Astronomers discover 83 supermassive black holes in the early universe

March 13, 2019, Princeton University
Astronomers from Japan, Taiwan and Princeton University have discovered 83 quasars powered by supermassive black holes that were formed when the universe was only 5 percent of its current age. Here, see an artist's impression of a quasar. A supermassive black hole sits at the center, and the gravitational energy of material accreting onto it is released as light. Credit: Yoshiki Matsuoka

Astronomers from Japan, Taiwan and Princeton University have discovered 83 quasars powered by supermassive black holes in the distant universe, from a time when the universe was less than 10 percent of its present age.

"It is remarkable that such massive dense objects were able to form so soon after the Big Bang," said Michael Strauss, a professor of astrophysical sciences at Princeton University who is one of the co-authors of the study. "Understanding how can form in the early universe, and just how common they are, is a challenge for our cosmological models."

This finding increases the number of black holes known at that epoch considerably, and reveals, for the first time, how common they are early in the universe's history. In addition, it provides new insight into the effect of black holes on the physical state of gas in the early universe in its first billion years. The research appears in a series of five papers published in The Astrophysical Journal and the Publications of the Astronomical Observatory of Japan.

Supermassive black holes, found at the centers of galaxies, can be millions or even billions of times more massive than the sun. While they are prevalent today, it is unclear when they first formed, and how many existed in the distant early universe. A supermassive black hole becomes visible when gas accretes onto it, causing it to shine as a "quasar."  Previous studies have been sensitive only to the very rare, most luminous quasars, and thus the most . The new discoveries probe the population of fainter quasars, powered by black holes with masses comparable to most black holes seen in the present-day universe.

If the history of the universe from the Big Bang to the present were laid out on a football field, Earth and our solar system would not appear until our own 33-yard line. Life appeared just inside the 28-yard line and dinosaurs went extinct halfway between the 1-yard line and the goal. All of human history, since hominids first climbed out of trees, takes place within an inch of the goal line. On this timeline, the 83 supermassive black holes discovered by Princeton astrophysicist Michael Strauss and his international team of colleagues would appear back on the universe's 6-yard line, very shortly after the Big Bang itself. Credit: Kyle McKernan, Princeton University Office of Communications

The research team used data taken with a cutting-edge instrument, "Hyper Suprime-Cam" (HSC), mounted on the Subaru Telescope of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, which is located on the summit of Maunakea in Hawaii. HSC has a gigantic field-of-view—1.77 degrees across, or seven times the area of the full moon—mounted on one of the largest telescopes in the world. The HSC team is surveying the sky over the course of 300 nights of telescope time, spread over five years.

The team selected distant quasar candidates from the sensitive HSC survey data. They then carried out an intensive observational campaign to obtain spectra of those candidates, using three telescopes: the Subaru Telescope; the Gran Telescopio Canarias on the island of La Palma in the Canaries, Spain; and the Gemini South Telescope in Chile. The survey has revealed 83 previously unknown very distant quasars. Together with 17 quasars already known in the survey region, the researchers found that there is roughly one supermassive black hole per cubic giga-light-year—in other words, if you chunked the universe into imaginary cubes that are a billion light-years on a side, each would hold one supermassive black hole.

The sample of quasars in this study are about 13 billion light-years away from the Earth; in other words, we are seeing them as they existed 13 billion years ago. As the Big Bang took place 13.8 billion years ago, we are effectively looking back in time, seeing these quasars and supermassive black holes as they appeared only about 800 million years after the creation of the (known) universe.

It is widely accepted that the hydrogen in the universe was once neutral, but was "reionized"—split into its component protons and electrons—around the time when the first generation of stars, galaxies and supermassive black holes were born, in the first few hundred million years after the Big Bang. This is a milestone of cosmic history, but astronomers still don't know what provided the incredible amount of energy required to cause the reionization. A compelling hypothesis suggests that there were many more quasars in the than detected previously, and it is their integrated radiation that reionized the universe.

Astronomers from Japan, Taiwan and Princeton University have discovered 83 quasars powered by supermassive black holes in the distant universe, from a time when the universe was less than 10 percent of its present age. In this photograph taken by the Hyper-Suprime Camera on the Subaru Telescope on Maunakea, light shines from one of the most distant quasars known, powered by a supermassive black hole lying 13.05 billion light-years away from Earth. The other objects in the field are mostly stars in our Milky Way or galaxies along the line of sight. Credit: the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan
"However, the number of quasars we observed shows that this is not the case," explained Robert Lupton, a 1985 Princeton Ph.D. alumnus who is a senior research scientist in astrophysical sciences. "The number of quasars seen is significantly less than needed to explain the reionization." Reionization was therefore caused by another energy source, most likely numerous galaxies that started to form in the young universe.

The present study was made possible by the world-leading survey ability of Subaru and HSC. "The quasars we discovered will be an interesting subject for further follow-up observations with current and future facilities," said Yoshiki Matsuoka, a former Princeton postdoctoral researcher now at Ehime University in Japan, who led the study. "We will also learn about the formation and early evolution of supermassive black holes, by comparing the measured number density and luminosity distribution with predictions from theoretical models."

Based on the results achieved so far, the team is looking forward to finding yet more distant black holes and discovering when the first appeared in the .

Explore further: Black hole spin cranks-up radio volume

More information: The results of the present study are published in the following five papers—the second paper in particular.

Yoshiki Matsuoka et al, Discovery of the First Low-luminosity Quasar at z > 7, The Astrophysical Journal (2019). DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0216

Yoshiki Matsuoka et al, Subaru High-z Exploration of Low-luminosity Quasars (SHELLQs). V. Quasar Luminosity Function and Contribution to Cosmic Reionization at z = 6, The Astrophysical Journal (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aaee7a

Yoshiki Matsuoka et al. Subaru High-z Exploration of Low-luminosity Quasars (SHELLQs). IV. Discovery of 41 Quasars and Luminous Galaxies at 5.7 ≤ z ≤ 6.9, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series (2018). DOI: 10.3847/1538-4365/aac724

Yoshiki Matsuoka et al. Subaru High-z Exploration of Low-Luminosity Quasars (SHELLQs). II. Discovery of 32 quasars and luminous galaxies at 5.7 < z ≤ 6.8, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan (2017). DOI: 10.1093/pasj/psx046

Yoshiki Matsuoka et al. SUBARU HIGH-zEXPLORATION OF LOW-LUMINOSITY QUASARS (SHELLQs). I. DISCOVERY OF 15 QUASARS AND BRIGHT GALAXIES AT 5.7 The Astrophysical Journal (2016). DOI: 10.3847/0004-637X/828/1/26

Related Stories

Black hole spin cranks-up radio volume

January 12, 2018

Statistical analysis of supermassive black holes suggests that the spin of the black hole may play a role in the generation of powerful high-speed jets blasting radio waves and other radiation across the universe.

Astronomers discover two bright high-redshift quasars

March 12, 2018

Using VST ATLAS and WISE surveys astronomers have identified two new bright high-redshift quasars. The newly found quasi-stellar objects, designated VST-ATLAS J158.6938-14.4211 and VST-ATLAS J332.8017-32.1036, could be helpful ...

Recommended for you

Coffee-based colloids for direct solar absorption

March 22, 2019

Solar energy is one of the most promising resources to help reduce fossil fuel consumption and mitigate greenhouse gas emissions to power a sustainable future. Devices presently in use to convert solar energy into thermal ...

Paleontologists report world's biggest Tyrannosaurus rex

March 22, 2019

University of Alberta paleontologists have just reported the world's biggest Tyrannosaurus rex and the largest dinosaur skeleton ever found in Canada. The 13-metre-long T. rex, nicknamed "Scotty," lived in prehistoric Saskatchewan ...

