, telescopes are not interested in your ramblings.
:EDIT: Cusa, STFU!
However, you can snub Stephen Hawking all you like, telescopes are not interested in your ramblings.
:EDIT: Cusa, STFU!
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 17 2009, 07:07 AM)
Trippy.
Can I have that in English?
And here's what I said:
The site you claimed told all actually does not seem to have a clue, getting even the very basics about black holes wrong.
The rest of your post is pretty incomprehensible with jibes, whining, back tracking and false claims so I won't bother with it.
That's okay Kaneda, you can weasel out of having a discussion if you want to, I don't mind (seeing as how you're so clearly not interested in actually having a meaningful dialog).
Apparently I typoed the first paragraph, it should have ead "You can't imagine a black hole not spinning therefore you imagine that they do spin."
As for the second part - you've missed the point - namely that at no time did I claim the site had all of the answers, but that's fine, if you like the company of strawmen, feel free to console yourself with them.
Can I have that in English?
And here's what I said:
The site you claimed told all actually does not seem to have a clue, getting even the very basics about black holes wrong.
The rest of your post is pretty incomprehensible with jibes, whining, back tracking and false claims so I won't bother with it.
That's okay Kaneda, you can weasel out of having a discussion if you want to, I don't mind (seeing as how you're so clearly not interested in actually having a meaningful dialog).
Apparently I typoed the first paragraph, it should have ead "You can't imagine a black hole not spinning therefore you imagine that they do spin."
As for the second part - you've missed the point - namely that at no time did I claim the site had all of the answers, but that's fine, if you like the company of strawmen, feel free to console yourself with them.
I've read this thread from start to finish and don't understand too much of the conversation .
Does anybody have a reliable website i can read more about on black holes? I'd google one, but i wouldn't be able to tell fact from bs, any recommendations?
sorry for offtopic, you can delete this post mods if its too irrelevant.
.Does anybody have a reliable website i can read more about on black holes? I'd google one, but i wouldn't be able to tell fact from bs, any recommendations?
sorry for offtopic, you can delete this post mods if its too irrelevant.
QUOTE (Michael J+Apr 16 2009, 08:09 PM)
I've read this thread from start to finish and don't understand too much of the conversation .
Does anybody have a reliable website i can read more about on black holes? I'd google one, but i wouldn't be able to tell fact from bs, any recommendations?
sorry for offtopic, you can delete this post mods if its too irrelevant.
Forget about websites and get a good book. A good one to start with is Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne.
.Does anybody have a reliable website i can read more about on black holes? I'd google one, but i wouldn't be able to tell fact from bs, any recommendations?
sorry for offtopic, you can delete this post mods if its too irrelevant.
Forget about websites and get a good book. A good one to start with is Black Holes and Time Warps by Kip Thorne.
I'll look for it next time i go to a book store, thanks .
.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 16 2009, 06:34 PM)
Read up on singularities and get back to me when you know something.
Ok, I'll bite. Let's see the list of literature you've been through over your years of extensive study.
Come on, you complete numpty, let's see it. And after that, you can explain to us how it's possible, that with all this knowledge, you didn't even know that "singularities" are simply the "singular" parts of a solution to the EFEs.
You idiots never, ever learn.
Ok, I'll bite. Let's see the list of literature you've been through over your years of extensive study.
Come on, you complete numpty, let's see it. And after that, you can explain to us how it's possible, that with all this knowledge, you didn't even know that "singularities" are simply the "singular" parts of a solution to the EFEs.
You idiots never, ever learn.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 16 2009, 07:57 PM)
Conserved despite huge collisions in the past, like the birth of the Moon?
Conserved in any closed system. Just have to define the system appropriately. But nice try at a pointless and irrelevent criticism.
Conserved in any closed system. Just have to define the system appropriately. But nice try at a pointless and irrelevent criticism.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 16 2009, 07:57 PM)
The formula is only relevant if it works and we have not the slightest evidence of that considering the very different environments.
The Sun, Earth and any other roughly spherical rotation object are modelled using black hole solutions at a distance due to symmetry arguments, so the formula I derived can be tested right here on Earth. And has been.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 16 2009, 07:57 PM)
You said a lot without answering my question..
Not understanding what I say doesn't mean I didn't say it.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 16 2009, 07:57 PM)
More words but no answers. You'd make a good politician.
No retort to my criticism of your hypocrisy I see. You complain I'm arm wavey but you can't offer a single justification for your claims. And then you say I'd make a good politician?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 16 2009, 07:57 PM)
Duh! Black holes rotate. Singularities don't. It's not rocket science.
This harkens to what Euler has been saying, you don't know what 'singularity' means. The Kerr or Kerr-Newman solutions have singularities which rotate, they are not points. A space can have regions where such things as curvature are singular.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 16 2009, 07:57 PM)
You're the one coming up with the crazy ideas then you expect me to justify them.
I'm the one whose done general relativity, did a lot of black holes courses, did well in that exam and can actually do relativity and justify what I've been saying with specific details. You're just making things up on what you assume black holes do from what you've read in layman pop science books (if that).
You don't accept anything which uses maths to back it up, but you accept your entirely assumptive approach. Nice hypocrisy.
You don't accept anything which uses maths to back it up, but you accept your entirely assumptive approach. Nice hypocrisy.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 16 2009, 07:57 PM)
YYeah, of course an event horizon can pop up anywhere since all it needs is a gravitational force somewhere to generate it. Where is the physical evidence for what you claim? Oh yeah, nowhere.
So you claiming about GR is fine but anyone with knowledge of GR telling you you're wrong is just making it up?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 16 2009, 07:57 PM)
I must have blinked and missed it. Can you give me a link to where Earth physicists travelled to a black hole to prove what you say? How are the Sun and Earth like black holes?
Strawman. And if you knew anything about how gravitational things in the solar system are modelled you'd know that the space-time metric for any spherical object is the Schwarzchild one. You don't even need to know the algebraic details of the derivation, it's all about symmetries and only having a mass parameter. If you want the details look up Birkhoffs Theorem. And the experimental verification of such models via the GPS system. Or is prediction matching experiment too much for you to accept?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 16 2009, 07:57 PM)
An appeal to belief now. The weakest form of argument.
No, there's tons of stuff to back up what I've been saying. The fact you refuse to read about such things as cosmology and astronomy and how they test their models using observations doesn't mean what I've been saying is flimsy. You've yet to back anything you say up. Your argument is "Argument by refusal to look at anything to the contrary".
You just stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes.
You just stick your fingers in your ears and close your eyes.
QUOTE
Unable to answer the questions, you come up with some maths to try and change the subject. The second weakest form of argument. No matter how fast you move, the gravitational forces will try to accelerate you faster, and unable to do so, you will just gain energy till you go pop!
I wanted you to justify even one of your claims with specific details, not vague arm waving. And you couldn't. As expected.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 18 2009, 12:58 PM)
Hey AlegsG. Do learn the difference in spelling between quater and quarter. I can't take anything you say seriously otherwise if your spelling ability is that of a five year old.
