Sciencemadness Discussion Board - The Strange Fate of a Person Falling into a Black Hole

I've asked a bunch of times. How do you model of an atom compacted infinitely?
Start simple... The energy of that atom at normal atmospheric pressure. Double it, double it, double it.

We don't know (or at least I don't). At some point the electrons get pushed into the protons, forming neutrons. After that ask Hawking?

aga - 29-5-2015 at 23:33

My very simplistic model of matter can be represented as multiple straight lengths of clear pipe all welded together in the middle.

Each pipe represents one of the known dimensions : X, Y, Z, Time, Electrical charge, Gravitational force, Magnetic and so on - maybe some of which we are totally unaware.

Into this star-like system of pipes is poured some liquid which flows into each different pipe in different amounts according to some unknown rules, however the amount of liquid must always remain the same.

Energy can be imagined as the amount of liquid that is able to swap/flow from one pipe to another, or perhaps Energy is the actual liquid.

In the case of a compressed atom, the liquid in the X,Y,Z and maybe Time pipes is forced down towards the centre, causing it to flow up into the gravitic, magnetic, electrical pipes.

If there is a continuous trend for all the liquid to gradually end up in the Time tube, we get a linear progression in time at the expense of the other dimensional properties.

This is my own personal view and has absolutely no scientific foundation whatsoever.

[Edited on 30-5-2015 by aga]

[Edited on 30-5-2015 by aga]

Zombie - 30-5-2015 at 00:10

I completely understood that right up until the time aspect.

I said earlier that the mass of said atom MUST remain the same irregardless of it being compacted or expanded. Only the form, and volume can be changed.

Looking at this a an equation... (I suck at this so)
Mass remains constant.
Volume is a predictable variable but perhaps only up to a certain point. If form is changed at some given pressure then the predictable volume must also change, and becomes a variable.

Something else that just occurred to me. The energy that creates atomic bonds.
Take a spark generator. In a vacuum the spark jumps say 1". Under compression it will take more energy to jump that 1".
That must be saying that some of that energy is lost although we know the energy is the same. Is this phenomenon because there are more atoms (oxygen, nitrogen, ect) and these atoms dissipate or absorb some of this energy?

I don't think we have to ask Hawking. I'm pretty sure we can figure out what will happen in house.

I mean they figured out fission close to a century ago.
I'm beginning to suspect that the idea of immense energy being the result of a compressed atom may be backwards.

What if that compression absorbs or dissipates the energy just as in a spark? That alone would explain why or how nothing can escape a black hole because all of the atomic energy is negated under extreme pressure. There is nothing to escape, as long as the machine is running.

Switch off this machine, and I think I just created a galaxy... aka "Big Bang".

IrC - 30-5-2015 at 01:46

"I said earlier that the mass of said atom MUST remain the same irregardless of it being compacted or expanded. Only the form, and volume can be changed."

I doubt looking at a static system is useful since to know the mass you must also know the velocity.

blogfast25 - 30-5-2015 at 05:53

I don't think we have to ask Hawking. I'm pretty sure we can figure out what will happen in house.

More moonshine, please, I'm still a bit in touch with 'Reality' [hh-iiips][burp]. But I'm kinda driftin' into t'Imaginary... We nearly there, Mom?

[Edited on 30-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 30-5-2015 at 10:52

"I said earlier that the mass of said atom MUST remain the same irregardless of it being compacted or expanded. Only the form, and volume can be changed."

I doubt looking at a static system is useful since to know the mass you must also know the velocity.

I don't understand...
Why is velocity a factor in mass? I'm only thinking of the static weight of said atom so if it filled a room (expanded) or a teacup (compressed) it would have to weigh the same.

"I doubt looking at a static system is useful "

Ohhh. I mis read.

I'm not thinking that far ahead yet. Trying to find simple ways to equate to the problem, and knock the easy ones down first.

Zombie - 30-5-2015 at 10:57

I don't think we have to ask Hawking. I'm pretty sure we can figure out what will happen in house.

More moonshine, please, I'm still a bit in touch with 'Reality' [hh-iiips][burp]. But I'm kinda driftin' into t'Imaginary... We nearly there, Mom?

[Edited on 30-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Why does that seem so far fetched?

I was thinking about fission last night, and that's when the idea that the energy of an atom when compressed may just be nullified to the point it is almost not there.
Just the opposite, of fission, and the opposite of my first thoughts on the idea of a compressed atom.

Lets go back to the sun as an example. Is our sun not a giant atomic reactor tearing atoms apart to create the energy that we so depend on?

Perhaps the BH is the exact opposite?

[Edited on 5-30-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 30-5-2015 at 11:04

Lets go back to the sun as an example. Is our sun not a giant atomic reactor tearing atoms apart to create the energy that we so depend on?

Perhaps the BH is the exact opposite?

Hmmm... on a very superficial level stars and BHs may seem the opposite of each other but that just isn't true on any significant level.

In young and smallish stars, hydrogen nuclei are fused together into helium nuclei. In older and larger stars the other elements, up to iron, are also 'synthesized'. Supernovae provide the elements beyond iron.

We are literally made of star dust.

IrC - 30-5-2015 at 11:13

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity

While I cannot guarantee all you find on wiki there is much information that is at least accurate enough to be worth reading. Study how mass increases with velocity, the reason we cannot fly at the speed of light (takes infinite energy to yield infinite mass). Consider falling a mile on earth. At around 300 MPH wind resistance would limit your velocity. Otherwise what would limit your velocity from the 32 feet per second squared. Second one you fall 32 feet. Second two 64, second three 128, on and on. In a vacuum falling just 10 miles means your moving like a bat out of hell. Odd it just came to me where did that colloquialism originate? Has anyone ever actually seen a bat flying out of hell? Where is that? What became of the bat? Oh well never mind.

If gravity is so great not even light can escape the BH do you really think your matter is sitting still? In fact it moves so fast towards it the friction heating makes it a plasma of great energy, interacting with fields, the origin of the Gamma ray bursts that shine out of the poles like an intergalactic vaporizing ray. Just imagine if one were within a few thousand light years and pointed at us. Or what was left of us anyway. For awhile there people wondered if Betelgeuse was going to be an issue since its ticket is nearly expired but good news it looks like its poles are not pointed at us after all. Missed it by that much.

aga - 30-5-2015 at 12:31

So my amazing vision of reality doesn't work ?

Damn.

IrC - 30-5-2015 at 12:48

I once saw a bong back in the 60's that looked very similar to your star pipes theory.

blogfast25 - 30-5-2015 at 13:10

Quote: Originally posted by aga

So my amazing vision of reality doesn't work ?

Depends what you use it for!

Zombie - 30-5-2015 at 17:56

I'm still reading citations from the Ayahuasca thread.
I think the BH research will wait for a day or two.

Somehow (like Aga) I believe the two will merge quite nicely. Just got to work up the stone to trip, build a feather, and wax wing, fly up there, and let you all know it is really just s giant loo. Someone in Jersey forgot to jiggle the handle.

I have to learn the math needed to express my ideas better. Perhaps make a common sense "trail' as it were.

blogfast25 - 31-5-2015 at 09:15

I have to learn the math needed to express my ideas better. Perhaps make a common sense "trail' as it were.

A 'good' place to start would be the Standard Model.

'Forever' increasing the pressure on an atom will cause interactions by the constituent particles of said atom, changing the 'form' of the matter it contains.

Increasing pressure does of course increase energy content. Take a bicycle pump, blocked at the 'delivering end'. Quickly push the piston down. Adiabatic compression causes both pressure and temperature to rise. Now put a small weight on the handle of the piston and release: the piston pushes the weight up. Mechanical work (dW = Fds, integrated) is performed, proof that energy had been added to the pump by the adiabatic compression.

[Edited on 31-5-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 31-5-2015 at 18:12

'Forever' increasing the pressure on an atom will cause interactions by the constituent particles of said atom, changing the 'form' of the matter it contains.

Increasing pressure does of course increase energy content. Take a bicycle pump, blocked at the 'delivering end'. Quickly push the piston down. Adiabatic compression causes both pressure and temperature to rise. Now put a small weight on the handle of the piston and release: the piston pushes the weight up. Mechanical work (dW = Fds, integrated) is performed, proof that energy had been added to the pump by the adiabatic compression.

[Edited on 31-5-2015 by blogfast25]

This is kind of my point but I'm not so sure.
The Temp. of the air in the pump rises. That's energy.
Let go of the handle, and that is proof of this energy. Granted this energy was added.