595 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

theredpill
2 / 5 (20) Mar 13, 2019
And in other news, astronomers also discover 83 vending machines in the early universe with 83 unicorns passing out change in case you only have bills.
cardzeus
4.1 / 5 (22) Mar 13, 2019
@theredpill continues to publicly display his lack of any scientific knowledge
TuringTest
4.6 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2019
Thank the gods for the american football field diagram. My tiny brain would have been unable to grasp but a single yard of the article had not been for such a relateable analogy.

Now that we are back on the first yard line I await for the next big bang and next universe. Mayhaps a universe where black holes don't exist and magic streams of electricity layer up and pinch around moving planets too and fro between orbits!

But in all honesty I realize it's just as arbitrary but Sagan's Cosmos calendar at least sticks to comparing time to time rather than distance to time.
rrwillsj
1.3 / 5 (4) Mar 13, 2019
Fascinating read, now to go look over the original publication in the Astrophysical Journal.

I liked how the researchers called the quasars = gas shells.
All that squabbling over halos, is ridiculous.
Only the stuporstitious would call Sol's corona a halo. Because the holey babble insists that at nightfall, the Sun's shining is turned off until the next morning.

Whatever mechanism or series of actions that result in the aggregation of enough mass to form a Super-Massive Black Hole? i.e. Stygian Oubliette.
It is implausible if we could develop a technology sophisticated enough to enable us to observe past the edge of Event Horizon into the actual Phenomena.
Everything goes in,
all Matter & all Energy gets disintegrated right down to Planck Foundational gravitrons.

& all that comes out is the amalgamated gravitational attraction.

I favor the accuracy of Stygian Oubliette, However, it is very anusing how much the term Black Hole enrages tantrums from bigots!
nekengren
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2019
@theredpill has it pegged. Some guys created a computer model to produce the magic number 83 for 12 billion years ago. Seriously? Science facts require experimental proofs. Anything less is simply an educated guess. I consider it JUNK SCIENCE to post article headlines like this that contain such scientific certitude.
EyeNStein
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 13, 2019
"Hyper Suprime Cam" superlative much?

It would be interesting to apply this new data to our model of the universe then roll it all forward to present day and see how many of the old surrounding stars would have been 'eaten' by these black holes now, and how this simulation compares with present space around our own Sag A black hole.
theredpill
2.5 / 5 (11) Mar 13, 2019
"@theredpill continues to publicly display his lack of any scientific knowledge"

Since our definitions of "scientific knowledge" differ so vastly.... thank you. Interesting that people somehow think that creating a mathematical construct and expounding upon it with more constructs translates into scientific knowledge. You must also be an authority on phasers and warp coils....they also fit in with what you appear to define as "scientific knowledge".
Parsec
4.8 / 5 (16) Mar 13, 2019
@theredpill has it pegged. Some guys created a computer model to produce the magic number 83 for 12 billion years ago. Seriously? Science facts require experimental proofs. Anything less is simply an educated guess. I consider it JUNK SCIENCE to post article headlines like this that contain such scientific certitude.


Exactly 83 new supermassive black holes were detected according to the article. As explained there quite clearly, these new discoveries are in addition to the existing ones already found.

How can you claim that actual observations have anything to do with models? Direct observations of phenomena are not produced from models. Your position is so odd it isn't any surprise the rest of us here think you are an idiot.
691Boat
4.7 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2019
@theredpill has it pegged. Some guys created a computer model to produce the magic number 83 for 12 billion years ago. Seriously? Science facts require experimental proofs. Anything less is simply an educated guess. I consider it JUNK SCIENCE to post article headlines like this that contain such scientific certitude.

What part of
The research team used data taken with a cutting-edge instrument, "Hyper Suprime-Cam" (HSC), mounted on the Subaru Telescope of the National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, which is located on the summit of Maunakea in Hawaii. HSC has a gigantic field-of-view—1.77 degrees across, or seven times the area of the full moon—mounted on one of the largest telescopes in the world. The HSC team is surveying the sky over the course of 300 nights of telescope time, spread over five years.

...from the article is a computer model?
RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 13, 2019
@nekengren.
@theredpill has it pegged. Some guys created a computer model to produce the magic number 83 for 12 billion years ago....
Please note that these detected features were results of observation, not of simulations or modelling; as explicitly stated in the above article:
The HSC team is surveying the sky over the course of 300 nights of telescope time, spread over five years. The team selected distant quasar candidates from the sensitive HSC survey data. They then carried out an intensive observational campaign to obtain spectra of those candidates,...
Effectively, two 'layers' of observation were involved: candidates from the initial observation in the general survey were then chosen for the specific further intensive observation.

So, in future, please try harder to base your skepticism and assertions on objective facts, not on your own subjective biases/misunderstandings. Thanks. :)
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 13, 2019
How can you claim that actual observations have anything to do with models? Direct observations of phenomena are not produced from models.


Bad news for you Parsec, pictures of actual BHs do not exist, such stellar mass is merely INFERRED from the presence of dust clouds, always the same excuse from the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology, too much other stuff in the way.

Ever hear of the Event Horizon Telescope? It was supposed to take pics of BHs, it's been shut down because it couldn't even get a pic of the SMBH supposedly nearest planet Earth at the center of our own galaxy.

Yeah, I know, next we're gonna start hearing that the antennae system is still being calibrated, or that the data is so voluminous that it requires years to develop a measly PHOTOGRAPH, all just so much coverup noise from the Pop-Cosmology sector who are unable to cope with the imminent loss of their greatest fantasy, BHs.
MrBojangles
3.9 / 5 (15) Mar 13, 2019
Bad news for you Parsec, pictures of actual BHs do not exist, such stellar mass is merely INFERRED from the presence of dust clouds, always the same excuse from the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology, too much other stuff in the way...PHOTOGRAPH...


Who would have thought.... electrons and atoms were out there in the fantasyland of pop-physics and pop-chemistry until we were able to photograph them.

Thank God we developed the necessary technology to bring them into the land of reality.

Dumbass.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2019
Bad news for you Parsec, pictures of actual BHs do not exist, such stellar mass is merely INFERRED from the presence of dust clouds, always the same excuse from the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology, too much other stuff in the way...PHOTOGRAPH...


Who would have thought.... electrons and atoms were out there in the fantasyland of pop-physics and pop-chemistry until we were able to photograph them.
.......but Pop-Cosmology tells us SMBHs are a tad bigger........now you're telling us they're even smaller than "electrons & atoms"? Well, who woulda thunk, no wonder that EHT telescope doesn't work

Thank God we developed the necessary technology to bring them into the land of reality.
Black holes? So where are the pics? "Dumbass".
MrBojangles
4.3 / 5 (17) Mar 13, 2019
but Pop-Cosmology tells us SMBHs are a tad bigger

The American flag is bigger than electrons and atoms as well. And it's planted on our closest neighbor. Can to send me a picture of it? Otherwise it doesn't exist. Are you one of these guys that thinks we faked the moon landing too?

........now you're telling us they're even smaller than "electrons & atoms"?

Where did you read that? Your reading skills are on par with your physics and math skills it would seem.

Black holes? So where are the pics?

Who would have thought.... electrons and atoms were out there in the fantasyland of pop-physics and pop-chemistry until we were able to photograph them.

Thank God we developed the necessary technology to bring them into the land of reality.

Dumbass.
rrwillsj
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2019
Why benni, the Black Holes are photographs of the inside of your empty noggin & the that of the other looneyticks you infest with!

Since none of you are any sort of scientist or educator?
You are all dependent on your Ouija boards for your research data.
& hows it going with using Tarot Cards to calculating the Math?

I'm sure all the other snake-charmers & tablerappers are impressed by your skill at...?