1/4M, I don't really care what you take seriously. You can misspell anything you like. Is 'quater' an Brit spelling? Because the only dictionary definition using that spelling is
–adverb (in prescriptions) four times.
When it comes to physics though, your ignorance shines through in every post you make. You don't understand something, therefore it cannot be.
You're just a wannabe poser who has never studied the subject.
1/4M, I don't really care what you take seriously. You can misspell anything you like. Is 'quater' an Brit spelling? Because the only dictionary definition using that spelling is
–adverb (in prescriptions) four times.
When it comes to physics though, your ignorance shines through in every post you make. You don't understand something, therefore it cannot be.
You're just a wannabe poser who has never studied the subject.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 18 2009, 06:15 PM)
I ask you to read up on black holes so you can answer some simple questions and you ask me what I have read. You really don't have a clue. Is there no beginning to your knowledge?
Is this your attempt at avoidance? Are you embarrassed that you don't know what you're on about? I'm more than happy to talk about my knowledge on the subject at hand. Among the GR books I've studied, are Wald's "General Relativity" and Hawking and Ellis' "the large scale structure of space-time". More specialist texts have included Penrose's "Spinors and space-time" (both volumes) and Baez's "Gauge Fields, Knots, and Gravity".
More importantly, I have several publications in mathematical physics journals, regularly give talks in mathematical physics seminars at top universities and attend even more talks on classical and quantum gravity.
I could reel off my qualifications, but that just make you feel even smaller than you already are. So the ball's in your court, idiot. Let's see what you come up with.
Is this your attempt at avoidance? Are you embarrassed that you don't know what you're on about? I'm more than happy to talk about my knowledge on the subject at hand. Among the GR books I've studied, are Wald's "General Relativity" and Hawking and Ellis' "the large scale structure of space-time". More specialist texts have included Penrose's "Spinors and space-time" (both volumes) and Baez's "Gauge Fields, Knots, and Gravity".
More importantly, I have several publications in mathematical physics journals, regularly give talks in mathematical physics seminars at top universities and attend even more talks on classical and quantum gravity.
I could reel off my qualifications, but that just make you feel even smaller than you already are. So the ball's in your court, idiot. Let's see what you come up with.
This is all from the idiot who wants to point a thermometer at a point 13 billion light years away and have it read 3000C. That's his idea of evidence.
If 1/4M doesn't understand it, he doesn't believe it, and if he doesn't believe it, it can't be so.
If 1/4M doesn't understand it, he doesn't believe it, and if he doesn't believe it, it can't be so.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 18 2009, 07:00 PM)
All this boasting but still unable to answer basic questions. One might think you were telling porkies.
So no books? You haven't read anything? Wow...
So no books? You haven't read anything? Wow...
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 18 2009, 07:12 PM)
I have asked and answered questions. You have just boasted how smart you are.
Guess who is full of hot air?
Come on, you can't be serious! You haven't read any books on GR? Not even one?
Guess who is full of hot air?
Come on, you can't be serious! You haven't read any books on GR? Not even one?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 18 2009, 01:57 PM)
AlegsG. SF author, Nigel Kneale got the name Quatermass from a phone book. It is a real surname.
Did you manage to get a GCSE in doughnut eating and then leave school? You only use "an" before a vowel and not before "Brit", whatever that is. Is this a pathetic attempt to spell "British"?
You say I don't know the subject which any half wit might accuse me of but where is your evidence? At least others try to show me wrong, like poor old AlphaNumeric, Trippy and Euler. You just make empty accusations you cannot back up.
Evidence you have studied the subject is....poor quality insults against me, apparently. Go read a book. Any book.
Focusing on typos and grammatical errors is generally the resort of the incompetent. In your case, it's all you have.
Do you still think that you should be able to point a thermometer 13 billion light years away and have it read 3000C? That's your idea of evidence?
You're a wannabe poser. You don't even understand what a closed system is and how it relates to conservation laws, one of the most basic of concepts. Your ignorance of physics is demonstrated in every post you make.
Did you manage to get a GCSE in doughnut eating and then leave school? You only use "an" before a vowel and not before "Brit", whatever that is. Is this a pathetic attempt to spell "British"?
You say I don't know the subject which any half wit might accuse me of but where is your evidence? At least others try to show me wrong, like poor old AlphaNumeric, Trippy and Euler. You just make empty accusations you cannot back up.
Evidence you have studied the subject is....poor quality insults against me, apparently. Go read a book. Any book.
Focusing on typos and grammatical errors is generally the resort of the incompetent. In your case, it's all you have.
Do you still think that you should be able to point a thermometer 13 billion light years away and have it read 3000C? That's your idea of evidence?
You're a wannabe poser. You don't even understand what a closed system is and how it relates to conservation laws, one of the most basic of concepts. Your ignorance of physics is demonstrated in every post you make.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 18 2009, 02:09 PM)
Here we have someone who actually believes astronomers measure the temperatures of stars by pointing thermometers at them.
Doh to the power of doh.
When asked what you would accept as evidence of the CMB, you stated that you should be able to measure a temperature of 3000C from 13 billion light years away.
Do you remember that?
Wannabe idiot.
Doh to the power of doh.
When asked what you would accept as evidence of the CMB, you stated that you should be able to measure a temperature of 3000C from 13 billion light years away.
Do you remember that?
Wannabe idiot.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 19 2009, 05:58 AM)
Hey AlegsG. Do learn the difference in spelling between quater and quarter. I can't take anything you say seriously otherwise if your spelling ability is that of a five year old.
Oh looky here:
Quarter
Apparently it maters wether or not you're American or British.
Yet another thing you got wrong.
Oh looky here:
Quarter
Apparently it maters wether or not you're American or British.
Yet another thing you got wrong.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 19 2009, 06:07 AM)
Trippy. The same question I have asked AlphaNumeric and other question-duckers: If I am Kaneda, why did I not immediately come back under this alias when Kaneda was banned? It always worked for pupamancur. Why have I waited well over a year?
Don't know, don't really care either, although my best guess, given Kanedas posting style and posting history would be that your nose was put out of joint by the moderators having the timerity to ban you instead of the burger flipping trailer park trash, and it took you a year to get over yourself enough to come back.
Don't know, don't really care either, although my best guess, given Kanedas posting style and posting history would be that your nose was put out of joint by the moderators having the timerity to ban you instead of the burger flipping trailer park trash, and it took you a year to get over yourself enough to come back.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 19 2009, 06:07 AM)
You have said that there can be black holes which do not spin.
Actually, that's not what i've said.
The most i've said on the subject is that experiments looking for frame dragging have placed quite modest limits on the speeds at which black holes may be rotating (and i've aknowledged the possibility that they may not be rotating).
Actually, that's not what i've said.
The most i've said on the subject is that experiments looking for frame dragging have placed quite modest limits on the speeds at which black holes may be rotating (and i've aknowledged the possibility that they may not be rotating).
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 19 2009, 06:07 AM)
I have pointed out that that is impossible as all massive objects from moons upwards spin, which is what the evidence of our telescopes show.