My thinking was this added energy has to be part, and parcel of the atom at some point but as you keep compressing the atom I THINK the energy is nullified, as long as the pressure is maintained.
Release the pressure, and you recover the applied energy, plus the original atom's energy IF the atom survived the compression or it can restore to it's original form.

I think in comparatives. I need to see something as a physical thing in order to understand it. That's why I am asking about math models of these ideas. If I can see it I can understand it.

Out of all the things posted here that I have read, THIS subject has my attention more than any other. Why? I have no clue.

It's a shame I bought all this stuff for a lab when all I needed was a chalk board. Who Knew?

blogfast25 - 31-5-2015 at 18:17

It's a shame I bought all this stuff for a lab when all I needed was a chalk board. Who Knew?

And maybe a super computer. I've got a dusty Cray Mk II lying around, if you're interested!

Could do with few USB ports, nothing major...

In our current understanding energy can't be 'nullified'.

[Edited on 1-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 31-5-2015 at 20:49

Computer???

Blog! You're a genius!

I just noticed there are numbers all over the right side of the keyboard.

Now I just have to figure out how to make them do things. I hope it doesn't mess up my porn bookmarks tho.

Things to do today.
Feed/water the dogs
Feed/ water me.
SSS
Sweep the floor
Buy smokes
Re-wire 72' sailboat
Change cylinder on race scoot
Order cylinder for Triumph
Write checks for water/ electric/ Internet/ house note
Buy dog food
Figure out the numbers on my keyboard
Discover, and create a model for the nullification of energy in that "supposed" BH
Tell blogfast what I discovered
Cry in the shower when Blogfast calls me a hillbilly twit'
Sleep for 1.5 hours
Repeat (note to self: don't tell Blog twice)

[Edited on 6-1-2015 by Zombie]

IrC - 31-5-2015 at 21:51

I think it would aid your understanding if you did some study on the subject of potential energy. It exists even if it is not doing anything at the moment. Just ask Newton about the potential energy of the apple before and after it whopped him upside the head. Or was it on top the head.

blogfast25 - 1-6-2015 at 06:00

I think it would aid your understanding if you did some study on the subject of potential energy. It exists even if it is not doing anything at the moment. Just ask Newton about the potential energy of the apple before and after it whopped him upside the head. Or was it on top the head.

Agreed. Potential energy is what holds the Universe together.

It's often poorly understood by layman but then so is the whole concept of 'Energy' itself! Ironically E = mc2 hasn't really helped much to alleviate the ignorance, quite opposite...

Zombie - 1-6-2015 at 07:38

LOL... In broad strokes I am rethinking gravity too. Potential energy is kind of what I have in mind w/ the BH ideas but gravity is a loose cannon in some of the concepts I am developing.

I have to think this thru more before I chew off my foot.

Last night I was daydreaming before falling asleep.

I've done some strange things w/ welders/high amperage, and one was squeezing a MIG wire in a registered bearing press. When I applied current you could feel the movement in the handle even tho it is buffered by the hydraulic system.

Not pulling together but pushing apart. I don't know where this fits yet... but it does.
Sort of like two true steel machinists blocks being "lubricated by energetic materials.

Take those snap pop things you throw, and wipe them between two heavy steel plates. The plates slide easier due to the energy being created.

Again how this applies or what it has to do w/ BH's I don't know... Just rambling on ideas..

It's the c squared that is the issue.

If light slows down under pressure, then it no longer is a constant, and is useless to formulate from.

There has to be a NEW constant.

[Edited on 6-1-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 1-6-2015 at 08:05

It's the c squared that is the issue.

If light slows down under pressure, then it no longer is a constant, and is useless to formulate from.

There has to be a NEW constant.

No, it's not. c IS a constant: it's the speed of light in vacuum. Light slows down (a bit) even when it travels through glass, that's why glass (and water etc etc) refracts light. But the value of c is constant and immutable. The speed of light itself does vary according to conditions, the speed of light in vacuum is an absolute.

E = mc2 merely reflects the amount of energy an amount of stationary mass contains.

The 'revolutionary' aspect of this formula is that a stationary object of mass m still contains energy, to the tune of E = mc2. In Newtonian physics such a body would NOT contain energy (unless potential).

[Edited on 1-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 1-6-2015 at 09:21

GrayGhost - 1-6-2015 at 09:47

The Strange Fate of a Person Falling into chemical forum.

IrC - 1-6-2015 at 11:06

Quote: Originally posted by GrayGhost

The Strange Fate of a Person Falling into chemical forum.

But its not a chemical forum. This is the sub-forum of 'Fundamentals' titled 'Miscellaneous' on a site titled 'Science Madness'. I think most agree science covers far more than chemistry alone. Otherwise why is the site not titled 'Chemical Madness'?

Zombie - 1-6-2015 at 12:36

I should have stayed on PBS Kids... dot org.

jello is always a popular topic.

aga - 1-6-2015 at 13:16

What kind of jello ?

Strawberry ?

blogfast25 - 1-6-2015 at 13:21

The physics of jelly is quite interesting, in fact. Custard even more so. A non-Newtonian liquid... Jesus almost certainly walked on custard, not water. Of course He was related to the Great Houdini, no question about that! (it says so in 'The Da Vinci Code'!)

Einstein's First Derivation of the formula E = mc2 is A-level math, basically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass%E2%80%93energy_equivalence...

[Edited on 1-6-2015 by blogfast25]

IrC - 1-6-2015 at 15:00

https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/einstein-did-not-deriv...

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/www/

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/

http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/uspat1781541/www/

Attachment: US1781541A.pdf (190kB)
This file has been downloaded 418 times

aga - 1-6-2015 at 15:13

... Jesus almost certainly walked on custard, not water. Of course He was related to the Great Houdini, no question about that! (it says so in 'The Da Vinci Code'!)

How verily darest thou ?

Must have been Holy Custard at least.

Jihaaaaaaad.

blogfast25 - 1-6-2015 at 15:30

You never had Blue Custard? Lots of Blue Curacao.

IrC - 1-6-2015 at 15:43

Cherry Jello no fruit. I hate the kind with fruit in it. Does that mean I'm normal or not?

blogfast25 - 1-6-2015 at 15:48

Cherry Jello no fruit. I hate the kind with fruit in it. Does that mean I'm normal or not?

Consult your shrink and keep it 'scientific'...

Zombie - 1-6-2015 at 16:06

begging the question.

First off, is there any other flavor than strawberry? If there is they suck.

That's an interesting Wiki on those that question Einstein. I wonder why anyone would doubt him? Common sense maybe?
I doesn't sound right. Don't ask me why because I have no idea yet.

It's the light thing. We actually don't even understand light. (see dark sucker).

Taking protons, and electrons as orbitals is incorrect, and taking them as waves similar to light is wrong because they do not emit light.

EME (electro magnetic energy) is closer to the nature of them I believe. So this means that the nucleolus is emitting the force that keeps them in place along with their own balancing force.

You can't compare this to light, or gravity but you can compare this to a static magnetic field.
What if you changed E=mc2 to E=mt2 (magnetic torque) or E=mmm2 (magnetic moment) or E-mb2 (magnetic field strength).

Magnetic force is always constant whether under vacuum or not, and sounds much more applicable to the equation. It will take a predictable amount of energy to create movement, and will provide a universally static equation.

Besides the expected answer of "REALLY!" is there anything wrong with the idea?

Edit:
When you talk about Jesus you should keep in mind that Harold is watching.
Our father who art in heaven, Harold be thine name...

Blue custard,. REALLY?

[Edited on 6-2-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 1-6-2015 at 16:34

What if you changed E=mc2 to E=mt2 (magnetic torque) or E=mmm2 (magnetic moment) or E-mb2 (magnetic field strength).

The latter three are dimensionally inconsistent. Like "apples3 = pears2". HERESY ALERT!!!

The Spanish Inquisition is Coming for You:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tym0MObFpTI

Blue custard, it's delish! The Apostles knew that and you don't?

[Edited on 2-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 1-6-2015 at 19:48

All I know about English deserts is to stay away from anyone that offers you "spotted dick".

I guess that comes w/ blue custard?

blogfast25 - 2-6-2015 at 07:56

I guess that comes w/ blue custard?

Yeah but with the variant that's prepared with Gorgonzola or Danish Blue. An initiation rite of passage invented by the Freemasons, apparently... :cool:

+++++++++++++++++++

β- ('beta minus') decay: a neutron emits an electron (and an anti-neutrino) and gets transformed into a proton:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beta_decay

Imagine the 'inverse' taking place when atoms are 'crushed' at 'near-infinite' pressure. A neutron star is born!

[Edited on 2-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 2-6-2015 at 13:32

I have to read up on that.