No, no sign of competency there.
Uhmm, what about your innate skills at being a ventriloquist dummy?
Oh, the tradeunion kicked you out for being so incompetent at moving your lips in tome with the voices in your head.
I hadn't heard.
Sorry I brought up tour sordid abuse of novocaine.
Me Bad!
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (15) Mar 13, 2019
Halton Arp showed beyond a shadow of the doubt that red-shift is an intrinsic property of matter. As such, nothing about any of these "papers" is science or research. It is fantasyland faerie tale nonsense for the trekkie sci-fi groupies who are too stupid to see the obvious. The interpretations of the observations are meaningless blather not worth the paper or wasted ink.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2019
Halton Arp showed beyond a shadow of the doubt that red-shift is an intrinsic property of matter. As such, nothing about any of these "papers" is science or research. It is fantasyland faerie tale nonsense for the trekkie sci-fi groupies who are too stupid to see the obvious. The interpretations of the observations are meaningless blather not worth the paper or wasted ink.

says CD

I thought the article was quite clever - to extend the existence of SMBH all the way back to the beginning of the Universe. How can one argue with that?
So I will now offer my 2 farthings worth of what will soon be denounced as woo by those who already know all the answers.
Each alleged SMBH is a BATTERY that puts out Energy back into the Cosmos. Car batteries need to have an occasional addition of liquid whatever to top off each cell. And alleged SMBH are topped off with stellar matter and gases. Then it produces Energy which is shot out from its poles.
No cables needed.
:)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 13, 2019
Bad news for you Parsec, pictures of actual BHs do not exist, such stellar mass is merely INFERRED from the presence of dust clouds, always the same excuse from the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology, too much other stuff in the way...PHOTOGRAPH...


Who would have thought.... electrons and atoms were out there in the fantasyland of pop-physics and pop-chemistry until we were able to photograph them.

Thank God we developed the necessary technology to bring them into the land of reality.

Dumbass.
says jingles

Benni is right. We all impatiently await the concrete photographic evidence that BHs exist. Even a wee picture of one might suffice. We are not too picky. Or, at least, I'm not. heheheh

The 'necessary technology' did not bring electrons and atoms into "the land of reality", as they all existed in reality already. They were already there - which even the ancient Greeks knew this. They did not magically pop up out of nothing.
Solon
1.5 / 5 (8) Mar 13, 2019
"Please note that these detected features were results of observation, not of simulations or modelling; as explicitly stated in the above article:"

Yes, the instruments are detecting something out there, but these are not photos. It is the interpretation of what is being detected that raises questions, and the interpretations are based on the ASSumption that these objects must be infinitely dense barryonic matter, which of course can never be proven. The Kaluza–Klein theory should be considered perhaps.

Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 13, 2019
"Please note that these detected features were results of observation, not of simulations or modelling; as explicitly stated in the above article:"

Yes, the instruments are detecting something out there, but these are not photos. It is the interpretation of what is being detected that raises questions, and the interpretations are based on the ASSumption that these objects must be infinitely dense barryonic matter, which of course can never be proven. The Kaluza–Klein theory should be considered perhaps.


......so then how about you being the one to explain how the supposedly most massive stellar objects can exist in huge abundance & we can't get pics of them? Dust huh?

Or maybe you'd like to infer they exist as SINGULARITIES, a size so small they can't be viewed through a telescope because they are infinitely small?

You know what all BHs have 100% in common with one another? They can't be observed.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (12) Mar 13, 2019
@Benni hasn't got anything else to explain quasars, but is sure it can't be black holes.
cantdrive85
1.9 / 5 (14) Mar 13, 2019
'Magnetic self-compression in laboratory plasmas, quasars and radio galaxies.'

https://www.cambr...7522FF57
AZWarrior
1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2019
Since Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its center, and I don't believe that matter can be compressed beyond a lower Planck limit or it would cease to exist in this universe, these are Gavitars.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (13) Mar 13, 2019
Since Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its center
Nope. Try again.
AZWarrior
1 / 5 (7) Mar 13, 2019
Since black holes are defined as having a singularity at its center, and I don't believe that a singularity can exist as it would not retain a less than infinite gravity or even still exist in this universe as "time would stop", then there is a Planck limit of compression in which matter can not be compressed further. Therefore, these are all gravitars.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
Since black holes are defined as having a singularity at its center, and I don't believe that a singularity can exist as it would not retain a less than infinite gravity or even still exist in this universe as "time would stop", then there is a Planck limit of compression in which matter can not be compressed further. Therefore, these are all gravitars.

This is a mis-understanding of Planck units...
However, I like "Gravitar"... :-)
FredJose
1.4 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2019
"It is remarkable that such massive dense objects were able to form so soon after the Big Bang,"

What this really means is that according to the basics of the big bang theory, these items should NOT be there at all. Hence the surprise. So here we once again have items (whether inferred or not) that completely contradict the theory and nobody is running around raising the alarm bells. Instead they are simply accommodating the new finding as just another anomaly in their wonder theory of complete non-science anyway.
There is no observational evidence so far that everything can come from nothing, that stars can form all by themselves from clouds of GAS in defiance of the Jeans Mass limit without theoretically resorting to the unknown dark matter ( and energy ) or that planets can form all by themselves from clouds of dust whilst every planet in the solar system has prominent features which contradict that nebulous(or core accretion) theory. This is real science fiction.
FredJose
1 / 5 (2) Mar 14, 2019
Had to delete the duplicate.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
How can you claim that actual observations have anything to do with models? Direct observations of phenomena are not produced from models.


Bad news for you Parsec, pictures of actual BHs do not exist, such stellar mass is merely INFERRED from the presence of dust clouds, always the same excuse from the fantasyland of Pop-Cosmology, too much other stuff in the way.

If you want to be technically specific, Benni, even YOU exist only by inference...
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2019
Had to delete the duplicate.

why? It wasn't any more wrong than the original...
Please explain how/why collating gas clouds of hydrogen would be in defiance of the Jeans limit...
Parsec
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2019
Since black holes are defined as having a singularity at its center, and I don't believe that a singularity can exist as it would not retain a less than infinite gravity or even still exist in this universe as "time would stop", then there is a Planck limit of compression in which matter can not be compressed further. Therefore, these are all gravitars.


Nonsense. Black holes are defined as places where the gravity pushes the escape velocity above the speed of light. What is actually inside the event horizon is a matter of controversy. String theory for example dictates that the inside of a black hole doesn't contain a singularity, as does theories of quantum gravity. Other theories dictate a singularity despite a lack of clear understanding exactly what that means.

All we know absolutely for sure is that these are areas with an event horizon beyond which ordinary matter and energy cannot return.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (15) Mar 14, 2019
Since Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its center
Nope. Try again.
.......sure schneibo, below is copied from your favorite textbook:

"Singularity

Main article: Gravitational singularity"

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature {gravity) becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution. The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole

Oh, but that's right, you have a 19th Century TUGMath BH theory that was concocted by the same bunch that gave us Aether Theory.
ShotmanMaslo
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2019
"as described by general relativity"

Did you miss that you dummy? I already explained this to you and as usual you learned nothing. Just because a singularity is in the black hole according to GR, does not mean it has to be there in reality. GR breaks down at such high energy densities so something else may be there, described by some theory of quantum gravity.

Black holes are really defined by event horizon, escape velocity above the speed of light. And there is no way to avoid that according to GR, even in low energy limit.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2019
All we know absolutely for sure
.......you know for sure WHAT?

these are areas with an event horizon
So you have a picture?

Not a single BH has been OBSERVED by photography & failure of the Event Horizon Radio Telescope has proven a picture will never be obtained.