And I have pointed out that this is an appeal from personal incredulity - you can not imagine a massive object not spinning, therefore you think they all must spin.
A stance which completely ignores the fact that the only requirement is that angular momentum is conserved and that angular momentum can be transfered between objects.
And I have pointed out that this is an appeal from personal incredulity - you can not imagine a massive object not spinning, therefore you think they all must spin.
A stance which completely ignores the fact that the only requirement is that angular momentum is conserved and that angular momentum can be transfered between objects.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 19 2009, 06:07 AM)
You have provided no evidence for this quasi-religious belief of yours so what can be asserted without proof can be denied without proof. You're wrong!
No, actually it is you who is wrong, because this is not an assertion I have actually made anywhere on this thread.
No, actually it is you who is wrong, because this is not an assertion I have actually made anywhere on this thread.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 19 2009, 06:07 AM)
That site appears to be very juvenile. Why did you steer me there if it is full of errors? Because it had some pretty pictures apparently.
Yeah, I thought it would help you understand better if I could direct you to a source that was pitched at your demonstrated level of understanding of the topic matter.
Yeah, I thought it would help you understand better if I could direct you to a source that was pitched at your demonstrated level of understanding of the topic matter.
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 18 2009, 06:53 PM)
This is all from the idiot who wants to point a thermometer at a point 13 billion light years away and have it read 3000C.
Maybe if we built a thermometer long enough.
Maybe if we built a thermometer long enough.
Here's a couple of the articles I was thinking of.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/03_releas...ess_091703.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402101
Turns out the experiments were conducted using Iron emissions, rathe rthan dying pulse trains.
The important point being that contrary to some of what's been said on this thread, evidence suggests that not all black holes spin.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/press/03_releas...ess_091703.html
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0402101
Turns out the experiments were conducted using Iron emissions, rathe rthan dying pulse trains.
The important point being that contrary to some of what's been said on this thread, evidence suggests that not all black holes spin.
Ah, Quatermass is channelling more and more of Kaneda's spirit it would seem. The "I refuse to read anything so unless you explicitly tell me I proclaim I'm right" method being of primary example.
For instance, QM, look up the metric which describes spherically symmetric masses like the Earth (rough approximation). Then look up the metric which describes spherically symmetric masses like a black hole. Then look up Birkhoffs theorem. Then look up experimental evidence for GPS system accuracy.
I've already said all that before but you show your dishonesty and lack of intellectual curiosity by making zero effort to find any information and going so far as to say how I'm wrong because you aren't spoon fed information. If you'd done any actual GR, as your discussion with Euler shows you haven't, you'd know all about how the space-time around the Sun, Earth or a black hole are modelled because you'd know a few interesting and important things about space-time in four dimensions. But like so many cranks you think you're right about black holes or GR despite having no knowledge of them beyond pop science books, having no quantitative models upon which to even try to justify you claims and, as Euler points out, you can't name a single book you've read on the matter. So what's the source of all your 'knowledge'? Divine inspiration?
For instance, QM, look up the metric which describes spherically symmetric masses like the Earth (rough approximation). Then look up the metric which describes spherically symmetric masses like a black hole. Then look up Birkhoffs theorem. Then look up experimental evidence for GPS system accuracy.
I've already said all that before but you show your dishonesty and lack of intellectual curiosity by making zero effort to find any information and going so far as to say how I'm wrong because you aren't spoon fed information. If you'd done any actual GR, as your discussion with Euler shows you haven't, you'd know all about how the space-time around the Sun, Earth or a black hole are modelled because you'd know a few interesting and important things about space-time in four dimensions. But like so many cranks you think you're right about black holes or GR despite having no knowledge of them beyond pop science books, having no quantitative models upon which to even try to justify you claims and, as Euler points out, you can't name a single book you've read on the matter. So what's the source of all your 'knowledge'? Divine inspiration?
G'day from the land of ozzzzzzzz
This link may alter the thinking of the workings of black holes.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3162
Instability of Black Hole Horizon With Respect to Electromagnetic Excitations
Authors: Alexander Burinskii
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009 (v1), last revised 31 Mar 2009 (this version, v2))
This link may alter the thinking of the workings of black holes.
http://arxiv.org/abs/0903.3162
Instability of Black Hole Horizon With Respect to Electromagnetic Excitations
Authors: Alexander Burinskii
(Submitted on 18 Mar 2009 (v1), last revised 31 Mar 2009 (this version, v2))
QUOTE
Abstract: Analyzing exact solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell equations in the Kerr-Schild formalism we show that black hole horizon is instable with respect to electromagnetic excitations. Contrary to perturbative smooth harmonic solutions, the exact solutions for electromagnetic excitations on the Kerr background are accompanied by singular beams which have very strong back reaction to metric and break the horizon, forming the holes which allow radiation to escape interior of black-hole. As a result, even the weak vacuum fluctuations break the horizon topologically, covering it by a set of fluctuating microholes. We conclude with a series of nontrivial consequences, one of which is that there is no information loss inside of black-hole.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 21 2009, 11:44 AM)
Try the Beano.
Is this where you get your knowledge of GR from? Ho, ho, ho...
Is this where you get your knowledge of GR from? Ho, ho, ho...
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 21 2009, 01:09 PM)
Anyone can make empty boasts here.
Nothing? So you're telling us that you haven't even read one book on the subject? Come on - that's almost unbelievable! I mean, how utterly stupid would a person have to be to come on an internet forum and spout off about a subject you know nothing about! You're not that person, are you Quatermass?
Nothing? So you're telling us that you haven't even read one book on the subject? Come on - that's almost unbelievable! I mean, how utterly stupid would a person have to be to come on an internet forum and spout off about a subject you know nothing about! You're not that person, are you Quatermass?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 21 2009, 01:09 PM)
Let's see you answer some questions to prove your knowledge. I forgot. You don't do that, do you?
Within the last 24 hours... Ah, hold on - you're not going to understand that post, are you.
Come on - give us one GR book you've read. Just one.
Within the last 24 hours... Ah, hold on - you're not going to understand that post, are you.
Come on - give us one GR book you've read. Just one.
All I see here is more of the same empty BS and evasion of the topic
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 21 2009, 11:44 PM)
Trippy.
What a silly reply. Better to have said nothing.
There is also a possibility that black holes might be orange too, but not much of one.
Still in denial.
You thought the site was right. I pointed out what was wrong. Try the Beano. It will help you understand better as it is a source that is pitched at your demonstrated level of understanding of the topic matter.
Except for this part
What a silly reply. Better to have said nothing.
There is also a possibility that black holes might be orange too, but not much of one.
Still in denial.
You thought the site was right. I pointed out what was wrong. Try the Beano. It will help you understand better as it is a source that is pitched at your demonstrated level of understanding of the topic matter.
Except for this part
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 21 2009, 11:44 PM)
No evidence so just wasting space.
Which is contradicted by one of your next posts - you really should learn to read ahead before you reply.