That is sort of the way I am trying to learn all of this... Take what is known, and logical, and reverse it. I assume the math has to work the same, as long as it follows logic.

I'm prone to but not much of a believer in making up things to fit a situation. Like inventing new numbers to explain a problem... Discovering new numbers is another bowl of jello all-together.

Zombie - 9-6-2015 at 16:07

Hey guys,

What a coincidence.
The fella looking to make a giga amp battery had a reply on this...
"Philipp Kronberg of the University of Toronto in Canada and colleagues measured the alignment of radio waves around a galaxy called 3C303, which has a giant jet of matter shooting from its core. They saw a sudden change in the waves' alignment coinciding with the jet. "This is an unambiguous signature of a current," says Kronberg.

The team thinks magnetic fields from a colossal black hole at the galaxy's core are generating the current, which is powerful enough to light up the jet and drive it through interstellar gases out to a distance of about 150,000 light years (arxiv.org/abs/1106.1397)."

I said in here somewhere that this phenomenon HAD to occur, and I asked if it was ever observed. Well now it has been.

I know what it implies to me but I would like to know what it implies to you.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028174.900-universes...

blogfast25 - 10-6-2015 at 06:20

I know what it implies to me but I would like to know what it implies to you.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21028174.900-universes...

Who do you think I am? A cosmologist?

Seriously though, you'd have to go back to the source text and raw data to get a better idea of what it all means.

[Edited on 10-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 10-6-2015 at 16:18

As a simple minded guy it shows the simple law of action/reaction. Everything that goes in, HAS to come out.

Just in romantic theory, this is the emission of collected energy. A "Big Bang". Which side of the BH is it coming from? The side that took it in? or another side... The drain?

If we had a model of a compressed atom it would be easier to explain what happened, and why/where by comparing the signatures of the emissions to this model.

I mean I am a simplistic as it gets but it only makes sense if you follow the basic rule of K.I.S.S.
I believe they have captured the first ever known end or overflow of a BH.

Everything has to have a maximum energy limit, and I think that was what they saw. Static electricity as it were. Lightning in space.

What do you think the chances are that a shockwave from this discharge will effect our solar system in the future?
Without learning the numbers, and doing the math... I'd have to say the chances are 100%

Going back into theoretical minimum, there is a point in space where that shock wave will be so dispersed as to no longer be a cohesive force. Are we at or beyond that point?
I wonder if anyone else alive has asked this question?

[Edited on 6-11-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 10-6-2015 at 17:07

What do you think the chances are that a shockwave from this discharge will effect our solar system in the future?
Without learning the numbers, and doing the math... I'd have to say the chances are 100%

A shockwave requires an elastic medium (gas, liquid or solid) to propagate in. Inter-galactic space is pretty empty (vacuum). In space no one can hear you scream...

Any electromagnetic effects are likely to be attenuated enormously by the ginormous distances between Galaxy 3C303 and our solar system. There are far more energetic mass-events in our universe, like supernovae, that have no measurable effects on our solar system.

This:

https://hologramuniverse.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/galaxy-3c3...

... provides a bit more readable info on the 3C303 event.

[Edited on 11-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 10-6-2015 at 18:32

I'm going to read that tonight. I would have thought a super nova would be a pimple on a BH's arse.

Granted what ever happened there (3C303) was light years ago but we have the opportunity to follow this in real time.

I also wonder if Hawking has had anything to say on this, and I do wish I knew more about what his take on this was Pre- event ie: could this happen...

Edit:
started reading it, and it sounds like all the word soup I have been spitting out. Intergalactic lightning. All of this electromagnetic mumbo jumbo sounds about the same as what I have been saying as well. I wish I really understood.
Funny, I thought I was the BH arch rival. According to Hawking this anomaly is.

I think I am really going to pursue the compression of an atom. Just to see if I can.

[Edited on 6-11-2015 by Zombie]

blogfast25 - 11-6-2015 at 07:07

Granted what ever happened there (3C303) was light years ago but we have the opportunity to follow this in real time.

OXYMORON ALERT LIBELZ BENGAZI!!!!!!!!!11!!

I think I am really going to pursue the compression of an atom. Just to see if I can.

May the force be with you!

[Edited on 11-6-2015 by blogfast25]

IrC - 11-6-2015 at 11:59

In space no one can hear you scream...

Build a high gain phased array tuned to 20.1 MHZ and point it at Jupiter while doing frequency shifting of the detected signal. I can swear what I have heard from that gas monster sounded an awful lot like screaming. Or maybe it was the Dalek leader I'm not really sure.

blogfast25 - 11-6-2015 at 12:25

Nah, that was just your signal bouncing off the monolith...

Zombie - 11-6-2015 at 15:19

Granted what ever happened there (3C303) was light years ago but we have the opportunity to follow this in real time.

OXYMORON ALERT LIBELZ BENGAZI!!!!!!!!!11!!

Head shot One bullet one kill.

The Grand unified theory sounds a little like what I was saying about in a place where everything we thought was not possible, all of the laws that we know will apply.

I don't really know if some of what "I" theorize is from tid bits of things I may have read or if it is instinct. I can honestly say I don't remember reading anything on any of this ever.

Is it possible for us here on Earth to see or acknowledge/measure something in space to prove a shock wave from what happened there?

I mean I am really thinking what we saw was a "Big Bang". That amount of energy MUST have destroyed/vaporized everything within what ever cosmic measure you chose to use.
The residual forces such as kinetic, electromagnetic, fission, gravitational, ect... would have to have an almost complete restructuring of that galaxy.

Do you think that Elvis could be re-born there?

Maybe not. I'm tired, and my mind is swimming in things that I know but can not express.

What do you call the phenomenon where everything sucks in for a moment, and then blows out beyond compare?
Given the universe as a scale of time, and the BH as the momentary suck in, I believe what happened was the blow out beyond compare.

I'd talk to Hawking but Aga has him in his pocket, and I can't understand a word he says anyway. It's that French accent. I can't get past it.

Zombie - 11-6-2015 at 15:23

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6C98sz13mg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YiknUIW5Gyw

[Edited on 6-11-2015 by Zombie]

[Edited on 6-11-2015 by Zombie]

IrC - 11-6-2015 at 16:46

Nah, that was just your signal bouncing off the monolith...

I wasn't sending a signal just receiving one. Now you have me worried, that means they know where I am.

Zombie - 11-6-2015 at 17:24

No disrespect Mr. Blog.

"Re. black holes, we believe they are formed when immense, immense, immense areas of matter collapse in on themselves. The intense pressure builds near-infinite gravity and Einstein then says: 'all time stops' and Known Laws of Universe break down: SINGULARITY (Yay!!!!) :cool:

<== representation of one Scientist driven out of his mind by thinking about it."

I think we are on the same page. Becauyse of the event on 303, singularity just became multiple possibilities. That is ALL i am saying.

Irc... We all know where you are. Eureka!

I think you also see what I said in this thread. Anything is possible. We can not prove what we do not understand,
I did provide another angle before this happened. Now that it has happened, will anyone besides me re-evaluate the math?

Three wives all said "What makes you so smart?"

I don't know. I do know that if you go to the bar you will not come home.

zed - 16-6-2015 at 14:37

Why, I'm in the process of falling into a black hole, right now. Pretty close to the event horizon.

Since, theoretically, I might have a lot of time on my hands, I will continue to post for a while.

Of course, eventually, you might all wither and die, while I search for the perfect word to finish some random sentence.

[Edited on 16-6-2015 by zed]

Zombie - 16-6-2015 at 18:03

I've been reading, and (careful) Einstein tried to explain away BH's. They did not fit E=mc2 so he tried to prove that they could not exist.

Funny thing here is that his formula falls apart in a BH, and will always equal infinity. In fact a mathematical loop of infinity.

Infinite pressure sound familiar? Now if you reverse infinite pressure,,, Infinite vacuum at the core.
If these are true then the remaining matter at the center of that BH should form a new star. That is my theory.

The Xray radiation that can be measured emitting from 303 HAS to be a reversal of the accumulated energy. So Zed, if it is 303 you are falling into, we'll see you soon. If not... A few billion years, and we'll see you then.

IrC - 16-6-2015 at 22:46

Something which may be helpful zombie is if you spend time studying dimensions. A good start is basic physics and how dimensions are derived (and relate) to various units. To further your understanding consider very carefully what nothing truly is. Multi-dimensionally. Consider a negative implosion accelerating infinitely in all possible dimensions simultaneously.