You neophytes who continually prattle onward & endlessly about EVIDENCE exempt yourselves from proferring that which YOU (Parsec) demand from others. In essence YOU demand that others prove your dumbass theories are NOT evidence, as if your string of a salad of psycho-babble semantics must be falsified.

But wait Parsec, you have Schneibo to your rescue, he has PROOF BHs do not have a SINGULARITY, he can even link you to a vid showing how this 19th Century BH TUGMath works, all brought to us by the same 19th Century Cosmologists who brought us Aether Theory.
Benni
1.9 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2019
"as described by general relativity"
.....OK, Copy & Paste the lead-in to the section of GR in which all this is described just as I Copied above the section of Wiki for Singularity.

Did you miss that you dummy?
......the "dummy" is none other than yourself because you can't produce anything from GR backing up your claim to a stellar body with an event horizon or a singularity.

I already explained this to you and as usual you learned nothing
.....Yeah, the usual semantics of psycho-babble.

Just because a singularity is in the black hole according to GR
What section? Copy & paste a lead-in for the section.

GR breaks down at such high energy densities so something else may be there, described by some theory of quantum gravity.
Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble.

Black holes are really defined by event horizon, escape velocity above the speed of light.
Escape Velocity is confined to Kinetic Energy of accelerating particles, not EM Waves.
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
Here, we see an artist's impression of a quasar
a supermassive black hole sits at the centre, and the gravitational energy of material accreting onto it is released as light

Have we no shame
have we become immune to the realities of realities?
this in the month of the Picci
The Black portrait
this is technically not a blackhole
so technically
we are allowed to see in Picci format
a digital photograph of this Quasars Picci
because
Quasars technically have no event horizon
Quasars are visible
because
if truth be told
Quasars are visible all the way across this Universe
but
not
when
it
comes
to
Quasars in Piccies apparently
Castrogiovanni
3.8 / 5 (16) Mar 14, 2019
Escape Velocity is confined to Kinetic Energy of accelerating particles, not EM Waves.


Trivially false. I'm afraid you have no knowledge of the relevant science. Not sure why you are commenting. Care to back up your stupid assertion with a link to some science?
granville583762
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
Blackholes only exist in galaxies

The Gran Telescopio Canarias
with its 409inch telescope
reveals galaxies at 13billion Lys
resolves galaxies at 13billion Lys
as a photograph released
https://3c1703fe8...ersd.jpg
is not the high resolution
the Gran Telescopio Canarias is capable of resolving
the Gran Telescopio Canarias is capable of resolving the distinctive structure of these 13billion Lyr distant galaxies
as the even a picci provided is not of the full resolution of the Gran Telescopio Canarias telescope
as nice as it is to keep these full resolution galaxies piccies safe and secure from prying eyes

There are trillion upon trillion of galaxies in this universe
there is no earthly point in hiding these high resolution piccies from public view
They are just going to decay on dusty shelves, unseen otherwise!
MrBojangles
4.7 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2019
......so then how about you being the one to explain how the supposedly most massive stellar objects can exist in huge abundance & we can't get pics of them?


Benni, here's a link I found to some books with nice colorful pictures:
https://www.the-b...ans.html

There is some good reading material here which might help you understand the difference between mass and volume (this might be a bit tricky, so let me know if you need any help.)

Another thing that is difficult to understand is the relationship between size and distance and how they affect our ability to see things that are faaaaar away.

For example, we can take pictures of galaxies billions of light years away (billion is a really really big number), but it's very hard to see planets that are only a few light years away. Let's not get ahead of ourselves though, start with some of those books, and we'll work our way up from there. I'm here for you Benni boy!
antialias_physorg
4.1 / 5 (14) Mar 14, 2019
Yes, the instruments are detecting something out there, but these are not photos

Soooo...sound also doesn't exist for you? 'Cause: no photos.
Or heat? 'Cause: no photos
How about smell? No? 'Cause: no photos.
....and the list could go on and on.

Have to agree with Mr. MrBojangles on this one: Dumbass.
antialias_physorg
3.9 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2019
Since Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its center

No they are not. They are *thought* to have one at the center because currently we have no indication that there is a force great enough to stop the collapse that happens inside the event horizon.

This does not mean that such a force cannot exist. It just means that if it exists we currently aren't aware of it.
It would have to be a truly exotic force, since forces are dependent on force carriers with some energy value...and those are limited to the speed of light. No such force carrier could push anything outward, because that would mean it would have to be able to move against a gravity gradient/spacetime curvature that precludes anything at c (or slower) from moving that way.

Black holes are *defined* as masses of sufficient density that an event horizon will form. (Note that the event horizon itself is not the black hole. The mass of a certain density is).
Tuxford
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2019
"Understanding how black holes can form in the early universe, and just how common they are, is a challenge for our cosmological models."

So question your models already! Clearly merger maniacs are maniacs, without a capacity for self-criticism. Long live the Huge Bang Fantasy! Publish or perish! This is the problem. A self-sustaining ignorance by design.
theredpill
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2019
"All we know absolutely for sure is that these are areas with an event horizon beyond which ordinary matter and energy cannot return."

How do we "know for sure"? Since math cannot guarantee they exist, what is the irrefutable EVIDENCE that all of these brightly lit areas with no discernable boundaries which indicate the presence of an event horizon actually house one?

"Since Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its center

No they are not. They are *thought* to have one "

Responding to the posted definition of a BH flat out stating not only a singularity is there but also what it is "shaped" like depending. Same guy doesn't understand human senses very well either....photos must not exist because we can't hear them...
The massive lack of coherence is amusing, as are the definitive statements that things are known for sure. In September of 1929 the world knew for sure the stock market would boom for 10 more years.

Castrogiovanni
3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2019
How do we "know for sure"? Since math cannot guarantee they exist, what is the irrefutable EVIDENCE that all of these brightly lit areas with no discernable boundaries which indicate the presence of an event horizon actually house one?

"Since Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its center

No they are not. They are *thought* to have one "

Responding to the posted definition of a BH flat out stating not only a singularity is there but also what it is "shaped" like depending. Same guy doesn't understand human senses very well either....photos must not exist because we can't hear them...
The massive lack of coherence is amusing, as are the definitive statements that things are known for sure. In September of 1929 the world knew for sure the stock market would boom for 10 more years.



Another pile of science-free fail.
691Boat
4 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2019
@Benni:
Next time you go in the spectroscopy lab to empty the trash and gather the dust bunnies, look around for a picture of a photon, could ya? Thanks!
TuringTest
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2019
Yes, the instruments are detecting something out there, but these are not photos

Soooo...sound also doesn't exist for you? 'Cause: no photos.
Or heat? 'Cause: no photos
How about smell? No? 'Cause: no photos.
....and the list could go on and on.

Have to agree with Mr. MrBojangles on this one: Dumbass.


I mean by benni's logic, the only thing that can possibly exist are photons because that is all an image represents are photons. It's not like our images of mars are big clay tablets we've physically pressed the planet into to create an image.

Yet they will make exceptions in that they can deduce that objects exist because of the way they interact with or emit photons. Yet if we deduce that objects exist because of the way nearby objects interact with them gravitationally (via their well observed motions) then that's an evil conspiracy by "pop cosmology". Epistemology is a real pain for some people, or "dumb asses" as many would say.
theredpill
3 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
Why do people keep asking Benni for pictures of things you cannot take pictures of? Do they not see the difference between taking a picture of a spot in space and claiming something is in the picture that we can't see, vs. the inability to optically represent certain things?