Which is contradicted by one of your next posts - you really should learn to read ahead before you reply.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 21 2009, 08:04 AM)
I don't think this is an act of yours. You seem to really believe that we need thermometers close up to measure the temperature of distant objects, having never heard of spectrums. You should be on a creationist site. That is about your intellectual level.
Real idiot.
Idiot, that was your contention, not mine.
This has to be a liberal arts major who failed Intro to science in high school. He simply doesn't understand how the CMB has cooled to it's present 2.7K.
Real idiot.
Idiot, that was your contention, not mine.
This has to be a liberal arts major who failed Intro to science in high school. He simply doesn't understand how the CMB has cooled to it's present 2.7K.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 22 2009, 12:27 AM)
Trippy. Technically our Moon does not spin as it is locked gravitationally so that the same side of it always faces the Earth as it orbits the Earth.
I'm sick of this assertion. The moon rotates about its axis relative to the fixed and distant stars.
An observer on the moon must come to the conclusion that the moon rotates.
An observer on the earth must come to the conclusion that the moon rotates (or the stars rotate about the moon).
The only way that an observer on the moon can reasonably come to the conclusion that the moon doesn't rotate is if their ONLY point of reference is the earth.
Synchronous Rotation is precisely that - rotation.
The assertion that objects that experience synchronous rotation don't rotate is BS.
If you were to drag the moon further from, or closer to the earth over a short enough period of time it would no longer be tidaly locked, it would 'magically' start rotating.
I'm sick of this assertion. The moon rotates about its axis relative to the fixed and distant stars.
An observer on the moon must come to the conclusion that the moon rotates.
An observer on the earth must come to the conclusion that the moon rotates (or the stars rotate about the moon).
The only way that an observer on the moon can reasonably come to the conclusion that the moon doesn't rotate is if their ONLY point of reference is the earth.
Synchronous Rotation is precisely that - rotation.
The assertion that objects that experience synchronous rotation don't rotate is BS.
If you were to drag the moon further from, or closer to the earth over a short enough period of time it would no longer be tidaly locked, it would 'magically' start rotating.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 22 2009, 12:27 AM)
With Cygnus X-1 which has several times the mass of our sun, it is gravitationally locked with it's partner star, HDE 226868 which has 30 times the mass of our sun. They orbit each other every 5.6 days.
An empty assertion for which you have provided zero evidence (and yes, i'm aware of the acceptance of this assumption, but it's stil 'only' an assumption).
Besides which, this does nothing to disprove anything I have said (remember my assertion was initially that experiments had provided very strict constraints on how rapidly it could be rotating).
If it's tidally locked, it's still rotating in most frames of reference.
An empty assertion for which you have provided zero evidence (and yes, i'm aware of the acceptance of this assumption, but it's stil 'only' an assumption).
Besides which, this does nothing to disprove anything I have said (remember my assertion was initially that experiments had provided very strict constraints on how rapidly it could be rotating).
If it's tidally locked, it's still rotating in most frames of reference.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 22 2009, 12:49 AM)
Trippy. Can you explain what you are babbling about?
Quatermass is a name.
Quarter is generally a fourth part of something.
Wholly irrelevant - here we have you heaping your derision upon AlexG because of the percieved mis-spelling of Quater/Quarter.
Quatermass is a name.
Quarter is generally a fourth part of something.
Wholly irrelevant - here we have you heaping your derision upon AlexG because of the percieved mis-spelling of Quater/Quarter.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 19 2009, 05:58 AM)
Hey AlegsG. Do learn the difference in spelling between quater and quarter. I can't take anything you say seriously otherwise if your spelling ability is that of a five year old.
Which, as the post I quoted in my response, was obviously the post I was responding to (by pointing out that both spellings of the word are equally valid.
Also, I should point out that in the states the surname Quatermass has become Quertermous, and that Quartermass is also a surname (not just in the US either) .
Ian Quartermass: http://www.tv.com/ian-quartermass/person/627913/summary.html
Pauline Quartermass: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/vnZxk2kZqpy...ine+Quartermass
Entries of Quartermass on a genealogy website: http://www.cousinconnect.com/p/a/0/s/QUARTERMASS
Irish records of the surname Quartermass: http://ifhf.brsgenealogy.com/surnames.php?...ame=QUARTERMASS
And that (AFAIK) they all stem from the same surname Quatremares - a Norman 'habitational' surname that as near as I can tell means "four pools" or "four marshes" - so Alfred Quatermares would be "Alfred of the four marshes" - the point here being that the Quater in Quatermass was originally a reference to the number 'Four', and the surname has several alternate spellings including Quartermass so both of your deflections in this regard are invalidated.
Which, as the post I quoted in my response, was obviously the post I was responding to (by pointing out that both spellings of the word are equally valid.
Also, I should point out that in the states the surname Quatermass has become Quertermous, and that Quartermass is also a surname (not just in the US either) .
Ian Quartermass: http://www.tv.com/ian-quartermass/person/627913/summary.html
Pauline Quartermass: http://www.zimbio.com/pictures/vnZxk2kZqpy...ine+Quartermass
Entries of Quartermass on a genealogy website: http://www.cousinconnect.com/p/a/0/s/QUARTERMASS
Irish records of the surname Quartermass: http://ifhf.brsgenealogy.com/surnames.php?...ame=QUARTERMASS
And that (AFAIK) they all stem from the same surname Quatremares - a Norman 'habitational' surname that as near as I can tell means "four pools" or "four marshes" - so Alfred Quatermares would be "Alfred of the four marshes" - the point here being that the Quater in Quatermass was originally a reference to the number 'Four', and the surname has several alternate spellings including Quartermass so both of your deflections in this regard are invalidated.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 22 2009, 12:49 AM)
I see spelling is not your strong point. Matters has 2 t's and whether has 2 h's.
Oh boo-hoo. Congratulations on spotting a couple of typos (yes, they were typos, apparently I didn't quite tap the buttons on the keyboard hard enough for the keypress to register).
A hopeless idiot with no knowledge of physics.
Oh boo-hoo. Congratulations on spotting a couple of typos (yes, they were typos, apparently I didn't quite tap the buttons on the keyboard hard enough for the keypress to register).
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 22 2009, 12:49 AM)
That's 3 things you have got wrong. And "you got wrong" is bad English.
That's nice - perhaps you expect an award of some kind for pointing that out?
That's nice - perhaps you expect an award of some kind for pointing that out?
1/4M is obsessed with spelling and grammar. A typical liberal arts major (that's assuming he has any post high school education), it's a smoke screen for his lack of science education.
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 22 2009, 07:22 AM)
1/4M is obsessed with spelling and grammar. A typical liberal arts major (that's assuming he has any post high school education), it's a smoke screen for his lack of science education.
That would seem to be backed up by the fact that, judging by Quatermass's comments regarding Nigel Kneale it's a literary reference to Bernard Quatermass, the protagonist in "The Quatermass Experiement", where according to Wikipedia: "Quatermass is an intelligent and highly moral British scientist, who continually finds himself confronting sinister alien forces that threaten to destroy humanity." Which is kind of funny when you consider the light that he usually casts himself in versus the light he casts everybody else in.
