+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 51 to 80 of 80

Thread: The beginning of "time" thread (with and without nerdz)

  1. #51
    Deputy Dawg Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club Dolemite Shaggy Gold Club
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga
    Posts
    15,705
    Quote Originally Posted by RayDog View Post
    It is knowable. It is the science fiction masquerading as science that makes physics appear far more complicated than it is.
    Can it be knowable to entities living in 2D shadowland to know that they are simply a projection coming from a 3D reality?

    A simple yes or no would be ideal.

  • #52
    asshat RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Varna Bulgaria
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Dolemite View Post
    Can it be knowable to entities living in 2D shadowland to know that they are simply a projection coming from a 3D reality?

    A simple yes or no would be ideal.
    Your question has no basis in reality and is therefore irrelevant.

  • #53
    bunghole BerlinerBaer Shaggy Bronze Club BerlinerBaer Shaggy Bronze Club BerlinerBaer Shaggy Bronze Club BerlinerBaer Shaggy Bronze Club BerlinerBaer Shaggy Bronze Club BerlinerBaer Shaggy Bronze Club BerlinerBaer Shaggy Bronze Club BerlinerBaer Shaggy Bronze Club BerlinerBaer Shaggy Bronze Club BerlinerBaer Shaggy Bronze Club BerlinerBaer Shaggy Bronze Club BerlinerBaer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Houston
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by Bolverk View Post
    Correct. That which can be observed and replicated comprises the foundation of scientific "theory". Until that occurs, an idea remains in the realm of "hypothesis". With super-strong telescopes and other instruments measuring background radiation and whatnot, we can see very far back in "time" at the early universe, but we will never be able to see before the observable (the Big Bang).
    Fixed this oft-quoted misconception

    Quote Originally Posted by RayDog View Post
    We do not know how a net amount of matter versus antimatter is produced. We do know that it is produced, which is a start. We can also recognize that matter is produced within stars such as our sun, as the sun will increase its volume more than a thousand times and it is physically impossible for that to occur without mass/matter being added.
    The Ideal Gas Law handles this adequately enough. I'm not sure why a new hypothesis is needed.

    The sun's core will heat up as it runs through its hydrogen, then helium fuel more quickly. It's mass and therefore its gravity will not change. The increase in temperature will lead to an expansion of volume.

  • #54
    asshat HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,522
    B
    Quote Originally Posted by zepol87 View Post
    I offer no value to this discussion but I am interested in the theories hypotheses.
    Fify.

    This really becomes more of a philosophical discussion than a purely scientific topic as there is no way to test any hypothesis such as M-theory or string theory. Personally, I find string theory to be most fascinating and incredibly profound. An idea that I've had about why some of the strings would be closed anynd others would be open is that all strings are closed, however we would only be able to see (detect) the vibrations they resonate through our three dimensional spacetime. In actuality, they would likely close and form their loop in a higher spatial dimension above our own.
    Last edited by HOOK'EMHOOAH; 01-10-2017 at 05:22 AM.

  • #55
    asshat HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,522
    Quote Originally Posted by RayDog View Post
    Your question has no basis in reality and is therefore irrelevant.
    I woudnt say it has no basis in reality. A shadow is a 2D slice of a 3D object projected upon it. With this knowledge, we can conceivably identify any object if we can capture enough images of the projected 2D slices. To carry this further, an object with 4 spatial dimensions would project 3D shadows upon our 3D plane. As the 4D object moves along any axis through its higher dimensions, we would observe the shadow slices changing. I'm pretty sure this is part of the holographic conjecture hypothesis.

  • #56
    Here is a basic overview of the cosmological argument of Leibniz:


  • #57
    asshat neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44 Probably Shaggy upper class neonmoon44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Pig Farm
    Posts
    21,053
    Anyone else get the feeling like we are on step 3 of human evolution out of like a 1000 steps? And also feel a little pissed off we will not be part of the telekinesis steps, etc?

    1. Don't $#@! outside
    2. Invent computers


    556. Telekinesis

    1000. Pure energy

  • #58
    asshat Grammer Police might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Grammer Police might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Grammer Police might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Grammer Police might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Grammer Police might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Grammer Police might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Grammer Police might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Grammer Police might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Grammer Police might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Grammer Police might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Grammer Police might be a clever chap. or know the right people. know what i mean, nudge nudge? Grammer Police's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    UCO Lick
    Posts
    8,622
    I get the feeling that our existence will change very rapidly and in some ways catastrophically.