Fulmen - 17-6-2015 at 03:30

No disrespect to Einstein, but he's no longer the foremost authority on relativity. It's not like he was the only one who could have worked this out, without him someone else would have done it sooner or later. And our understanding of relativity has evolved considerably since it was first formulated.
Besides, like all humans Einstein had his flaws and made his fair share of mistakes. His reluctance to accept quantum theory is one, and let's not forget the cosmological constant. So his views on BHs might not be correct even though it stems from "his" theory.

If you want to learn about relativity I think one should start with the man himself, the logic he employed is extremely elegant. But if you're trying to understand all the ramifications of the theory I don't think Einstein alone will be sufficient

Zombie - 17-6-2015 at 13:09

Thanks guys.
I'm still taking baby steps. Understanding the accepted hows, and whys of gravity is still up in the air in my mind.

I get the distortion of space/time creating gravity but as always I think there is another way of explaining it.
I heard a good analogy that compared a waterfall to a BH. and a reversal of gravity. If you look at gravity as a force that is the combined weight of everything around you pushing vs everything under you sucking it kind of changes everything.
I don't think it is a matter of the weight of matter. Rather an electro-mechanical attraction of matter due to the amount of compressed matter.

All matter is either attracted or repelled. If you compress matter you add the amount of energy on a per atom basis. The amount of compacted energy has to have an increased attraction/repulsion factor.

This would also explain why galaxies are getting further apart, AND why solar systems are shrinking.
The galaxies repel each other as a "safety net". Otherwise there would be one giant star, and nothing else.
Solar systems collapse due to the electro-mechanical attraction of their cores. Black holes. It's not a mass creating a distortion in space. It's everything being attracted to it's core energy.

I wish I knew how to explain this in a mathematical model. It sounds simple, and breaks no know laws. In fact it enforces all of them while supporting the flaws in relativity as a realistic model of infinity.
The only exclusion or oversight to relativity is the polarity of matter.
Did I just change way we can view the universe? Or has this been modeled before?

It makes sense to me, and I'm sticking to my non warped version of reality.
Once again I get to see the parade faster by walking in the opposite direction.

[Edited on 6-17-2015 by Zombie]

IrC - 17-6-2015 at 14:30

How do you know there was not a big bang which imparted momentum to all primeval substances as explanation of why the universe did not end up a big blob of super replicator? Or that curved space is the result of gravity not the cause? Or that the coordinates of space time are not falling into the eternal multidimensional implosion of negative infinity inside all objects with mass and the result is as coordinate space time decreases between massive objects the space between them reduces (seen by an observer as objects attracted to each other). Much as plates are attracted together as the number of modes (quantum oscillators) reduces between them as is measured with the Casimir force.

https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Casimir_effect

Ask yourself why empty space has both inductance and capacitance per unit distance and consider that empty space itself never has been what many think it is. Or in general how this property is either the cause of or result of these hypothetical 'quantum oscillators'.

Zombie - 17-6-2015 at 15:53

Give me a minute to digest the big words...

They are mostly assumptions based on quantum math that only exists to explain what known laws can not.

I believe that what I propose is much more feasible.

Taking space/time as a fabric, and the concept of warping this assumes a flat plane. Like a coin rolling in a funnel.

I propose that there is no flat plane, and there is no funnel. The proof of this is in the fact of trajectory of galaxies. There is no commonality.

For a fabric to be true it would have to be completely random throughout the universe, that would warp the neighboring galaxies, and they would HAVE to effect each other. This alone would also randomize the laws of physics that we all agree upon.

You can not bend a bed sheet to apply the same laws in multiple directions BUT you can randomize electro magnetic/mechanical energy to produce specific effects on specific entities, aka: Galaxies.

Now you tripped my Trump card...

Using the electro-mechanical energy of our galaxy is the solution to free energy. The law of conservation is a singularity at the center of a galaxies BH. We are too far to use that free energy but I believe we can emulate it in the compression of an atom instead of the separation of an atom

Again we have been looking in the wrong direction. Look at super chilled magnets. What are they?
DENSE! More dense than me.
We had it backwards!!!

Mrs. Hawking!!! I'm available!

IrC - 17-6-2015 at 19:18

They are mostly assumptions based on quantum math that only exists to explain what known laws can not.

The Casimir force has been measured by many with extreme precision and the math checks out with the experiments. So much so I would insist it is a 'known law', the 'quantum oscillator' is 'real'. At least until some improvement comes along and the wise do not close their mind to the chance it may one day. This is how science progresses by verifying what is at first only theory based upon mathematical constructs as yet unproven. When the proof is found to verify the theory and the math, one then accepts most likely this is a truth. Yet a good theoretician does not then forever close their mind to the possibility that the theory is not complete, their understanding is not perfect, a better theory may explain things more completely and possibly answer other unresolved questions yet future.

At one time the Rutherford atom looked good (circa 1911) and explained many things previously unknown, or at least as yet unproven. Then came the Bohr model (circa 1913) which explained things better, gave new insights, thinking advanced. Yet pay attention to the words quoted below "The Bohr model has been superseded". Meaning? No matter how well you think you grasp a thing keep an open mind in order to advance knowledge. As example "The Bohr model is a relatively primitive model of the hydrogen atom, compared to the valence shell atom."

Everything I was trying to say about the math on prior pages to another can be seen by the following example (Bohr_model). The math gives one vision into the invisible and knowledge to the unknowable yet should be tempered with attempts at physical proof as science advances. Those who do not fully understand this may do well at a job in a lab somewhere all their life, but they will never be an Einstein, Hawking, a da Vinci. Ever. Don't ask me to clarify that all I can say is seeing the formulae gives insight into things one has yet to see. To make connections you had not conceived of before, to go in directions you may not otherwise have gone. Evidenced by going from the Rutherford model to the Bohr model to the Valence Shell model. And so on into the future....

I guess that is all I can say about that except don't so cavalierly assume "They are mostly assumptions" as a foundation to your thinking. At least not until your understanding is near the level of the most advanced scientists when you can see more clearly what to keep and what to consider with a grain of salt.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bohr_model

"The improvement to the Rutherford model (circa 1913) is mostly a quantum physical interpretation of it. The Bohr model has been superseded, but the quantum theory remains sound. The model's key success lay in explaining the Rydberg formula for the spectral emission lines of atomic hydrogen. While the Rydberg formula had been known experimentally, it did not gain a theoretical underpinning until the Bohr model was introduced. Not only did the Bohr model explain the reason for the structure of the Rydberg formula, it also provided a justification for its empirical results in terms of fundamental physical constants."
------------------------

"Taking space/time as a fabric, and the concept of warping this assumes a flat plane. Like a coin rolling in a funnel.I propose that there is no flat plane, and there is no funnel."

Why? Do you not see a flat plane in not required to consider warping, and what is it really that is warped. Why cannot warping occur hyper-dimensionally simultaneously, how can a mere 'flat plane explain away the 'magical' property of capacitance and inductance per unit area to this so called 'fabric of space'? No I do not have all the answers and understanding (neither does anyone else), yet it seems as if you are looking in such linear Euclidean terms for want of a better way to express it. Take some time to study what has gone before (been thought of before) to use as a foundation upon which to extrapolate your ideas. I think it would be very helpful.

"The proof of this is in the fact of trajectory of galaxies. There is no commonality."

Could it be it appears this way because momentum in one dimension has no connection to momentum in another? Clarification of this thought can be gained by carefully studying the trajectory of a cannonball after it has been fired.

"For a fabric to be true it would have to be completely random throughout the universe"

What if the thing in common is the laws of physics throughout the universe (outside of black holes at least), and the fabric of space time is a field created by the existence of energy (and therefore also matter). Such field residing in more than the three dimensions we normally consider, wherever it does exist?

Fulmen - 17-6-2015 at 22:13

Did I just change way we can view the universe?

Nope. Lets face it, if we were smart enough to figure this out we'd be working in the field. Some of the smartest people in the world has been working on this for a century, there is no chance of you or me figuring it out by accident.
And even if you were lucky enough to be right you have no way of proving it, so it's pointless to even try. The best you can hope for is to understand the current model and it's limitations.

I'm not saying you should stop wasting your time, playing with models and metaphors can be quite educational. While the real science is in the math the basic logic is often based on quite simple thought experiments. But you should always check it against what is known.

Zombie - 18-6-2015 at 10:26

As per norm, I over simplify...

I really do agree with everything you wrote here IRC. I'm just trying to look at this from another angle.

They are mostly assumptions based on quantum math that only exists to explain what known laws can not.

This is how science progresses by verifying what is at first only theory based upon mathematical constructs as yet unproven. When the proof is found to verify the theory and the math, one then accepts most likely this is a truth. Yet a good theoretician does not then forever close their mind to the possibility that the theory is not complete, their understanding is not perfect, a better theory may explain things more completely and possibly answer other unresolved questions yet future.