(Maybe that's why the 12 month hiatus between banning and return for Kaneda - it took him that long to find a suitably pretentious and obscure literary reference).
That would seem to be backed up by the fact that, judging by Quatermass's comments regarding Nigel Kneale it's a literary reference to Bernard Quatermass, the protagonist in "The Quatermass Experiement", where according to Wikipedia: "Quatermass is an intelligent and highly moral British scientist, who continually finds himself confronting sinister alien forces that threaten to destroy humanity." Which is kind of funny when you consider the light that he usually casts himself in versus the light he casts everybody else in.
(Maybe that's why the 12 month hiatus between banning and return for Kaneda - it took him that long to find a suitably pretentious and obscure literary reference).
QUOTE
Show me evidence of this. I have no interest in the temperature of background radiation billions of years later.
A hopeless idiot with no knowledge of physics.
Quatermass
Your level of idiocy is astounding!
Yes, it has rotated exactly 360 on it's axis.
Yes, it has rotated exactly 360 on it's axis.
If a beetle was on the far side, it's view would change as you turned around but the ball itself is still firmly held in your hands.
And that beetle could truthfully say that the ball rotated exactly one turn.
We don't believe it, we know it to be true. Have someone make an "orbit" around you, always keeping their front turned toward you. In one orbit, they will have turned exactly 360 degrees. Now have them make the same orbit, but have them always face due north. You will see all sides of them and they will NOT have turned at all. Now fire up your remaining brain cells, think real hard, do we see all sides of the moon???
Grumpy
I've got a sticky keyboard. Time for a new one.
I still fail to see how spelling errors on my part offset your ignorance of physics.
OTOH, arguing with you over your stupidity isn't all that productive. Its not like you're going to have a moment of clarity and realize that you really are ignorant. You probably really believe that you don't have to study science to know science.
Your level of idiocy is astounding!
QUOTE
Hold a ball firmly in both hands at arm's length. Now spin 360 degrees. Has that ball rotated?
Yes, it has rotated exactly 360 on it's axis.
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Hold a ball firmly in both hands at arm's length. Now spin 360 degrees. Has that ball rotated? |
Yes, it has rotated exactly 360 on it's axis.
If a beetle was on the far side, it's view would change as you turned around but the ball itself is still firmly held in your hands.
And that beetle could truthfully say that the ball rotated exactly one turn.
QUOTE
Since we always see the same side of the Moon facing us, how can anyone believe it rotates?
We don't believe it, we know it to be true. Have someone make an "orbit" around you, always keeping their front turned toward you. In one orbit, they will have turned exactly 360 degrees. Now have them make the same orbit, but have them always face due north. You will see all sides of them and they will NOT have turned at all. Now fire up your remaining brain cells, think real hard, do we see all sides of the moon???
Grumpy
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 23 2009, 10:31 AM)
Have you ever posted a post in the SPACE section that has any science in it? You don't even seem to have a child's knowledge of space and are just here to make childish insults against someone who knows more than you do on the subject (which is not hard since Cusa knows more than you do too).
How old are you? Are you one of the teenagers who can't even write a letter, as reported recently? Is that the reason for your inability to spell even simple words? Is that why you need others like Trippy to defend you?
As I said, a hopless idiot, scientifically illiterate.
My degree in physics is 35 years old. That's probably older than you.
How old are you? Are you one of the teenagers who can't even write a letter, as reported recently? Is that the reason for your inability to spell even simple words? Is that why you need others like Trippy to defend you?
As I said, a hopless idiot, scientifically illiterate.
My degree in physics is 35 years old. That's probably older than you.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 23 2009, 04:31 PM)
just here to make childish insults against someone who knows more than you do on the subject
Coming form someone who doesn't even understand the evidence for the Big Bang???
Disagreeing with the implications certain observations have is fair enough, but you really should understand them first. Otherwise it's like telling a Frenchman that the colloquialism he just used isn't French... it's judging from a position of pure ignorance.
Coming form someone who doesn't even understand the evidence for the Big Bang???
Disagreeing with the implications certain observations have is fair enough, but you really should understand them first. Otherwise it's like telling a Frenchman that the colloquialism he just used isn't French... it's judging from a position of pure ignorance.
He doesn't understand the concept of rotation.
He doesn't understand the CMB.
He doesn't understand theory and prediction.
He doesn't understand red shift.
He doesn't understand cosmic expansion.
There doesn't seem to be anything he does understand. Except spelling.
1/4M is a scientically illiterate wannabe poser.
He doesn't understand the CMB.
He doesn't understand theory and prediction.
He doesn't understand red shift.
He doesn't understand cosmic expansion.
There doesn't seem to be anything he does understand. Except spelling.
1/4M is a scientically illiterate wannabe poser.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 23 2009, 10:53 AM)
Why should you be worried if I have any hops? I haven't but I don't see what difference that makes.
I asked you where you have posted any science and all you do is some empty boasting about how smart you are. If I was interested in know-nothing boasting, I'll ask Euler.
As I said, spelling is 1/4M's focus. Science isn't.
I asked you where you have posted any science and all you do is some empty boasting about how smart you are. If I was interested in know-nothing boasting, I'll ask Euler.
As I said, spelling is 1/4M's focus. Science isn't.
QUOTE
Someone who can't even spell scientifically calls me illiterate. Can it get any worse?
I've got a sticky keyboard. Time for a new one.
I still fail to see how spelling errors on my part offset your ignorance of physics.
OTOH, arguing with you over your stupidity isn't all that productive. Its not like you're going to have a moment of clarity and realize that you really are ignorant. You probably really believe that you don't have to study science to know science.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 23 2009, 11:07 AM)
AlexG's idea of science.
My idea of science is physics. I've actually studied it. You haven't.
My idea of science is physics. I've actually studied it. You haven't.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 23 2009, 02:42 PM)
Euler. I have come across boastful know-nothings like you on other forums. Instead of answering questions put to you, you have just evaded them by claiming you are intelligent. I have yet to see evidence for that. Even a five year old can claim to be smart without being so.
I find it flattering that you see my background as soo good, you don't think it could be anything other than a work of fiction. I'm blushing.
I'm guessing, since you've stopped responding to my posts, that your answers to my questions were in the negative sense: you've never read a single book on relativity, and you didn't understand the GR I linked to in one of my previous posts.
I find it flattering that you see my background as soo good, you don't think it could be anything other than a work of fiction. I'm blushing.
I'm guessing, since you've stopped responding to my posts, that your answers to my questions were in the negative sense: you've never read a single book on relativity, and you didn't understand the GR I linked to in one of my previous posts.
Quatermass
Total idiocy!!!
OK, one more time...
We have a telescope situated above the north pole at 3 times the distance from the Earth to the moon. That telescope is electronically locked to the center of mass of the moon, but it does not rotate with the Earth. Observe for one 28 day period, you will see the moon make one rotation.
Tidally locked means the rotation period is equal to the orbital period, only a mor@n would claim that means it does not rotate.