Then again, we will have a picture of all of things that we cannot take pictures of before there is ever one of an event horizon.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2019
This is a change of heart
Black hole are defined as having a singularity at its centre

antialias_physorg> They are thought to have one at the centre because we have no indication there is a force great enough to stop the collapse happening inside the event horizon.
This does not mean such a force cannot exist It means if it exists we currently aren't aware of it
forces are dependent on force carriers with some energy value those are limited to the speed of light No such force carrier could push anything outward, because that would mean it would have to be able to move against a gravity gradient spacetime curvature that precludes anything at c or slower from moving that way
Black holes are defined as masses of sufficient density that an event horizon will form the event horizon itself is not the black hole The mass of a certain density is

A Blackhole without a Singularity
Sounds as if this Blackhole is beginning to mirror R = 2GM/C²
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
A BLACKHOLE

R = 2GM/C²
where R = Gravities Light Radius the speed of light
where Gravity is zero at this blackholes centre of mass
where this blackholes minimum radius R = 3km
Where its minimum mass is an average star weighing 2x10+30kg
A BLACKHOLE
691Boat
4.6 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2019
@theredpill:
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.
cantdrive85
2.1 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2019
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.

The convenience of unfalsifiable faerie tales, by definition.
Castrogiovanni
3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2019
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.

The convenience of unfalsifiable faerie tales, by definition.


No BH = no EH. EH = BH. Do you happen to have advance information on the EHT findings? Can you explain the stellar orbits without recourse to a BH? Can you explain the gravitational redshift without a BH?
Point me to the peer-reviewed science explaining those observations, via some alternative, viable method. You can't. The subject is way beyond you. Not sure why you comment.
Castrogiovanni
2.8 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2019
The convenience of unfalsifiable faerie tales, by definition.


Earth orbiting Saturn.
Venus shooting out of Jupiter.
Electric Sun.
Electric comet.

All falsified. All impossible. Zero evidence.

Hypocrisy much?
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
Why a Blackhole has no singularity

Gravity cannot exert a force greater than gravities light radius the velocity of light
Protons are held together by forces that travel at the speed of light
no matter how many protons are piled one on top another
the total force is not greater than greater than gravities light radius the velocity of light
and
taking into consideration gravity is zero at the centre of mass
when gravities force equals the velocity of light
this black hole cannot shrink any smaller
according to the formula
R = 2GM/C²
Castrogiovanni
3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2019
Why a Blackhole has no singularity

Gravity cannot exert a force greater than gravities light radius the velocity of light
Protons are held together by forces that travel at the speed of light
no matter how many protons are piled one on top another
the total force is not greater than greater than gravities light radius the velocity of light
and
taking into consideration gravity is zero at the centre of mass
when gravities force equals the velocity of light
this black hole cannot shrink any smaller
according to the formula
R = 2GM/C²


Why don't you go and get an education? You really haven't a clue what you're talking about.
cantdrive85
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2019

Earth orbiting Saturn.
Venus shooting out of Jupiter.
Electric Sun.
Electric comet.

All falsified. All impossible. Zero evidence.

Hypocrisy much?

None of which have been tested, let alone falsified.

Change the subject much?
granville583762
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
TrollianCastroGiovanni
Why a Blackhole has no singularity
Gravity cannot exert a force greater than gravities light radius the velocity of light
Protons held together by forces that travel at the speed of light
no matter how many protons pile on top another
the total force is not greater than greater than gravities light radius the velocity of light
and
taking into consideration gravity is zero at the centre of mass
when gravities force equals the velocity of light
this black hole cannot shrink any smaller
according to the formula
R = 2GM/C²
Castrogiovanni> Why don't you go and get an education You really haven't a clue what you're talking about

TrollianCastroGiovanni, as you ponder on the mysteries of life
As your finrot festers
You do not need to shout your bridge amplifies your frustration
You need to pay more attention to your finrot
Why don't you go and get an education You really haven't a clue what you're talking about
theredpill
3.2 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2019
"@theredpill:
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.

Perhaps it was the hype...it was mentioned in a few press releases that it could potentially image an event horizon...which if it does I will be the first to apologize for my fuckery when it comes to these things and the claims around them. I doubt the opposite is true if it doesn't image one....it will just simply not be sensitive enough to see it, the usual tagline.
Castrogiovanni
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2019

Earth orbiting Saturn.
Venus shooting out of Jupiter.
Electric Sun.
Electric comet.

All falsified. All impossible. Zero evidence.

Hypocrisy much?

None of which have been tested, let alone falsified.

Change the subject much?


Of course they have. They fail totally. They are impossible. Observation lacks any of the necessary evidence, and a couple of them (at least) break the laws of physics. It is pure nonsense.
Castrogiovanni
3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2019
"@theredpill:
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.

Perhaps it was the hype...it was mentioned in a few press releases that it could potentially image an event horizon...which if it does I will be the first to apologize for my fuckery when it comes to these things and the claims around them. I doubt the opposite is true if it doesn't image one....it will just simply not be sensitive enough to see it, the usual tagline.


Prepare to apologise, based on the mood music I'm hearing. And whatever they see (or don't) , more telescopes are being added to the network.
granville583762
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2019
The Black Canvas

Theredpill
"@theredpill:
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.
Perhaps it was the hype...it was mentioned in a few press releases that it could potentially image an event horizon...which if it does I will be the first to when it comes to these things and the claims around them. I doubt the opposite is true if it doesn't image one....it will just simply not be sensitive enough to see it, the usual tagline.

It was TrollianJonesDave who fore told of Blackholes Picci in March
The Black Canvas
as now TrollianJonesDave is under new ownership
all previous correspondence Theredpill
has to go to the new proprietor
TrollianCastroGiovanni
Castrogiovanni
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2019

It was TrollianJonesDave who fore told of Blackholes Picci in March



They just presented at SXSW, a couple of days ago. The announcement will be this year. Get a life.

https://schedule..../PP83510

Science does not happen to a deadline imposed by ignorant cranks. This will be a huge announcement, much like the gravitational wave announcements. Two independent teams are/ have looked at the data, this will be checked, and then the paper written, and then there will be peer review, and possible alterations based on that. That is how science works. They don't just dream up some impossible crap up over breakfast, and have it on Youtube by lunchtime, unlike the crank brigade.
MrBojangles
4.2 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2019
It took 26 years after neutrinos were first postulated to detect them.
It took 48 years to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We draw the line somewhere I suppose, but I'm not giving up on their existence quite yet.
cantdrive85
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2019
Of course they have.

Well then jonesdumb, please provide the relevant scientific publications that specifically falsify any of what you claim.
Castrogiovanni
3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2019
It took 26 years after neutrinos were first postulated to detect them.
It took 48 years to confirm the existence of the Higgs boson.

The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

We draw the line somewhere I suppose, but I'm not giving up on their existence quite yet.


Quite. We had two options when the amount of neutrinos came up short by ~ 65%; either our theory of how the Sun was powered was wrong; or we were wrong about neutrinos. The latter would be the obvious thing to check first, given that (iirc) it had been proposed as early as 1967 that neutrinos may not be massless. Had subsequent experiments not confirmed this to be so, then that would be the time to look again at solar theories. They now match beautifully, and the confirmation of the hardest to detect neutrinos on the energy spectrum - those from the initial p-p fusion - are now seen. There is no room for alternate solar hypotheses. The same will soon happen with BHs.
Castrogiovanni
3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2019
Of course they have.

Well then jonesdumb, please provide the relevant scientific publications that specifically falsify any of what you claim.