    Telekinesis and stuff like that which today seem like complete science fiction, won't seem that way even 10 years from now. In 2027 we won't call it telekinesis, but in many ways whatever we call it will, to a 2017 observer, be indistinguishable from telekinesis.

  • #59
    asshat HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,522
    Neonmoon, I think I'm pickin' up what you're layin' down. I don't think each "step" would happen one at a time, but would instead be groups and some "steps" may be higher up than others along the way.

    With research currently underway, mapping the human brain with electrodes and the eventual advent of a device to detect and interpret signals directly from the brain will facilitate exactly what Grammer is talking about, at least in my estimation.

  • #60
    asshat Walden Ponderer Shaggy Platinum Walden Ponderer Shaggy Platinum Walden Ponderer Shaggy Platinum Walden Ponderer Shaggy Platinum Walden Ponderer Shaggy Platinum Walden Ponderer Shaggy Platinum Walden Ponderer Shaggy Platinum Walden Ponderer Shaggy Platinum Walden Ponderer Shaggy Platinum Walden Ponderer Shaggy Platinum Walden Ponderer Shaggy Platinum Walden Ponderer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    That man is richest whose pleasures are the cheapest.
    Posts
    13,447
    From Phys.org this month:

    No Big Bang? Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

    (Phys.org) —The universe may have existed forever, according to a new model that applies quantum correction terms to complement Einstein's theory of general relativity. The model may also account for dark matter and dark energy, resolving multiple problems at once.

    The widely accepted age of the universe, as estimated by general relativity, is 13.8 billion years. In the beginning, everything in existence is thought to have occupied a single infinitely dense point, or singularity. Only after this point began to expand in a "Big Bang" did the universe officially begin.

    Although the Big Bang singularity arises directly and unavoidably from the mathematics of general relativity, some scientists see it as problematic because the math can explain only what happened immediately after—not at or before—the singularity.

    "The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.

    Ali and coauthor Saurya Das at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, Canada, have shown in a paper published in Physics Letters B that the Big Bang singularity can be resolved by their new model in which the universe has no beginning and no end.

    Old ideas revisited
    The physicists emphasize that their quantum correction terms are not applied ad hoc in an attempt to specifically eliminate the Big Bang singularity. Their work is based on ideas by the theoretical physicist David Bohm, who is also known for his contributions to the philosophy of physics. Starting in the 1950s, Bohm explored replacing classical geodesics (the shortest path between two points on a curved surface) with quantum trajectories.

    In their paper, Ali and Das applied these Bohmian trajectories to an equation developed in the 1950s by physicist Amal Kumar Raychaudhuri at Presidency University in Kolkata, India. Raychaudhuri was also Das's teacher when he was an undergraduate student of that institution in the '90s.

    Using the quantum-corrected Raychaudhuri equation, Ali and Das derived quantum-corrected Friedmann equations, which describe the expansion and evolution of universe (including the Big Bang) within the context of general relativity. Although it's not a true theory of quantum gravity, the model does contain elements from both quantum theory and general relativity. Ali and Das also expect their results to hold even if and when a full theory of quantum gravity is formulated.

    No singularities nor dark stuff
    In addition to not predicting a Big Bang singularity, the new model does not predict a "big crunch" singularity, either. In general relativity, one possible fate of the universe is that it starts to shrink until it collapses in on itself in a big crunch and becomes an infinitely dense point once again.
    Ali and Das explain in their paper that their model avoids singularities because of a key difference between classical geodesics and Bohmian trajectories. Classical geodesics eventually cross each other, and the points at which they converge are singularities. In contrast, Bohmian trajectories never cross each other, so singularities do not appear in the equations.

    In cosmological terms, the scientists explain that the quantum corrections can be thought of as a cosmological constant term (without the need for dark energy) and a radiation term. These terms keep the universe at a finite size, and therefore give it an infinite age. The terms also make predictions that agree closely with current observations of the cosmological constant and density of the universe.