This is the biggest "hitch" in my attempting to not only understand what is believed to be true but to also model a different way of looking at it all.
MATH!
I can see the ideas in my mind but don't know how to express them mathematically. School was a long time ago, and I live in a red-neck, oyster fishin' town.
Higher math here is considered anything over 35 bushels.

Don't ask me to clarify that all I can say is seeing the formulae gives insight into things one has yet to see. To make connections you had not conceived of before, to go in directions you may not otherwise have gone. Evidenced by going from the Rutherford model to the Bohr model to the Valence Shell model. And so on into the future....

I guess that is all I can say about that except don't so cavalierly assume "They are mostly assumptions" as a foundation to your thinking. At least not until your understanding is near the level of the most advanced scientists when you can see more clearly what to keep and what to consider with a grain of salt.

This is understood. It is also the root of MY issue.Using what I understand, and adapting what I think is easy in words. It's not easy in math.
That was why I posted asking for someone that understands how to structure the required formulas to express the ides in a model.

I'm not really dismissing anything. I'm trying to explain things from a different point of view that appears structurally sound.

The simple one first... It is believed that gravity is caused by a warp in a "space time fabric". This warp is caused by the mass in the center of the warp, creating it. Like an orange on a sheet.
Extrapolate this in every direction, and you have a 360* shell around that object where in every given direction things will tend to fall into the center.
Easy to express in words but the math fails me.
Getting more complex... Where are the boundaries of this "shell"? Where are the dividing lines? Are there dividing lines? What determines the extent of the influence of the mass in the center?

If there is a fabric it should hold everything stable where it is. The galaxies would not be expanding away from each other but instead would be held in place ie: fruit in a jelly jar.

If you take my concept of atomic attraction it removes the fabric, and it's insinuations/implications completely, yet allows all of the know laws, and their effects to remain in place.
What convinces me wholly is the electrostatic event in 3c303.

Just for a simple model. A 100 square foot "fabric" in ONE dimension. random magnets spread all over it. Some large, and some small.
All of the known planets, stars are essentially magnets correct? Even spinning to maintain there orientation all of the magnets would eventually collect on the largest on, making the deepest warp.

It has to happen this way. Law!

Now on the same fabric spread atoms. Large, and small. No matter what you attempt to do some will attract, and bond, and others never will.

Compare the individual galaxies to clusters of grouping atoms. The fabric, and it warp become irrelevant. The grouping of atoms builds its attraction as more collect, ie: black Hole.
This hole I believe is what repels the other galaxies. As the hole grows larger it both attracts it own like atoms, and repels it unlike neighbors.
This is an easy way to explain both, why galaxies shrink, and why the universe is expanding faster all the time.

It would also explain the propose of a galaxy, and time infinitum. The galaxies collapse into their own BH's, until the energy is so great it has to discharge into space ie: electrostatic discharge/big bang. New planets are formed, new starts perhaps but the galaxy is reborn... forever, and ever, and ever, Rinse Repeat!

I have to take this in small doses. It's easy to lose track.

Did I just change way we can view the universe?

Nope. Lets face it, if we were smart enough to figure this out we'd be working in the field. Some of the smartest people in the world has been working on this for a century, there is no chance of you or me figuring it out by accident.

With all due respect Mr. Fulmen... I seriously doubt that any of those brilliant fellas could replace a circuit breaker in their house or cook a great Linguine, and clam sauce.
They might know math but common sense eludes many of the brightest people in the world.

If you remove common sense from any model of the universe, all you have is math that is needlessly complicated ie: a fabric. The math behind said fabric in all directions is insanity. The reason they have these jobs to figure this out is that so few people could ever grasp what they say.
All respect, this approach is nonsense.

Everyone understands atomic attraction, and it so simply explains so many previously complex ideas that it seems ridiculous.

KISS! The first rule in designing anything. Ever notice how every great realization is followed by a slap on the forehead? It is soo simple it is obvious when you see it.

You're right tho. These thoughts will never amount to a hill of beans BUT in my mind. It all makes sense. There is more to be added to congeal the thoughts, and eventually I will understand something that people say can not be understood.
If it gets me on a bus? Doubt it, If it lets me sleep easier. Guaranteed!

Just a small level comparison... Engineers study for a decade, develop their talents, and build their best engine yet.
I take it home, remove this, and that. Re-machine a few parts, add a new doohicky... My version of their engine gets better mileage, lasts longer, and creates three times the HP/Torque.

I went to public school a few months a year, blew shit up in the woods, and partied most every weekend for 30 years.

Which one of us is smarter? There is no REAL way to know. IQ test? Big word test? Math test? don't lick the wall outlet test?
Who has more common sense? That can be measured. Who made the better engine.

What I'm saying is the same applies to everything. If you can't take the common sense approach, your thoughts get lost in a self made loop of problems, and your goal continually gets further out of reach.
These physicists have made such a complicated version of the universe that they make us believe it is un-approachable to begin understanding it.

My verbal model is easy to follow, and makes sense. I don't see a flaw in the concept.

Fulmen - 18-6-2015 at 11:19

You seem to suffer from the delusion that reality must conform to common sense. I'm sorry to have to tell you it doesn't.

aga - 18-6-2015 at 11:36

You seem to suffer from the delusion that reality must conform to common sense. I'm sorry to have to tell you it doesn't.

Aptly put Fulmen.

Our senses show us only the tip of the iceberg, and our brains have evolved to believe totally in those senses.

Fortunately one of our specific capabilities is to rapidly adapt, and think wild, random and sometimes unacceptable thoughts, such as :-

"What Tigers ? I neither see nor smell any Tigers that can eat us. Your Tiger thesis is bogus and we shall now lampoon you relentlessly."

"They might be behind those trees downwind from us where we cannot see"

"Throw rocks into that place we cannot see ! Throw Big Rocks ! Many rocks ! Quirkily !"

Fulmen - 18-6-2015 at 13:36

To elaborate a bit: Science is all about "what really works", so a theory is only as good as it's predictive powers. And the current models work pretty darn well. So while they can never be completely right they can't be all wrong either. If you think a simpler solution can work just as well, prove it. But in order to do that you need the math, without it you don't even have a theory.

Building such mental models can be a good method for understanding our current knowledge of reality, but know your limitations. How can you discard any of our current models if you don't know where they actually work and where they don't? What's your metric? Whether or not you can understand it?

zed - 18-6-2015 at 13:42

I got no problem with anybody's theories.

Just ephemeral details, in an entertaining virtual reality, we call the universe.

Oh, it's all real enough, within itself.

Looks like the whole thing might actually be constructed, out of a material we will have difficulty nailing down......Consciousness.

Zombie - 18-6-2015 at 14:33

Fulmen,
I understand what you are saying better than I understand what I am saying.

Granted I don't follow the complete trail...
Fact is the ideas I have on this fit in perfectly with the known laws, and the theory of relativity. In fact they confirm that the only supposed flaw in relativity is actually another correct reality of the math.
Infinite pressure created by atomic attraction can exist.

One night I will spend some time trying to find the math that can make this relevant. Imagine that... The fellas that spend a lifetime devoted to math, and I intend to give it a night.

I usually try to ask people to offer constructive criticism. You know... Help make something better rather than tear it apart as any child can do.
In this case I have to ask what is so difficult to accept in this idea?

Remove mass from the equation, and replace it with atomic attraction. They will walk hand in hand in the math, and the end result is exactly the same. It just removes the flaw of infinity, and replaces it as the correct outcome. Strangely 3C303 has proven that even infinity is not infinite. The cycle reverses. It's an eventual equilibrium. Every action has to have an equal, and opposite reaction, eventually. We're just too far of the cosmic scale to measure, until now (3c303)

Honestly... I'd like to see why this can not work.

IrC - 18-6-2015 at 16:33

Zombie: "If there is a fabric it should hold everything stable where it is. The galaxies would not be expanding away from each other but instead would be held in place ie: fruit in a jelly jar."

Part of the reason I keep bringing dimensions into the conversation is to emphasize that reality must be understood with this concept in mind. Something happening in one dimension may or may not have any relation/effect/cause/and so on... in any other. If there is a relation it cannot be without some form of mechanism for coupling. For consideration of your galactic fruit cocktail theory consider space is a bucket of water you dropped a handful of lead sinkers in. What do they do? Why did they fall to the bottom? Reason, lack of coupling to the water. Gravity was much stronger than waters desire to form a colloidal suspension with the lead sinkers.