Sorry? Please provide links to these idiotic proposals within the scientific literature. Why would anyone write a paper to dismiss something that is a) scientifically impossible, and b) does not exist within the scientific literature? Why do you think these clowns do not publish in respected scientific journals? It is faith-based crap, followed only by the scientifically illiterate, brainwashed believers.
granville583762
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2019
The Black Canvas

Its official, the Picci has been postponed

It was TrollianJonesDave who fore told of Blackholes Picci in March

Castrogiovanni> They just presented at SXSW, a couple of days ago The announcement will be this year Get a life.
https://schedule..../PP83510
Science does not happen to a deadline imposed by ignorant cranks This will be a huge announcement much like the gravitational wave announcements Two independent teams are have looked at the data this will be checked and then the paper written and then there will be peer review and possible alterations based on that That is how science works They don't just dream up some impossible crap up over breakfast and have it on Youtube by lunchtime unlike the crank brigade

Who'd have thought it
The Picci
The Black Canvas
The Picci of the millennia
Has been cancelled
Just one more time
This once
Till next Time, the Picci

The Black Canvas
Castrogiovanni
2.9 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2019
Who'd have thought it
The Picci
The Black Canvas
The Picci of the millennia
Has been cancelled
Just one more time
This once
Till next Time, the Picci
The Black Canvas


Shut up you fool. Nothing has been canceled, you ignorant troll. Go away. Get an education. Learn science. Learn English.
Benni
1.7 / 5 (11) Mar 14, 2019
@theredpill:
Why does Benni keep asking for a picture of something that by its own definition can not be seen? The fact that he thinks the EHT will image the black hole is proof of his misconceptions.


The Event Horizon Radio Telescope has been shut down, it has been down for almost two years. They collected all the data by mid-2017, but had to do it again because there wasn't enough to resolve SgrA*.

They got the REST of the data by Dec'17 & looked at those results & the EHT team went dumb & silent claiming it would require a few weeks or months of TIME & CALIBRATION work to resolve the data, we haven't heard directly from them since & the antennae have been shut down since Dec 17.

Then in Oct '18 a European team member went public about the BH project stating that the IMAGING issue has yet to be resolved because the team needs a radio telescope TWICE the size of the first EHT, now what does that tell you? It tells me they never found a BH at SgrA*.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2019
If it was shut down in 2017, how did they gather more data?

Not to mention, these telescopes worth millions were "shut down?" WTF are you talking about?

@Benni is lying again.

This is fantasy. Not the least slightest connection to reality. There aren't any of these telescopes shut down and left to rot. One might as well claim freeways were shut down and no cars run on them any more. Delusional.
Castrogiovanni
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 14, 2019
The Event Horizon Radio Telescope has been shut down, it has been down for almost two years. They collected all the data by mid-2017, but had to do it again because there wasn't enough to resolve SgrA*.


Complete and utter lie. Stop lying, you weirdo.

Castrogiovanni
3 / 5 (12) Mar 14, 2019
It tells me they never found a BH at SgrA*.


You wouldn't know your arse from your elbow, you clown. Go get an education.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
Please see next post. Thanks.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2019
@Benni
@ShotmanMaslo.

@Benni, as @ShotmanMaslo said:
Just because a singularity is in the black hole according to GR, does not mean it has to be there in reality.
Yes; CENTRAL 'BH singularity' was a SPECULATIVE EXTRAPOLATION from Equations; NEVER treated as 'real' (EXCEPT by science popularisers, 'hack science' paper/book writers and SCI-FI writers). So please drop your unnecessary 'BH singularity' provocations; no-one NOW seriously claims CENTRAL 'BH singularities' actually 'exist'. As for 'escape velocity', that is solely a function of the outgoing speed needed by any energy-space feature (be it matter or photon) to 'travel indefinitely' upwards AGAINST surrounding energy-space 'gravity effect' GRADIENT. That's all. :)

@ShotmanMaslo, "Black HOLE" term was 'hyperbole' used for 'dramatic effect' by 'popular-science/science-fiction' to evoke images of 'tears in 'spacetime fabric'. The term "Black STAR" is better; implying NO 'tear' in energy-space continuum. :)

Cheers.
granville583762
3 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
Postponed, Cancelled it means the same
Who'd have thought it
The Picci
The Black Canvas
The Picci of the millennia
Has been cancelled
Just one more time
This once
Till next Time, the Picci
The Black Canvas


Castrogiovanni> Shut up you fool. Nothing has been cancelled, you ignorant troll. Go away. Get an education. Learn science. Learn English.

It is all the same
as long as there is no Picci
this Picci is cancelled
because
this will be a huge announcement
much like the gravitational wave announcements
two independent teams are to looked at the data
this will be checked
papers written
then there will be peer review and alterations based on that

Even as, TrollianCastroGiovanni
we wait in anticipation
even as no one has seen this Picci
you talk of alterations to this Picci based on peer review
Repainting, The Black Canvas
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
After @RC has been seen lying on hundreds of threads, I see no reason why anything this troll says should be even responded to other than to note it lies like a rug.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Mar 14, 2019
@ Really-Skippy. How you are Cher? I am good and thanks for asking.

What you mean with,,,,,,

Please see next post.

,,,,,, you are afraid somebody might miss him?

Thanks.

De rien Cher, even though it is weird it really is no trouble.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 14, 2019
TrollianCastroGiovanni

Even as you talk of repainting this Black Canvas
even as you talk of postponing this Black Canvas
apparently
this
Event Horizon Telescope
has been shut down
so
TrollianCastroGiovanni
despite rebranding your product
rebranding your name
your Obfuscation
is still as it was
As slippery as this Black Canvas
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2019
@Da Schneib.
After @RC has been seen lying on hundreds of threads, I see no reason why anything this troll says should be even responded to other than to note it lies like a rug.
Again with your silly faux pas, mate? Did you even READ and UNDERSTAND properly what I posted? If you had, you would have seen I agreed with @ShotmanMaslo and asked @Benni to cease and desist his unnecessary "central BH singularity" provocations because it is silly (just like you are being now, DS). Please stop knee jerking to your own personal prejudices and agendas, and start actually reading/understanding fairly/objectively. Thanks. :)
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2019
Black holes are really defined by event horizon, escape velocity above the speed of light.
Escape Velocity is confined to Kinetic Energy of accelerating particles, not EM Waves.

Aren't EM waves just photon packets of varying Frequencies?
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
If it was shut down in 2017, how did they gather more data?
Hard of reading, it was all taken before Dec'17, no data has been taken since. The data they took in two separate runs in '17 has not been published

these telescopes worth millions were "shut down?"
They're radio antennae, they are no longer connected to form a single dish.

Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
You said they were
shut down
. Your own words. They aren't.

Thanks for admitting you lied again, @Benni.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
As for 'escape velocity', that is solely a function of the outgoing speed needed by any energy-space feature (be it matter or photon)
.........wrong RC.

Escape Velocity is calculated from: KE=1/2mv²................. v=√2gr. This for PARTICLE acceleration ONLY.

An electro.magnetic wave is not a particle of MASS, therefore is not subject to the laws of motion in kinetic energy calculations. thus no calculable Escape Velocity.

Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
Black holes are really defined by event horizon, escape velocity above the speed of light.


Escape Velocity is confined to Kinetic Energy of accelerating particles, not EM Waves.


Aren't EM waves just photon packets of varying Frequencies?
......so what's that got to do with KINETIC ENERGY, KE=1/2mv² ? Don't see any EM Wave photons in this formula. do you?
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
You said they were
shut down
. Your own words. They aren't.
.......if they are no longer connected forming the same antennae grid, it is shut down & no future plans to take more data ever again, unless they can somehow DOUBLE the size of the original antennae.

wailuku1943
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019


So you have a picture?

Not a single BH has been OBSERVED by photography & failure of the Event Horizon Radio Telescope has proven a picture will never be obtained.


Just today I was at the VLA, took few pictures, and forwarded them to a friend who's the director of a major observatory. He replied, and I quote, "Anticipate a major announcement made by another interferometer (bigger than [VLA]) next month..."

So, we wait.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
@Benni.
As for 'escape velocity', that is solely a function of the outgoing speed needed by any energy-space feature (be it matter or photon)
.........wrong RC.