Oh, wait...I forgot who I was talking to.
Never mind.
Grumpy
Total idiocy!!!
OK, one more time...
We have a telescope situated above the north pole at 3 times the distance from the Earth to the moon. That telescope is electronically locked to the center of mass of the moon, but it does not rotate with the Earth. Observe for one 28 day period, you will see the moon make one rotation.
Tidally locked means the rotation period is equal to the orbital period, only a mor@n would claim that means it does not rotate.
Oh, wait...I forgot who I was talking to.
Never mind.
Grumpy
A tidally locked body takes just as long to rotate around its own axis as it does to revolve around its partner. This synchronous rotation causes one hemisphere constantly to face the partner body.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tidal_locking
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:08 AM)
Trippy. Hold a ball firmly in both hands at arm's length. Now spin 360 degrees. Has that ball rotated? No, it hasn't. If a beetle was on the far side, it's view would change as you turned around but the ball itself is still firmly held in your hands.
Actually, it has rotated, it has just done so in a way that's a special case of rotation that generates zero torque against your hand.
Actually, it has rotated, it has just done so in a way that's a special case of rotation that generates zero torque against your hand.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:08 AM)
Since we always see the same side of the Moon facing us, how can anyone believe it rotates? As it orbits the Earth, the sun illuminates different parts of it but it always has the same face to us.
Because the Bell Curve exists for a reason.
Because the Bell Curve exists for a reason.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:08 AM)
Of course if the Moon were further from the Earth, it would rotate on it's own.
But this isn't what I said, nor the setup I was describing was it?
But this isn't what I said, nor the setup I was describing was it?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:08 AM)
All large objects do. If it was closer to the Earth, it would be even more tidally locked than at present.
For starters, this sentence is meaningless.
Secondly, if you were to move the moon closer to the earth (over a short time frame) it would, once again, appear to rotate.
For starters, this sentence is meaningless.
Secondly, if you were to move the moon closer to the earth (over a short time frame) it would, once again, appear to rotate.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:08 AM)
Synchronus rotation where by pure chance two bodies rotate at a set rate so one side of a smaller body always faces the larger body sounds like goddidit.
Unadulterated BS - we know that gravity and tidal forces did it.
Unadulterated BS - we know that gravity and tidal forces did it.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:08 AM)
Why do you think the larger Earth does not always have the same face pointing at the Moon?
The moon slows the earths rotation, but at a fraction of the rate that the Earth slowed the moons rotation. That the moon slows the earths rotation has been verified by information from tidal rythmites (a kind of rock). I think that the larger Earth does not always have the same face pointing at the earth, because the tidal braking that the moon applies to the earth is insufficient to slow the earths rotation from >24 hrs to 672 hrs in the 3-4 billion years that the earth has had a moon.
The moon slows the earths rotation, but at a fraction of the rate that the Earth slowed the moons rotation. That the moon slows the earths rotation has been verified by information from tidal rythmites (a kind of rock). I think that the larger Earth does not always have the same face pointing at the earth, because the tidal braking that the moon applies to the earth is insufficient to slow the earths rotation from >24 hrs to 672 hrs in the 3-4 billion years that the earth has had a moon.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:08 AM)
Cygnus X-1 is no more rotating than our Moon is. It is a similar system where it is held in check by a star some four times as massive as it is. However, you seem to consider this "zero evidence".
First off, this isn't what I said.
Secondly, So now you're admitting that you were wrong when you said that black holes must rotate? You're agreeing that there's at least one example of a black hole that doesn't rotate to any appreciable degree?
First off, this isn't what I said.
Secondly, So now you're admitting that you were wrong when you said that black holes must rotate? You're agreeing that there's at least one example of a black hole that doesn't rotate to any appreciable degree?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:08 AM)
Do read up on gravity some time.
Do practice what you preach - have you figured out why a human being can 'survive' crossing the event horizon of a sufficiently large black hole yet?
Or why while a human being might survive, a sufficiently large object might not?
Do practice what you preach - have you figured out why a human being can 'survive' crossing the event horizon of a sufficiently large black hole yet?
Or why while a human being might survive, a sufficiently large object might not?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:12 AM)
Trippy. Your April 21, 07:13 PM post is so puerile I can't be bothered to answer it. I would be ashamed to have my name attached to such a post.
Riiiiiight.
So demonstrating that your assertion that AlexG butchered the spelling of a surname is at best facile is puerile?
Proving you to be thoroughly wrong is puerile?
Gotcha.
Riiiiiight.
So demonstrating that your assertion that AlexG butchered the spelling of a surname is at best facile is puerile?
Proving you to be thoroughly wrong is puerile?
Gotcha.
1/4M is quite concerned with spelling. It serves as an attempt to divert attention from his lack of physics.
Speaking of puerile posts... I've already answered most of this.
Quatermass is a name. To misspell it is not exactly a sign of a great intellect.
Right, but I've already demonstrated that he didn't misspell the name, that the spelling that he used is an acceptable, accepted, and currently used variation.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:25 AM)
Quatermass is a name. To misspell it is not exactly a sign of a great intellect.
Right, but I've already demonstrated that he didn't misspell the name, that the spelling that he used is an acceptable, accepted, and currently used variation.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:25 AM)
If I am Kaneda and I was banned for a year, the reason I did not come back as Kaneda is.....?
I've already answered this. I don't know, and I don't particularly care either (although my personal opinion is it's related to your ego).
If you're not Kaneda, and you were posting as quatermass before Kaneda left, then why did you stop posting for at least 12 months anyway?
I've already answered this. I don't know, and I don't particularly care either (although my personal opinion is it's related to your ego).
If you're not Kaneda, and you were posting as quatermass before Kaneda left, then why did you stop posting for at least 12 months anyway?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:25 AM)
I was posting here before as Quatermass.
Wholly irrelevant. All that proves is that you created the Quatermass account (if we accept the hypothesis that you are Kaneda) to bolster your feedback, take revenge on those who disagreed with you, and to give your arguments the semblence of validity by agreeing with yourself (commonly called a 'Sockpuppet') - rather than simply to get around a ban.
Actually, I've never misspelled it. I just type it as 1/4M.
Wholly irrelevant. All that proves is that you created the Quatermass account (if we accept the hypothesis that you are Kaneda) to bolster your feedback, take revenge on those who disagreed with you, and to give your arguments the semblence of validity by agreeing with yourself (commonly called a 'Sockpuppet') - rather than simply to get around a ban.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 24 2009, 03:25 AM)
0 out of 3. Another extremely poor post.
Yeah, you're not doing very well are you?
Yeah, you're not doing very well are you?
QUOTE (AlexG+Apr 24 2009, 03:35 AM)
My degree in physics is 35 years old. That's probably older than you.
It's older than me at any rate - not by much though (I have no problem admtting that).
You teach in the real world?
It's older than me at any rate - not by much though (I have no problem admtting that).
You teach in the real world?
QUOTE (Trippy+Apr 23 2009, 02:06 PM)
It's older than me at any rate - not by much though (I have no problem admitting that).