    New gravity particle
    In physical terms, the model describes the universe as being filled with a quantum fluid. The scientists propose that this fluid might be composed of gravitons—hypothetical massless particles that mediate the force of gravity. If they exist, gravitons are thought to play a key role in a theory of quantum gravity.
    In a related paper, Das and another collaborator, Rajat Bhaduri of McMaster University, Canada, have lent further credence to this model. They show that gravitons can form a Bose-Einstein condensate (named after Einstein and another Indian physicist, Satyendranath Bose) at temperatures that were present in the universe at all epochs.

    Motivated by the model's potential to resolve the Big Bang singularity and account for dark matter and dark energy, the physicists plan to analyze their model more rigorously in the future. Their future work includes redoing their study while taking into account small inhomogeneous and anisotropic perturbations, but they do not expect small perturbations to significantly affect the results.
    "It is satisfying to note that such straightforward corrections can potentially resolve so many issues at once," Das said.

  • #61
    asshat ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    stuck in traffic
    Posts
    4,888
    "The Big Bang singularity is the most serious problem of general relativity because the laws of physics appear to break down there," Ahmed Farag Ali at Benha University and the Zewail City of Science and Technology, both in Egypt, told Phys.org.


    So... I wonder what their model says about singularities at the heart of black holes. The laws of physics break down there as well.

  • #62
    Singularities occur and are more a function of the mathematics than anything else. Stand on the north pole and tell me which way is north.

    Do they even make a falsifiable prediction?
    Last edited by Yuk-Monkey; 02-13-2017 at 10:27 PM.

  • #63
    Banned utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Midland
    Posts
    6,902
    That article is dated 2015

  • #64
    asshat RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Varna Bulgaria
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by Yuk-Monkey View Post
    Singularities occur and are more a function of the mathematics than anything else. Stand on the north pole and tell me which way is north.

    Do they even make a falsifiable prediction?
    Singularities cannot occur. There is no physical mechanism for a neutron star to collapse. Once it turns into a black hole no matter can cross the event horizon in forever. So matter, and energy can only accumulate at the event horizon. The gravitational force due to a spherical shell, within that shell is zero, so there is no additional gravitational force on the internal neutron star. There are also no additional neutrons passing the event horizon where they can add weight to the neutron star. Hence, once the event horizon forms, the neutron star density is fixed, and there is no mechanism to compress it further.

    Also note that if a lot of energy, more than 3 solar masses, popped into existence in a singularity (assuming that is possible, which it isn't), it would immediately become a black hole and all the material would be stuck in the singularity, or at its surface if it it has real physical dimensions. The big bang model starting at a singularity is not possible. Even if it were split up into lots of mini bangs, if they exceeded 3 solar masses, it still would not work.

  • #65
    asshat ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets Shaggy Silver Club ChickenNuggets's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    stuck in traffic
    Posts
    4,888
    Isn't gravity the physical mechanism for collapsing a star?

  • #66
    I'm pretty sure that if I threw a rock at a black hole it would fall in and not just sit at the event horizon.

  • #67
    asshat RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Varna Bulgaria
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by WhatTheBuck View Post
    I'm pretty sure that if I threw a rock at a black hole it would fall in and not just sit at the event horizon.
    As anything approaches the event horizon its clock rate slows. When it meets the event horizon its clock rate stops. To an outside observer nothing ever falls in. An observer on your rock would be unaware that he or she is frozen in space at the event horizon.

    Gravitational clock slowing has been proven with GPS clocks, so it is a physically real phenomenon.

    One of the many big lies about black holes is that matter gets sucked in. It doesn't.

  • #68
    asshat RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Varna Bulgaria
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by ChickenNuggets View Post
    Isn't gravity the physical mechanism for collapsing a star?
    You can think about it like when you are under water. The extra pressure you feel is due to the weight of the water above you, not because the water above you contributes to the gravity of the Earth below you.

    With a black hole the energy above the event horizon does not add any weight to the neutron star below.
    Last edited by RayDog; 02-19-2017 at 09:58 PM.