Escape Velocity is calculated from: KE=1/2mv²................. v=ď��Ĺ�2gr. This for PARTICLE acceleration ONLY.

An electro.magnetic wave is not a particle of MASS, therefore is not subject to the laws of motion in kinetic energy calculations. thus no calculable Escape Velocity.
You all need to discern 'calculation method' from actual dynamics of 'escape velocity' situation, regardless of the objects under study (matter or energy forms). That you all are NOT making this discernment, is why your mutual exchanges keep going round and round in futile cross-misunderstandings re salient point; ie: gravity-effect-well gradients, and applicable 'escape speeds/limits' for ANYTHING attempting to translate indefinitely across affected energy-space (against inwards directed effects of said gradients). :)
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2019
You know my hypothesis, that there is nothing but gravitrons inside an Event Horizon,.
There is not enough information or a working Quantum Gravity Theory available to explain what little we do know right now at this Time..
About whatever phenomena is occurring within a BH=SO?
Maybe, eventually, perhaps, it will be determined to be a Singularity as we define the possibility? Or, maybe a variation of wormholes?

We need to separate the photographic pinups of accretion disks?/englobement?
Surrounding the BH_EH.
From the unphotographiable void inside.

Here is where in my ignorance? Egotism? Hubris? Any real difference? From Hawking's Radiation prediction.
It is possible, perhaps, we will develop technology sophisticated enough to "photograph" quantum particles at a distance?

- cont'd -
cantdrive85
2 / 5 (4) Mar 14, 2019
Can you explain the stellar orbits without recourse to a BH?


Here ya go;

https://www.resea...ophysics
rrwillsj
1 / 5 (3) Mar 14, 2019
- cont'd -
That whay is pictured will only occur along the edge of an Event Horizon. When infalling Matter & Energy is disintegrated into Planck Foundational gravitrons.

That is why all that comes out of BH=SO is Gravitational Attraction. Cause all that is inside is Gravity.

There is where I have the temerity? childish enthusiasm? rolling the dice, here. From Hawking. As the HR he predicts does not come from inside the EH but from the outside edge od shredded material rejected from "For Every action, there is a reaction. Not all the infall, falls in but gets kicked away?

Therefore the speculated quanta radiation IS NOT, WILL NOT cause the BH to evaporate.

That the aggregate of gravitrons will never lessen but rather continue to accumulate forever.
There is no "Fabric" of SpaceTime to be torn or tunneled. No Macro-Universe to burst into. .

Maybe, trillions of years from now, the engorged BHs will cause weird results in Local Space-Time?
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
You said they were
shut down
. Your own words. They aren't.
.......if they are no longer connected forming the same antennae grid, it is shut down & no future plans to take more data ever again, unless they can somehow DOUBLE the size of the original antennae.

You haven't got the slightest clue what this even means. And you're lying again; there're other targets. M31 and M33. And the data haven't even been processed yet and you're already lying about that too.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 14, 2019
You all need to discern 'calculation method' from actual dynamics of 'escape velocity' situation, regardless of the objects under study (matter or energy forms). That you all are NOT making this discernment, is why your mutual exchanges keep going round and round in futile cross-misunderstandings re salient point; ie: gravity-effect-well gradients, and applicable 'escape speeds/limits' for ANYTHING attempting to translate indefinitely across affected energy-space (against inwards directed effects of said gradients). :)
........pure unadulterated psycho-babble from you RC.

Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2019
And the data haven't even been processed yet and you're already lying about that too
.....it's been processed, that's why the announcement came out last October from a European team member that the number of DISHES must be doubled, he had a doubtful tone to his voice this would ever happen......the kiss of death for your precious pathway to get a pic of the fabled SMBH at SgrA*.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
@Benni.
You all need to discern 'calculation method' from actual dynamics of 'escape velocity' situation, regardless of the objects under study (matter or energy forms). That you all are NOT making this discernment, is why your mutual exchanges keep going round and round in futile cross-misunderstandings re salient point; ie: gravity-effect-well gradients, and applicable 'escape speeds/limits' for ANYTHING attempting to translate indefinitely across affected energy-space (against inwards directed effects of said gradients). :)
........pure unadulterated psycho-babble from you RC.
In similar vein as "The territory is NOT the map", the Dynamics itself is NOT the 'calculation construct' we may use to analyse/predict etc that dynamics. Please try to understand this very crucial EFFECTIVE distinction, Benni; else you'll be in the same 'misunderstandings boat' as those who believe that 'time is space' etc. :)
Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 14, 2019
In similar vein as "The territory is NOT the map", the Dynamics itself is NOT the 'calculation construct' we may use to analyse/predict etc that dynamics. Please try to understand this very crucial EFFECTIVE distinction, Benni; else you'll be in the same 'misunderstandings boat' as those who believe that 'time is space' etc. :)
......you & Schneibo both,move on to the 21st Century, the 1900's are never coming back.

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
@Benni.
In similar vein as "The territory is NOT the map", the Dynamics itself is NOT the 'calculation construct' we may use to analyse/predict etc that dynamics. Please try to understand this very crucial EFFECTIVE distinction, Benni; else you'll be in the same 'misunderstandings boat' as those who believe that 'time is space' etc. :)
......you & Schneibo both,move on to the 21st Century, the 1900's are never coming back.

Is that 'response' a DS-like tactic to distract from the fact that you do not understand the effective distinction I just pointed out for you/everyone, mate? Sounds like it. Please don't go all 'DS' on me now, Benni. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Mar 14, 2019
Yes, the instruments are detecting something out there, but these are not photos

Soooo...sound also doesn't exist for you? 'Cause: no photos.
Or heat? 'Cause: no photos
How about smell? No? 'Cause: no photos.
....and the list could go on and on.

Have to agree with Mr. MrBojangles on this one: Dumbass.
says a_p

Your short list of sound, heat and smell are some of the 5 senses that are processed by the mind/brain of humans and animals and certain plant-life. But it still remains that no actual photos are forthcoming to provide clearcut evidence that the alleged BHs or their alleged Event Horizons exist.
IIRC the EHT was supposed to provide a photo of a "shadow" of the Black Hole or its EH. Until such evidence of a "shadow", at the very least is provided - there is still not evidence that Black Hole exists, and that there may be something else there that isn't a BH. We can only wait and see.
cantdrive85
2.2 / 5 (10) Mar 14, 2019
EHT- Hypothetical interpretations using maths based faerie tales leads to a contrived photo of a ghostly silhouette.
Da Schneib
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2019
See, here's the problem, @SRU.

You ask us all to disbelieve in our senses.

This is classical solipsism. Navel-gazing. Fantasy. Philosopy for psychotics and exactly the reason scientists don't pay any attention to philosophers.

Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2019
And see, this is why you always find the self-styled philosophers denying basic stuff like space, time, and math. Otherwise they look like what they are: idiot trolls.

This has been clear since the Sokal Affair.
Castrogiovanni
3 / 5 (12) Mar 15, 2019
EHT- Hypothetical interpretations using maths based faerie tales leads to a contrived photo of a ghostly silhouette.