You teach in the real world?
Good lord no. What kind of masochist do you think I am?
I'm a mainframe computer programmer. Old school, COBOL.
After I graduated, I was intrigued by the prospect of making a good living. That ruled out being a physicist.
You teach in the real world?
Good lord no. What kind of masochist do you think I am?
I'm a mainframe computer programmer. Old school, COBOL.
After I graduated, I was intrigued by the prospect of making a good living. That ruled out being a physicist.
QUOTE
Quatermass is a name. To misspell it is not exactly a sign of a great intellect.
Actually, I've never misspelled it. I just type it as 1/4M.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 23 2009, 03:42 PM)
Instead of answering questions put to you, you have just evaded them by claiming you are intelligent.
Hypocrisy overload!
There's plenty of posts of Euler's on these forums showing mathematical and physical knowledge. I don't see any from you, you don't even manage to follow the very simple mathematics I've told you. Heck, you can't even put numbers into a formula!
Hypocrisy overload!
There's plenty of posts of Euler's on these forums showing mathematical and physical knowledge. I don't see any from you, you don't even manage to follow the very simple mathematics I've told you. Heck, you can't even put numbers into a formula!
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 23 2009, 03:49 PM)
The CMB started off at 3,000.C according to BBT. Show me evidence of this. I have no interest in the temperature of background radiation billions of years later.
Either you're Kaneda or you have precisely all of his ignorance and delusions and blind unjustified arrogance, in which case I'd recommend just topping yourself now since there's little worse than being told you behave like Kaneda.
One of Kaneda's favourite attempts at an insult is to say "A 10 year old using Google could find out that information, you're telling me stuff I could find myself", and yet he never could manage to find it himself. Why don't you use Google first and then ask for clarification on the specifics of evidence given for various parts of physics you don't agree with? You know, put in some effort.
Hubble parameter = universe expanding. 2.7K background = CMB. CMB + smaller volume = hotter. Too hot = ionisation of Hydrogen.
Savvy or do you need to have someone join the dots for you?
One of Kaneda's favourite attempts at an insult is to say "A 10 year old using Google could find out that information, you're telling me stuff I could find myself", and yet he never could manage to find it himself. Why don't you use Google first and then ask for clarification on the specifics of evidence given for various parts of physics you don't agree with? You know, put in some effort.
Hubble parameter = universe expanding. 2.7K background = CMB. CMB + smaller volume = hotter. Too hot = ionisation of Hydrogen.
Savvy or do you need to have someone join the dots for you?
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 23 2009, 03:49 PM)
Trippy. Hold a ball firmly in both hands at arm's length. Now spin 360 degrees. Has that ball rotated? No, it hasn't. If a beetle was on the far side, it's view would change as you turned around but the ball itself is still firmly held in your hands.
Tie a long bit of string to it, tight enough that the loop doesn't slip at all. Get someone to hold the other end. Hold it at arms length and turn around and around, making sure to allow the length of string over your head each time. You'll find the string ends up wrapping around and around the ball. The ball has rotated.
Alternatively, if you want some formalism someone on the Moon with good accelerometers would be able to measure accelerations which do not occur in an inertial frame. Why? Because rotating systems are not inertial frames. You'd get contributions from the Moon going around the Earth but also from the Moon rotating about its axis.
Or just get a ball and jam a stick into it. Then hold it at arms length and rotate on the spot. Does the stick always point in the same direction for any initial orientation? Nope. Therefore the Moon rotates.
So obviously even the concept of inertial frames is beyond you.
Alternatively, if you want some formalism someone on the Moon with good accelerometers would be able to measure accelerations which do not occur in an inertial frame. Why? Because rotating systems are not inertial frames. You'd get contributions from the Moon going around the Earth but also from the Moon rotating about its axis.
Or just get a ball and jam a stick into it. Then hold it at arms length and rotate on the spot. Does the stick always point in the same direction for any initial orientation? Nope. Therefore the Moon rotates.
So obviously even the concept of inertial frames is beyond you.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 23 2009, 03:49 PM)
Do read up on gravity some time.
You're still throwing stones from that glass house Mr Pot.
AlexG
I studied Fortran and Cobol in the late 60s on an old IBM card punch computer. Do loops in my sleep, ARRGGG!!! Shoe boxes full of punch cards just to play tic tac toe. Hours spent pouring over printouts to chase down glitches.
Yeah, old school SUCKED.
Cusa
I studied Fortran and Cobol in the late 60s on an old IBM card punch computer. Do loops in my sleep, ARRGGG!!! Shoe boxes full of punch cards just to play tic tac toe. Hours spent pouring over printouts to chase down glitches.
Yeah, old school SUCKED.
Cusa
Red shift and blue shift can go infinite.
Will someone please swat that annoying gadfly!
Grumpy
QUOTE
Old school, COBOL.
I studied Fortran and Cobol in the late 60s on an old IBM card punch computer. Do loops in my sleep, ARRGGG!!! Shoe boxes full of punch cards just to play tic tac toe. Hours spent pouring over printouts to chase down glitches.
Yeah, old school SUCKED.
Cusa
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| Old school, COBOL. |
I studied Fortran and Cobol in the late 60s on an old IBM card punch computer. Do loops in my sleep, ARRGGG!!! Shoe boxes full of punch cards just to play tic tac toe. Hours spent pouring over printouts to chase down glitches.
Yeah, old school SUCKED.
Cusa
Red shift and blue shift can go infinite.
Will someone please swat that annoying gadfly!
Grumpy
1/4M
So because the ball does not rotate with respect to your hand, the ball does not rotate with respect to the rest of the planet?
A line drawn on the moon and extended into space will sweep through 360 degrees in a 28 day period. If you think that is not rotation, you don't know what rotation is.
idiot.
QUOTE
I'm sorry the example with the ball at arm's length was totally beyond your ability to comprehend.
So because the ball does not rotate with respect to your hand, the ball does not rotate with respect to the rest of the planet?
A line drawn on the moon and extended into space will sweep through 360 degrees in a 28 day period. If you think that is not rotation, you don't know what rotation is.
idiot.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 25 2009, 01:09 PM)
Someone who thinks the sun lighting up different parts of the Moon is rotation.....hahahahahaha!
1/4M's idea of science is correcting spelling errors.
You simply don't know what rotation is. And since it is the simplest of all spacial translations, it only proves you're an idiot.
The concerns of an english major. Why are so many liberal arts majors science wannabes?
1/4M's idea of science is correcting spelling errors.
You simply don't know what rotation is. And since it is the simplest of all spacial translations, it only proves you're an idiot.
QUOTE
Only one spelling mistake. Congratulations
The concerns of an english major. Why are so many liberal arts majors science wannabes?
You don't know what rotation is. You're unable to visualize it. I didn't think anybody could be so cognitively challenged.
Back to this again?
Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself? If you wannabe that badly, take a physics class. Surely you can find a continuing education program which offers remedial science.
QUOTE
CMB at formation was 3,000.C . Evidence of this is.......missing.