If your concept of space had validity would not drag over-ride Newtons theory? Why then are Galaxies still flying apart? Simply because the only strong coupling mechanism between space and matter (frame dragging) is so weak an object in motion really does tend to stay in motion.

"If you take my concept of atomic attraction it removes the fabric"

Science a hundred years ago did away with the concept of the aether, a mistake if you ask me. It is the stiffness of space to EM waves which yields the velocity C. This effect can be looked at using sound waves in air and water to see why the local sound speed is different between the two. In my view a photon travels as a wave which is merely a vibration in the aether until it interacts with matter at which instant it translates its energy as if it were a particle with momentum.

Also, you must separate things macroscopic and microscopic in your models. One proton 3 feet away from another may not interact with the other. Yet if you get them close enough for the strong force to take action things radically change.

Zombie - 18-6-2015 at 17:31

Zombie: "If there is a fabric it should hold everything stable where it is. The galaxies would not be expanding away from each other but instead would be held in place ie: fruit in a jelly jar."

Part of the reason I keep bringing dimensions into the conversation is to emphasize that reality must be understood with this concept in mind. Something happening in one dimension may or may not have any relation/effect/cause/and so on... in any other. If there is a relation it cannot be without some form of mechanism for coupling.

This is part of what I am saying, and attempting to simply eliminate. Multiple dimensions in Space exist. A sphere with one hundred pins pointing in one hundred directions are point to one hundred dimensions. Triangulate any of these, and you multiply the number the dimensions. emanating from the sphere.
Time on the other-hand is ASSUMED to have multiple dimensions, and invisible cats ect. It is only an assumption.
Lets kill all of the invisible cats for a moment.

If there is a relation it cannot be without some form of mechanism for coupling. For consideration of your galactic fruit cocktail theory consider space is a bucket of water you dropped a handful of lead sinkers in. What do they do? Why did they fall to the bottom? Reason, lack of coupling to the water. Gravity was much stronger than waters desire to form a colloidal suspension with the lead sinkers.

Actually that is a fair comparative.
What is believed to cause gravity? Mass. The theory says that the mass of the central object alone is the cause of gravity, and everything is being pulled toward it. How? Relativity. Einstein says that the space around the mass is warped. That works fine in ONE dimension but leaves out the most basic thought! What about the other side? A bowling ball in a sheet will draw all the marbles... The other side will repel them. Where is relativity now? It's in the box w/ the dead cat! It is ASSUMED the theory reverses in every direction but it can not.

In MY version the cause of gravity is an atomic attraction of matter that does attract from every direction. Some things are repelled ie: lighter than air. It's atomic attraction, and repulsion not mass. Mass is the by product, and inevitable result of attraction but not the cause.

Taking all else aside. Any major flaw with that? Lets take baby steps in re engineering you universe. Gravity exists due to atomic attraction. Rule one!

If your concept of space had validity would not drag over-ride Newtons theory? Why then are Galaxies still flying apart? Simply because the only strong coupling mechanism between space and matter (frame dragging) is so weak an object in motion really does tend to stay in motion.

The galaxies fly apart due to atomic repulsion. As each galaxies BH gains more matter it also gains more energy. Sound fair?
Galaxies fly in all directions but never toward each other. They gain speed all the time vs. slowing down. As a BH gains matter, it gains energy, and increases the repulsion of neighboring galaxies.
Sound fair?
I imagine a galaxy that has just discharged such as 303 COULD gain a new course IF there is a large enough BH in a galaxy close enough to attract it on the atomic level. Still fair?
If not the newly discharged galaxy begins the process over again. Perhaps w/ a new star.
Still fair? Any flaws?

"If you take my concept of atomic attraction it removes the fabric"

Science a hundred years ago did away with the concept of the aether, a mistake if you ask me. It is the stiffness of space to EM waves which yields the velocity C. This effect can be looked at using sound waves in air and water to see why the local sound speed is different between the two. In my view a photon travels as a wave which is merely a vibration in the aether until it interacts with matter at which instant it translates its energy as if it were a particle with momentum.

Also, you must separate things macroscopic and microscopic in your models. One proton 3 feet away from another may not interact with the other. Yet if you get them close enough for the strong force to take action things radically change.

Macro, and micro are the same. We are talking about everything happening because of the micro. Accumulated micro grows in size, and energy. This grows into planets/stars/galaxies/the entire universe. It all began Micro.
Still fair? reasonable?

The only question that needs to be answered is what is the "seed" of a BH. It can not be anything known or we would not be here to discuss it.
I am imagining that the seed is an atom that contains enough energy as to attract, and become whole with everything it attracts passing along it's own properties to the entire mass UNTIL, saturation. At some point that effect has to dilute, and the entire assembly of random atoms separate into whatever molecules they have become. People, monkeys, diamonds, water pinkhippos!

Fair?

These ideas violate no laws, and explain how they can all exist at one time, in one place. Singularity but simplified.

Fair?

IrC - 18-6-2015 at 18:12

Fair? Not even remotely but I give up one can only beat a dead horse for a finite amount of time.

The Great Attractor is pulling at each and every one of us from a quarter billion light years away. Yet not one bit of force from a single atom within it can be noticed (outside of the combined gravitational force) for more than a billionth of a meter away from said atoms. The 'atomic force' as you call it has zero effect on an intergalactic scale for it only affects that which is within the range of atomic scale. Period. Spend time actually studying real science which has been measurably proven ad nauseum and get back to me.

Zombie - 18-6-2015 at 19:43

LOL. That might be a fair idea.

One parting thought. Magnet a is on one end of a 10 foot room. Magnet b is at the other.
No interaction. Add a string of magnets that do interact... within range of each other. One large magnet is the result.

Thanks for indulging this.

IrC - 18-6-2015 at 20:03

"To those who do not know mathematics it is difficult to get across a real feeling as to the beauty, the deepest beauty, of nature. … If you want to learn about nature, to appreciate nature, it is necessary to understand the language that she speaks in."

Richard Phillips Feynman

Zombie - 18-6-2015 at 23:31

"I've appreciated some real beauties, and had no idea what language they spoke"

Just R. Sayin'

Fulmen - 19-6-2015 at 00:03

Science a hundred years ago did away with the concept of the aether, a mistake if you ask me.

There is no aether, at least there is no evidence of one. The Michaelson-Morley experiment proved that quite definitively.

IrC - 19-6-2015 at 01:39

Just because you have never seen bigfoot does not prove conclusively there are no apemen wearing size 43 shoes. Being a skeptic I prefer to think I doubt I'll ever see one. However this has no bearing on an experiment doomed to failure from using a method and equipment with insufficient coupling to the aether to provide detectable results. This no aether exists belief based upon this experiment is an example of my comments about closed mind approaches to science. How can one say this while proclaiming the greatness of the mind of Einstein whose own theories predict the possibility of frame dragging, or Lense–Thirring precession. Who can admit empty space has electrical reactance, can be twisted bent and warped (gravity), while at the same time saying "There is no aether, at least there is no evidence of one. The Michaelson-Morley experiment proved that quite definitively."

Which implies: "I believe space is a fabric with these many properties I firmly believe in (virtual particles, Diracs sea, quantum oscillators - Casimir effect, and so on...), but space is not really real I mean come on there is no aether."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame-dragging

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lense%E2%80%93Thirring_precess...

To embrace these aspects of space while denying the aether brings to mind those infamous words by the captain of the Exxon Valdez "I swear I didn't see Alaska floating right there in front of me".

Fulmen - 19-6-2015 at 02:20

The problem with the aether is that it didn't work. It was a proposed framework for the propagation of light, and also provided the "absolute space" that Newtonian physics assumed. Problem is, nobody has detected it. So there we are. Perhaps there really is an "aether" of some sorts, but it won't be the old one that was thrown out a century ago. I guess you can call Einsteins space-time a sort of "aether", but it doesn't provide the absolute space that the aether-model assumed.

If you really want to bake you noodle, try pondering this: Speed of light (in vacuum) is constant, right. But what exactly is "speed"? Its distance per time units. Now how do we define distance? The current standard is the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299792458 of a second. See the problem? It's self-referencing. Even our definition of time is based on light. So the hole concept of speed is flawed.
To me this sounds like we're measuring the speed of a watch hand using the same watch as a time reference. In such a case you will always end up with the seconds-hand moving 360degrees per minute, regardless of the "actual" speed. Even if the clock has stopped the speed will be the same. Now maybe I'm not up to speed on the current understanding of physics, but I don't think anybody has solved this problem properly yet. If they have, I'd really like to hear a good explanation...