  • #69
    Quote Originally Posted by Walden Ponderer View Post
    I haven't been able to find the details on their hypothesis or any thoughts or reactions from other physicists. In any case, whether or not the universe is infinite in time has only limited interest from a philosophical point of view. Even if it is infinite in time/age, this still doesn't answer the question of why it exists. Aquinas and Leibniz started with the assumption that the universe was infinite in time and showed that the universe still needed an external cause. In the words of Leibniz, a universe with an infinite timeline still does not provide an answer to the question of "why is there something rather than nothing?" Leibniz discusses this in more detail in his article On the Ultimate Origination of Things.

    https://www.hrstud.unizg.hr/_downloa...=auto,-175,597
    Last edited by Axiom of Choice; 02-20-2017 at 01:44 PM.

  • #70
    good old aristotle.

  • #71
    Quote Originally Posted by RayDog View Post
    As anything approaches the event horizon its clock rate slows. When it meets the event horizon its clock rate stops. To an outside observer nothing ever falls in. An observer on your rock would be unaware that he or she is frozen in space at the event horizon.

    Gravitational clock slowing has been proven with GPS clocks, so it is a physically real phenomenon.

    One of the many big lies about black holes is that matter gets sucked in. It doesn't.
    So a meteorite can fall to Earth but it can't fall into a black hole because...too much gravity? That's an original take. It certainly contradicts my astronomy textbook and everything else I've ever heard or read. How do you explain the merging of black holes? Or supermassive black holes millions of times more massive than the largest known stars? Or why every black hole isn't contained within a shell of matter around the event horizon as if it was solid ground? They should be visible because of that. How the thing falling into a black hole experiences the journey doesn't matter to us on the outside watching $#@! go in and the black hole becoming more massive.

  • #72
    Quote Originally Posted by WhatTheBuck View Post
    So a meteorite can fall to Earth but it can't fall into a black hole because...too much gravity? That's an original take. It certainly contradicts my astronomy textbook and everything else I've ever heard or read. How do you explain the merging of black holes? Or supermassive black holes millions of times more massive than the largest known stars? Or why every black hole isn't contained within a shell of matter around the event horizon as if it was solid ground? They should be visible because of that. How the thing falling into a black hole experiences the journey doesn't matter to us on the outside watching $#@! go in and the black hole becoming more massive.
    Most scientists would say you're both right depending on if you are observing it from the outside or are the one going through. But if you were to fall into a black hole, to me watching you, you would appear to freeze in time at the event horizon. Then you would get fainter, shifting toward shades of red until you were no longer visible.

    To you falling in would be more of a "holy $#@!!!!!" as you were torn apart by the tidal forces pulling more strongly at your feet (assuming you went in feet first) than at your head. This is sometimes referred to as Spaghettification.
    Last edited by Yuk-Monkey; 02-21-2017 at 08:04 AM.

  • #73
    asshat RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Varna Bulgaria
    Posts
    2,187
    Except he would never actually fall in as that would take an infinite amount of time.

    I will add that the mass added to the event horizon still adds mass to the black hole and gravity to someone outside the event horizon.

    I also like to point out that the speed of propagation of gravity must be faster than the speed of light or a black hole would have no gravitational force outside the event horizon.

    You may also note, and I am not aware of any literature on this, that the mass at the event horizon can become so great that it becomes a black hole in its own right. In this way a black hole can grow in layers. This could cause a quantization effect, such as been observed with quasars.
    Last edited by RayDog; 02-21-2017 at 09:10 AM.

  • #74
    If one were to fall in a black hole, they would pass the event horizon in a finite amount of time. In other words, the proper time it takes to cross the event horizon is actually finite. It would be just like falling into any other massive object, except for the extreme tidal forces (for smaller radius black holes), which would break you down into a stream of particles.

    For one outside the black hole at a safe distance, if they were to watch you fall in, they would never actually see you cross the event horizon. But this is an "optical effect caused by the paths of the light rays," (from the linked article). But the person does fall in.

    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...s/fall_in.html

  • #75
    asshat HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,522
    Ray, hawking radiation disagrees with your assessment of nothing being able to "fall into a black hole.

    The idea that a graviton exists is intriguing and I don't think it should be ruled out simply because it has yet to be discovered. The same was true with the Higgs; when it was found, our understanding of the basic building blocks of the universe expanded. However, the reason singularities overtake the other forces is due to mass accumulating to create the gravity strong enough to do such a feat. This is simply a mathematical principle of general relativity.