Back to this again?
Why do you continue to make a fool of yourself? If you wannabe that badly, take a physics class. Surely you can find a continuing education program which offers remedial science.
Quatermass
I don't know how it feels to be stupider than dirt, and I don't really care enough to ask you. But at least you are consistent in that you always choose to defend even the most idiotic of the things you claim(and that is a long list indeed). But your continual claim that the moon does not rotate as it circles the Earth really takes the cake as THE stupidest thing I have ever seen on this forum(where dad1 used to be the top idiot). It's really kindergarden geometry
Look up "Synchronous rotation" and "tidally locked rotation" on any source you like(I used wiki because it's not copyrighted and simple enough for even you), they will all show you that you are an ID!OT and a PUTZ and a brain dead wanabee and I can't wait for May Day celebrations of your free, extended vacation. Maybe you and Cusa can get a discount on tickets to Bagdad or Islamabad, don't forget your "Girls gone Wild" T-shirts.
Grumpy
PS Oh, and take Lui and Bruce, too. Might as well make a clean sweep while cleaning out the gene pool.
I don't know how it feels to be stupider than dirt, and I don't really care enough to ask you. But at least you are consistent in that you always choose to defend even the most idiotic of the things you claim(and that is a long list indeed). But your continual claim that the moon does not rotate as it circles the Earth really takes the cake as THE stupidest thing I have ever seen on this forum(where dad1 used to be the top idiot). It's really kindergarden geometry
Look up "Synchronous rotation" and "tidally locked rotation" on any source you like(I used wiki because it's not copyrighted and simple enough for even you), they will all show you that you are an ID!OT and a PUTZ and a brain dead wanabee and I can't wait for May Day celebrations of your free, extended vacation. Maybe you and Cusa can get a discount on tickets to Bagdad or Islamabad, don't forget your "Girls gone Wild" T-shirts.
Grumpy
PS Oh, and take Lui and Bruce, too. Might as well make a clean sweep while cleaning out the gene pool.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 26 2009, 06:02 AM)
Trippy. It doesn't rotate. Stop moving the goalposts.
I'm not moving the goal-posts, you're contradicting yourself.
Or do you not remember making this post:
I'm not moving the goal-posts, you're contradicting yourself.
Or do you not remember making this post:
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 10 2009, 07:26 AM)
ALL black holes spin, as do all large masses in space so there is no such thing as a black hole that does not spin.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 26 2009, 06:02 AM)
Of course, it is just a total coincidence that the same side of the Moon always faces us. Doh!
This is nonsense at best.
This is nonsense at best.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 26 2009, 06:02 AM)
You now claim to know about gravity and tidal forces. Sure!
Apparently I understand it better than you.
I understand that the strength of the tidal forces experienced by a body (at least in the classical treatment) are proportional to the radius of the body being acted upon, as well as the mass of the body doing the acting - so where a 1.49m long human might survive, a star the size of the sun, 11 orders of magnitude wider wouldn't.
Unlike you, I understand that scale is important.
Unlike you, I understand that tidal force varies as the cube of the distance from an object, where gravitational force varies as the square of the distance, and the implications this has when considering where tidal forces reach a certain strength for a given body.
Or, if you do a full mathmatical treatment of it, you find out that doubling the mass of a black hole doubles the schwarzchild radius, but only increases the distance at which spagettification becomes effectivefor a given object by 1.4 - so then it stands to reason that as we increase the size of a blackhole, then at some point, for ANY given object, the distance at which tidal forces overcome internal cohesion must fall within the event horizon.
So yes, as counter intuitive as it might seem, it is possible for there to be a sufficiently large blackhole that it can swallow the sun whole, but this would require a mass of many many many many billions of solar masses (someone may want to do the calculations, but I have a feeling that it's probably going to be more than the observed mass of the universe).
Apparently I understand it better than you.
I understand that the strength of the tidal forces experienced by a body (at least in the classical treatment) are proportional to the radius of the body being acted upon, as well as the mass of the body doing the acting - so where a 1.49m long human might survive, a star the size of the sun, 11 orders of magnitude wider wouldn't.
Unlike you, I understand that scale is important.
Unlike you, I understand that tidal force varies as the cube of the distance from an object, where gravitational force varies as the square of the distance, and the implications this has when considering where tidal forces reach a certain strength for a given body.
Or, if you do a full mathmatical treatment of it, you find out that doubling the mass of a black hole doubles the schwarzchild radius, but only increases the distance at which spagettification becomes effectivefor a given object by 1.4 - so then it stands to reason that as we increase the size of a blackhole, then at some point, for ANY given object, the distance at which tidal forces overcome internal cohesion must fall within the event horizon.
So yes, as counter intuitive as it might seem, it is possible for there to be a sufficiently large blackhole that it can swallow the sun whole, but this would require a mass of many many many many billions of solar masses (someone may want to do the calculations, but I have a feeling that it's probably going to be more than the observed mass of the universe).
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 26 2009, 06:02 AM)
Of course the Moon slows the Earth's rotation, just as the greater mass of Earth stops the Moon's rotation.
Good on you - you got something right.
Good on you - you got something right.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 26 2009, 06:02 AM)
What part of Cygnus X-1 is tidally locked by a star with four times it's own mass do you not understand? All of it, apparently.
I don't have any trouble understanding it, or the fact that it means that you've contradicted yourself.
I don't have any trouble understanding it, or the fact that it means that you've contradicted yourself.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 26 2009, 06:02 AM)
Not back to that trash about human beings surviving entering a BH, or is it a BS? Again, if a human could survive, so can everything else survive intact, after being broken up into just the right sized chunks so the hard gamma rays we get from material entering a black hole is just an illusion. Or you can make up an unfeasibly large BH like AlphaNumeric did. He moved his goal posts about the diameter of that SMBH.
This is pure unmitigated BS - just because a small object might survive the tidal forces doesn't mean a large one does (or did you not realize that the strength of the tidal forces acting upon an object increase with the radius and mass of the object being acted upon?)
This is pure unmitigated BS - just because a small object might survive the tidal forces doesn't mean a large one does (or did you not realize that the strength of the tidal forces acting upon an object increase with the radius and mass of the object being acted upon?)
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 26 2009, 06:22 AM)
Trippy. If someone cannot copy a 10 letter alias correctly, then it does not say much for their ability at anything else.
Oh right, because it couldn't possibly have been a typo.
I mean, it's not like the R and T are placed beside each other on most keyboards used in most countriesin which Engllish is the primary language or anything.
Oh right, because it couldn't possibly have been a typo.
I mean, it's not like the R and T are placed beside each other on most keyboards used in most countriesin which Engllish is the primary language or anything.
QUOTE (Quatermass+Apr 26 2009, 06:22 AM)
I stopped posting here because there are lots of other forums not full of the nastiness that was here at the time. I did look back a few times but did not post.
I've got 2 positives from Kaneda. I didn't do a good job of bolstering my feedback, did I?
I've got 2 positives from Kaneda. I didn't do a good job of bolstering my feedback, did I?