IrC - 19-6-2015 at 03:37

I would consider the fact that they were schooled in the Victorian era, and also whose version of aether you mean. As to your other problem I would take a long hard look at xyz=ict and E=hF. Your answer lies there. My view is go to the source of units which is Planck length and time. When you use one second and one cm you are using very large numbers which does not make it easy to delve into the fundamental basis of reality. Any true measurement of time or distance must be based upon the smallest possible increment of either since the fabric of space-time only makes sense (to me anyway) if one considers its quantum nature. I do not think it is a paradox to consider space grainy even though recent studies of light covering intergalactic distances implies it is not simply because of the lack of coupling. Oddly similar to the dilemma of the interferometer experiments. Not something I can convey with words easily because we have not advanced far enough thus far. The best way I can describe it is to say the 'graininess' would only be apparent if one were outside the space-time of conventional physical reality which constrains time and mass. I knew I would convey that thought poorly, possibly if I were a ghost I could explain it better but then who would listen.

blogfast25 - 19-6-2015 at 05:45

You seem to suffer from the delusion that reality must conform to common sense. I'm sorry to have to tell you it doesn't.

I’ve just come back from a short holiday and took Susskind’s ‘Quantum Mechanics – A Theoretical Minimum’ with me for some… erm… light reading (you know?

)

The entire book, especially the chapter on entanglement, just illustrates (for the umpteenth time, of course) that quantum mechanics (QM) is well beyond ANY normal understanding’. And yet, for all its highly unusual math, the ‘observables’ (to use Susskind’s term of phrase) that are the result of empirical observation match [QM theoretical] predictions flawlessly.

Common sense is something you leave at the door when entering a QM lecture.

How can you discard any of our current models if you don't know where they actually work and where they don't? What's your metric? Whether or not you can understand it?

Unfortunately that seems to be aga's and Zombie's quixotic mission: to criticise/discard current cosmological models without fully understanding them (and yes, I am being kind here!)

As regards the ‘ether’? Puu-leeeeese!!! I’d compare anyone who still believes in that old and discredited notion to a Xtian who also believes in Evolutionary Biology. It’s possible to do both but such a Xtian would have notions of ‘G-d’ that are far removed from traditional Theistic theology and more akin to Deism.

As a concept the ‘ether’ is a bit reminiscent of ‘nascent hydrogen’: an old notion that’s been discredited, then morphed into something different [as a concept], was discredited again, etc etc [several times] until it was finally buried. Unfortunately some believe its ghost still lingers somewhere in a netherworld.

[Edited on 19-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 19-6-2015 at 11:11

Good to have you back Blogfast.

I think some of you misinterpret the way I say things. It's not my intention to criticize what others believe. Same for other models of the universe.

A common theme here is "we just don't understand enough to say"

Then when I say something people tend to understand enough to know that what can't or isn't known, can't be right or wrong. is suddenly way off course..

Don't get me wrong. I don't really care to learn everything that is assumed in the models of the universe. You don't have to know all of the theories to develop your own. Also when a version of math applied was developed specifically to answer a question that has no other answer, that math is in my mind... suspect. Just like using the one watch to verify time.

I mean in all reality I don't really care about any of this. It's all just mental masturbation.
I do have thoughts on new forms of available energy, and much of the thought processes follow similar logic. Common sense. If it walks like a duck, it's probably not a black hole.

I mean we have a planet surrounded by temperature swings (differential energy), sunlight/darkness, magnetism, natural radiation, and we choose to burn coal, and oil? Where is the common sense in this?

Same for our accepted versions of the universe. Where is common sense in QM, and E=MC2.
Neither alone can prove itself as correct so we accept both as correct? No sense in this...

I don't really care. I just find it fascinating. Actually it could be compared to a court trial. One person says they saw the defendant pull the trigger. Another person says they were miles away from the scene with the defendant at the time of the crime.One person to represent the defendant, one to prosecute, and one to determine if protocol is followed in presenting the facts.

Problem is the defendant is a ghost! No one knows if he exists or not yet they continue the case with a passion.

IrC - 19-6-2015 at 11:20

You appear to have derived many conclusions about someone with zero data to support your position. I guess 'you read a book' qualifies your statements. Long ago I chose to not be one of Pavlov's dogs who interrupted their endless game of poker to bark at words they have been conditioned to respond to. What I call the aether is none other than that which mainstream science perceives to be the 'fabric of space-time'. Until science can fully explain the foundation of space, matter, and energy I do not believe anyone is qualified to judge. One way or another. Sorry wrong number this is not the person you are speaking to.

Richard Feynman became so exasperated [at the National Academy of Sciences] that he resigned his membership, saying that he saw no point in belonging to an organization that spent most of its time deciding who to let in.

blogfast25 - 19-6-2015 at 11:39

'Many' conclusions, IrC? Can you count?

If you're referring to the 'fabric of space-time', why not simply refer to it using that term? Why use an old and discredited term?

Please don't give me your 'I'm open minded' spiel. You're no more open minded than anyone else here, see e.g. your Alex Jones style opinions on water fluoridation.

Feynman has nothing to do with anything here. At best that's a form of whataboutery.

Yes, I've read books. So have you. Pot and kettle, already?

aga - 19-6-2015 at 11:46

seems to be aga's and Zombie's quixotic mission:

Please don't lump disparate opposition entities together in this way.

We are both wrong and deluded in entirely different ways, each of which deserves separate and individual trampling rather than wholesale 'one trample size fits all'.

Given that Reality remains inexplicable by known Science, i'll happily blunder on with my own delusion, if that's alright with you, Bwana.

Hakuna Matata.

Edit:

I will readily accept that Others have put in more thought and effort in the Quest to Understand it All, yet i will not accept that speculation by those putting in endless Effort deserves to be accepted as Fact, probable or otherwise.

[Edited on 19-6-2015 by aga]

[Edited on 19-6-2015 by aga]

IrC - 19-6-2015 at 13:25

Since I am the one who stated science should not have done away with the concept of aether it is clear all these comments are directed at me personally in the confine of this thread as well as to any outsider who would also hold such an opinion.

Conclusions (or opinions, presumptions, judgements etc.)

As regards the ‘ether’? Puu-leeeeese!!! Attitude?

I’d compare anyone who still believes in that old and discredited notion to a Xtian Basis?

who also believes in Evolutionary Biology Evidence?

It’s possible to do both but such a Xtian would have notions of ‘G-d’ that are far removed from traditional Theistic theology Show proof.

and more akin to Deism Evidence?

As a concept the ‘ether’ is a bit reminiscent of ‘nascent hydrogen’ Clarify or is this simply more hyperbole?

an old notion that’s been discredited By whom? Those who still cannot prove the mechanism of gravity, add the list of all else unproven, unexplained with positive verification.

was discredited again, etc etc [several times] until it was finally buried By whom? Those who still cannot prove the mechanism of gravity, add the list of all else unproven, unexplained with positive verification.

Unfortunately some believe its ghost still lingers somewhere in a netherworld. References?

Feynman has nothing to do with anything here. At best that's a form of whataboutery. The thread is about the science of black holes, space, time, in general the physics of reality. Your saying Feynman never had an opinion about any of these subjects?

see e.g. your Alex Jones style opinions on water fluoridation. Show the link between my opinion and that of Alex Jones

'Many' conclusions, IrC? Can you count?

Why yes I can and the above list is to me numerically high enough to use the term 'many'.

Explain why so many nations have banned Fluoridating public water supplies. Perhaps their combined brainpower is just not as brilliant as yourself?

Federal Republic of Germany (1952–1971)
Sweden (1952–1971)
Netherlands (1953–1976)
Czechoslovakia (1955–1990)
German Democratic Republic (1959–1990)
Soviet Union (1960–1990)
Finland (1959–1993)
Japan (1952–1972)
Israel (1981–2014)

"In rare cases improper implementation of water fluoridation can result in overfluoridation that causes outbreaks of acute fluoride poisoning, with symptoms that include nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Three such outbreaks were reported in the U.S. between 1991 and 1998, caused by fluoride concentrations as high as 220 mg/L; in the 1992 Alaska outbreak, 262 people became ill and one person died.[18] In 2010, approximately 60 gallons of fluoride were released into the water supply in Asheboro, North Carolina in 90 minutes—an amount that was intended to be released in a 24-hour period"

Ask the hundreds who have been made ill or the one who died their opinion on whether or not any entity can be trusted with their safety when said entity takes it upon themselves to force the masses to ingest water they are chemically treating against the public's will. If it is so good and so safe provide a way to accomplish their goals with the public's willful permission. Come up with a pill or a drink they can choose to ingest or to not ingest of their own free will. After all each individual has greater regard for their own health and safety than the state and should have the right to choose whether or not to take the risk.