  • #76
    asshat RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Varna Bulgaria
    Posts
    2,187
    Quote Originally Posted by HOOK'EMHOOAH View Post
    Ray, hawking radiation disagrees with your assessment of nothing being able to "fall into a black hole.

    The idea that a graviton exists is intriguing and I don't think it should be ruled out simply because it has yet to be discovered. The same was true with the Higgs; when it was found, our understanding of the basic building blocks of the universe expanded. However, the reason singularities overtake the other forces is due to mass accumulating to create the gravity strong enough to do such a feat. This is simply a mathematical principle of general relativity.
    Hawking radiation does not happen either, and that has been proven in several papers recently.

    First the particle pair is not a virtual photon pair since a photon pair would exceed the Planck energy limits. They are particle pairs with mass and charge that cannot move the speed of light.

    Particles or anything else cannot fall in because it would take forever. As with special relativity a persons clock rate slows to zero as they approach the speed of light. Clock rates also slow to zero as someone approaches a black hole. These are real clock rate changes.

    Even if a Hawking particle outside the event horizon could annihilate with an antiparticle and produce a photon it would take forever for that photon to escape the event horizon. And if it did it would be redshifted to zero energy, so the black hole would not actually lose energy

    The graviton and Higgs are both nonsense. They are both unnecessary as gravity and mass are better explained in other ways which do not require gauge bosons.

  • #77
    asshat HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH Shaggy Bronze Club HOOK'EMHOOAH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Fort Worth
    Posts
    4,522
    At present, i would liken the graviton to be similar to the Šther once thought to propagate space that all bodies outside the atmosphere were held/suspended in. So I agree it doesn't have much importance for physics at really any scale.

    However, I have to disagree with you regarding the Higgs. Not for the sake of the Higgs Boson itself but for the Higgs field to which it verifies the existence of. Once the electron and the electromagnetic force was discovered in the mid 19th century, it took about 50 years or so to really learn how to start manipulating them. Eventually, that manipulation became exponentially more refined since then. Idk if something of that nature would be possible with the Higgs field, but if so, the applications would limitless and boundless.

    As for the papers that came out that regarding Hawking radiation, do you have any links to them or names of the authors so I can look them up? I imagine they are on arXiv.org, correct? I think there are two other servers that archive scientific papers once they are published.

    The standard model is far easier to breakdown and understand for the common person than other theories of physics. I really enjoy string theory and would prefer it, however any model that accurately predicts the workings of the universe on the scales of the very large and very small is what is really important.

  • #78
    asshat RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Varna Bulgaria
    Posts
    2,187
    Even Scientific American and Discover, had articles about the changes in black hole physics that invalidated Hawking radiation. Hawking even published a paper on it.

    The Higgs field is unnecessary because E=mc^2, so you just need energy to have mass, and the zero-point energy accounts for all the mass. What needs refining is the modeling of the zero-point field, as it makes all the other hypothetical fields unnecessarily redundant. We only need one field to explain everything, including gravity.

  • #79
    asshat RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club RayDog Shaggy Bronze Club
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Varna Bulgaria
    Posts
    2,187
    Stephen Hawking: There are no Black Holes.
    http://www.space.com/24418-stephen-h...ack-holes.html

  • #80
    Banned utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club utexas_61 Shaggy Gold Club
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Midland
    Posts
    6,902
    Quote Originally Posted by RayDog View Post
    Stephen Hawking: There are no Black Holes.
    http://www.space.com/24418-stephen-h...ack-holes.html
    From link:

    Has Hawking changed his mind? Are black holes merely a figment of our collective imaginations? Are all those crank theories about "alternative" theories of the Cosmos true?!

    Fortunately not.
    Lolz

  • + Reply to Thread
    Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts

     

     

    Home .. Advertise .. ShaggyShop .. PanchoChat
    Football .. OC .. Basketball .. Baseball .. Other Sports .. RC Didn't Offer .. Gamboool
    Varsity .. Hole in the Wall .. PCL .. Einstein's .. Nasty's .. GM Steakhouse .. NSAA .. Classics
    Bada Bing .. Bernard .. Nerdz .. Can you help me with this? .. Shagslist .. Cloak Room .. Bellmont