Also I must conclude you are engaging in no more than a to the man attack to bring an unrelated topic from years ago into your reply to this thread, i.e., you are merely working at lowering my credibility in the minds of other members here by virtue of its inclusion in your reply to this specific topic. Transparent to the point of insulting intelligence.

aga - 19-6-2015 at 13:41

Clearly the main problem with us apes advancing our understanding of things is the simple fact that we are apes, and insist on bringing ourselves to the table in every discussion.

Fighting for supremacy and breeding rights instead of getting on with the job.

IrC and blogfast25 are clearly my superiors and will Win.

I'll go back to musing on what can actually be done with the Relevant ideas and see where that takes me.

Best of luck to you both with taking care of the Offspring gained after the battle.

Zombie - 19-6-2015 at 15:53

You appear to have derived many conclusions about someone with zero data to support your position. I guess 'you read a book' qualifies your statements. Long ago I chose to not be one of Pavlov's dogs who interrupted their endless game of poker to bark at words they have been conditioned to respond to. What I call the aether is none other than that which mainstream science perceives to be the 'fabric of space-time'. Until science can fully explain the foundation of space, matter, and energy I do not believe anyone is qualified to judge. One way or another. Sorry wrong number this is not the person you are speaking to.

Richard Feynman became so exasperated [at the National Academy of Sciences] that he resigned his membership, saying that he saw no point in belonging to an organization that spent most of its time deciding who to let in.

I'm not sure I understood this post.
It sounds like you think I have meant offense... Quite to the contrary. I meant to remove all offense.

You fellas that post here are hero-s in my eyes. None of you (to my knowledge) are forced to post but you do.
Trust me... I'm not educated enough to express my thoughts in a fashion that all can understand. I might be the only person that sort of understands what I say. Even then it gets sketchy.

See, it is all the words as individuals I grasp. Not the complete thought. When one of you explains anything I grab words. That word leads to an understanding of that one word. That understanding has multiple words, and that leads to multiple new thought processes.

Quantum to me, means everything is possible. EVERYTHING!
So take one word, and I'm off like a race horse climbing the side of a building attempting to complete the first recorded quadruple "Lutz" with infinite back flips into a beer bottle full of Korean duck fur.

Quite to the contrary, I appreciate you all accepting that I might be a frigin' lunatic posting from my couch that in turn is orbiting some hole in a golf course.

It's all simply education. Banter creates thought, and thought creates... I don't know what. ideas? realizations? methods?

I have my own personal hero-s in life. From people as young as 1 to people as old as the oldest... there are hero-s everywhere.
You fellas that share your time to "banter" with me are my hero-s!
No disrespect ever meant.

A picture paints a thousand words...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkEtkLdlo8Y

Quote: Originally posted by aga

seems to be aga's and Zombie's quixotic mission:

Mr. Aga,
Like it or not... You just moved to the top of my "I love you list".
You said in a few sentences what I have not been able to express.
Work effort does not equal right. Ever.
The dumbest person on the planet could dig a hole with a "Q-Tip his entire life. That makes him/her the most committed person around but nothing more.

I think we are all digging with our own choice of tool.

I'd love to know that someone a thousand / ten thousand years from now could see all of this. That thought brings me peace.

I'm sorry. I'm getting overwhelmed in this. There are more comments I wish to address but it's making my head spin, and it's time to leave the house.
Quote Irc:
"was discredited again, etc etc [several times] until it was finally buried By whom? Those who still cannot prove the mechanism of gravity, add the list of all else unproven, unexplained with positive verification."

My thoughts exactly.
Why is it easier for all of us to tear apart an idea vs. extrapolate on it, and make it work.
Lets call it Gagalifturific math. If it works it's real.

LOL... Spellcheck just crashed. Google pop up. "Would you like to add Google on line spell check to your browser?"

Frack NO!

[Edited on 6-20-2015 by Zombie]

IrC - 19-6-2015 at 16:07

"I'm not sure I understood this post.It sounds like you think I have meant offense... Quite to the contrary. I meant to remove all offense."

Sorry I was answering blog I should have clarified that to avoid any confusion.

"I'm not educated enough to express my thoughts in a fashion that all can understand. I might be the only person that sort of understands what I say. Even then it gets sketchy"

In many ways this can be an advantage to learning. Many things are taught which later make it harder to progress since it is far harder to unlearn than to learn. Having no preconceived notions or prejudice can allow one to think of things others highly schooled miss.

Zombie - 19-6-2015 at 16:15

Thanks!

blogfast25 - 20-6-2015 at 05:29

IrC:

What you're doing in your last post addressed to me is simply ABSURD.

I was merely making illustrative analogies. You then turn LITERALIST by demanding proof. To refute your absurd 'refutations' would take far too long, so sod that.

How you could read my post as nothing more than illustrative metaphors and not direct accusations is really beyond me. It really shows a particular form of 'intentional reading' or very poor reading skills tout court.

You have of course not provided any proof either, for ANYTHING. I've seen that debating style of yours in action before and you can shove it where it belongs.

Proof that the 'ether' doesn't exist any 6th grader could find on the Tinkerwebs, so please don't pretend your nose is bleeding. Or simply call the 'ether' the fabric of space-time.

I've now had my fill of this ridiculous thread with its many wild-goose-chases-down-blind-alleys, now with an added literalist bent by IrC. It was kind of fun when it was just that but this isn't funny any more. Distorting someone argument to try and 'win' is intellectually dishonest and hard to counter. I will however follow other 'refutations' of yours for signs of straw men and will pint them out when I encounter them (elsewhere). I owe you than much.

Think of my response what you will. I won't be reading this thread any further, so knock yourself out. No hard feelings though.

[Edited on 20-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Zombie - 20-6-2015 at 12:40

Well the question has been answered... That is what happens when a fella falls into a black hole.
He gets pissed!

No need to get all personal in this. It's just a thread of thoughts, and ideas. What if-s.

Fulmen - 20-6-2015 at 13:21

quantum mechanics (QM) is well beyond ANY normal understanding’.

This doesn't just apply to QM. Truth is that all science at one point was beyond normal understanding. Before Gallileo 'common sense' told people that heavier objects falls faster than light ones.

'Common sense' is simply the sum of what is generally known, and generally speaking people have no concept of physics on this level. That's why we need the "eggheads with no common sense", common sense couldn't figure it out.

Quote:

Unfortunately that seems to be aga's and Zombie's quixotic mission: to criticise/discard current cosmological models without fully understanding them (and yes, I am being kind here!)

Yes you are. No offense guys, but you're out of your league her. If you had any real clue about this you wouldn't waste your time talking about it here, you'd be doing it in a forum dedicated to advanced physics.

[Edited on 20-6-15 by Fulmen]

blogfast25 - 20-6-2015 at 13:47

Fulmen:

Be like Jesus: 'Forgive them, Lord, for they do not know what they're cackling on about!'

+++++++++

Re. QM: ask any decent quantum physicist to find out just how fundamentally different that world is from Classical Physics. But hey, what do these f"ckers know, eh? Confirmation biased elitist b*rstools, the lot of'em! (Siiiiiiiiiighghgh)

I need a drink.

Zombie - 20-6-2015 at 14:48

i GUESS i WAS HOPING THAT ONE OR MORE OF YOU WERE EGG HEADED ENOUGH TO BE ABLE TO BREAK THIS DOWN INTO MANAGEABLE BITES.

Damn Caps. lock

I am going to keep pursuing these ideas tho. Not to get smarter or heaven forbid, learn something... Just to figure out why you all insist this is so difficult.
Maybe it really is simple at the fundamental level, (action/ reaction) Maybe it's just the way we approach it that is complex.

Damn dirty apes!

blogfast25 - 20-6-2015 at 15:58

Books, Zombie. Books.

Zombie - 20-6-2015 at 16:05

What are these "Books" of which you speeketh!

Some form of magic?

I'm looking back in the thread for one you recommended. It was something on atoms...

blogfast25 - 20-6-2015 at 16:25

As far as I recall I recommended 'Big Bang!' by Simon Singh. Best popsci book I've ever read. A history of cosmology. Not huge on science but that's the good news. A real tour de force, in my humble opinion.

For black holes there's always Hawking's 'A Brief History of Time'. Also, lots of cosmology.

Neither are academic books, so very readable for the layman.

Also excellent: 'The Making of the Atom Bomb' (Richard Rhodes). History of nuclear physics and the science of the atom.

[Edited on 21-6-2015 by blogfast25]

Fulmen - 21-6-2015 at 02:42