Another clueless comment. Please explain what the cause of the stellar orbits are around Sgr A*. And what is causing the gravitational redshift? Hint; mass. Please give a scientifically viable explanation for these things, instead of displaying your faith-based, unscientific ignorance. Just for a change.
kl31415
3.8 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2019


"Singularity

Main article: Gravitational singularity"

"At the center of a black hole, as described by general relativity, lies a gravitational singularity, a region where the spacetime curvature {gravity) becomes infinite. For a non-rotating black hole, this region takes the shape of a single point and for a rotating black hole, it is smeared out to form a ring singularity that lies in the plane of rotation. In both cases, the singular region has zero volume. It can also be shown that the singular region contains all the mass of the black hole solution. The singular region can thus be thought of as having infinite density."

https://en.wikipe...ack_hole


Everyone should observe that Benni edited the paragraph to his own liking and the text doesn't match the text on Wikipedia. :)
This is how badly Benni wants to prove he is right :D

And still miserably failing to do so, muahahaha :D
Castrogiovanni
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 15, 2019
And the data haven't even been processed yet and you're already lying about that too
.....it's been processed, that's why the announcement came out last October from a European team member that the number of DISHES must be doubled, he had a doubtful tone to his voice this would ever happen......the kiss of death for your precious pathway to get a pic of the fabled SMBH at SgrA*.


Liar. What is it with these clueless cranks? No science to offer, so let's just lie about stuff.
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2019
Is that 'response' a DS-like tactic to distract from the fact that you do not understand the effective distinction I just pointed out for you/everyone, mate? Sounds like it. Please don't go all 'DS' on me now, Benni. :)
..........then don't descend into a DS cycle of psycho-babble by refusing to distinguish between KINETIC ENERGY & ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY as if by treating a PHOTON like it was a PARTICLE somehow makes it subject to the Laws of Kinetic Energy which is what Schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath problem is all about.

So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon. So, if you think you've finally figured it out as Benni has been explaining it to those of YOU in the hard of reading crowd, then you're welcome, but first you can put up a "THANK YOU Benni for the reality check".

Castrogiovanni
3.2 / 5 (13) Mar 15, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.

Benni
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.
......for you it's Anthropology & being an Oncology Physical Therapist, beyond that jonesy you're lost in a sea of self imposed psycho-babble & fantasy from which you will never be able to extricate yourself, at least I have hope for RealityCheck.
Castrogiovanni
3 / 5 (12) Mar 15, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.
......for you it's Anthropology & being an Oncology Physical Therapist, beyond that jonesy you're lost in a sea of self imposed psycho-babble & fantasy from which you will never be able to extricate yourself, at least I have hope for RealityCheck.


You are clueless on this subject. Why are you here?
Benni
1.8 / 5 (10) Mar 15, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.
......for you it's Anthropology & being an Oncology Physical Therapist, beyond that jonesy you're lost in a sea of self imposed psycho-babble & fantasy from which you will never be able to extricate yourself, at least I have hope for RealityCheck.


You are clueless on this subject. Why are you here?
........for the entertainment clowns like you provide.
Castrogiovanni
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 15, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.
......for you it's Anthropology & being an Oncology Physical Therapist, beyond that jonesy you're lost in a sea of self imposed psycho-babble & fantasy from which you will never be able to extricate yourself, at least I have hope for RealityCheck.


You are clueless on this subject. Why are you here?
........for the entertainment clowns like you provide.


But you don't know anything about the relevant science, and you have no science to back you up. You just make things up. I say again - why are you here?
kl31415
4.1 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.
......for you it's Anthropology & being an Oncology Physical Therapist, beyond that jonesy you're lost in a sea of self imposed psycho-babble & fantasy from which you will never be able to extricate yourself, at least I have hope for RealityCheck.


LMAO

You are brilliant ! Doesn't really matter what you think you know, but jonesdave and I are two different people.

Wtf is an Oncology Physical therapist ??? hahahaha

Radiotherapist/radiographer, now that is a real thing.

At least I don' have to pretend to be a nuclear engineer who doesn't understand radioactive decay hahahah.

Castrogiovanni
3.2 / 5 (11) Mar 15, 2019
Dear Benni, the uneducated uber-crank;

"Black holes cannot exist, as EM radiation is not affected by gravity."

Insert name of scientist claiming this here:

Provide link to the paper here:

Get on with it, and stop commenting on things that are way beyond your ability to understand.
kl31415
4 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2019

But you don't know anything about the relevant science, and you have no science to back you up. You just make things up. I say again - why are you here?


@Castrogiovanni

He is here to spread his "knowledge" and expose the lies of today's science fraudsters...

Cause mean lifetime is not what it is, it is something else - as defined by the great brilliant mind of the differential equasionist Benni, who also, could not provide an answer to the simple, yet so complex equation of 2+2/2=?

MrBojangles
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2019
KINETIC ENERGY & ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY PHOTON PARTICLE TUGMath
ESCAPE VELOCITY


Whoa, easy there, stop confusing yourself with all of these big words!

Did you read those nice books with the pretty pictures yet?
First, you need to learn the difference between mass and volume, then we can move on to more complex stuff.

One step at a time Benni boy.
kl31415
4 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2019
KINETIC ENERGY & ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY PHOTON PARTICLE TUGMath
ESCAPE VELOCITY


Whoa, easy there, stop confusing yourself with all of these big words!

Did you read those nice books with the pretty pictures yet?
First, you need to learn the difference between mass and volume, then we can move on to more complex stuff.

One step at a time Benni boy.


Do any of those books explain the meaning of words 'mean' and 'average' by any chance ?

(I've not checked the link :D)
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2019
@kl31415
Wtf is an Oncology Physical therapist ???
Long answer:
physical therapists and physical therapist assistants managing the musculoskeletal, neuromuscular, integumentary and cardiopulmonary rehabilitative needs of patients resulting from the treatment of active cancer disease. This encompasses acute secondary sequelae of cancer treatments such as surgery, radiation therapy, and chemotherapy as well as long-term secondary sequelae of treatments and palliative care

short answer:
oncology rehab
https://oncologypt.org/
rrwillsj
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 15, 2019
benni has nothing to say
& he/she/it says it a lot!

The gravity of benni's singular situation is such, that the rest of us are burdened with the after effects of his self-administered electro-shock treatments.

I'm sure he/she/it makes a modest living selling to the suckers, he/she/its (not really) Patented Electro-Shock Gaurrunteeed Cure for the Scourge of Terminal Dandruff!
kl31415
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2019
@kl31415
Wtf is an Oncology Physical therapist ???


short answer:
oncology rehab
https://oncologypt.org/


@Captain Stumpy
Yeah, I know about physical therapy, was one of the courses at my uni.
Benni was trying to make a joke about my work, I am a nurse and a radiotherapist.

Besides this one 'academy', a quick search on Google Scholar shows no results for Oncology physical therapist, but physical therapy will be a part of rehabilitation always if there is a need for it, so seems like an unnecessary addition to the title, a physical therapist can provide physical therapy for all patients.

kl31415
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2019
Although everything is becoming so specialised these days, so not too surprised with this naming convention, just never seen it before for physical therapy, tbh.

Happy Friday all you science lovers and have a good weekend ! :)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 15, 2019
Benni was trying to make a joke about my work, I am a nurse and a radiotherapist
benji is an idiot

I'm curious: RN, BSN or higher?

I am not sure how that works for the nurse part, but I know that most places require a baccalaureate degree or postgraduate for radiation therapy, so I thought I would ask
shows no results for Oncology physical therapist... so seems like an unnecessary addition to the title
agreed
they don't have them around here, but I've seen the odd person from Canada and the UK use the term

around here it's all just PT
the weird thing is the Alexandria, VA address

VA physical therapists only recognize 8 specialising in oncology and I don't see a medical license for the org (Current as of 03/15/2019 13:01)

trying to find accreditation, but nothing so far...

perhaps this is a new specialist academy trying to flex its muscles?

:-)
rrwillsj
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 15, 2019
It is refreshing to read,
that the Ontological specialists,
based on accredited Real Science,
are achieving results fighting Stochastic Biology.
Where the patents survive to need physiotherapy!
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2019
@Benni.
..know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.
Did you understand the distinction I made between analysis/calculation abstract construct and energy-space real dynamics under analysis/calculation?

If so, now please understand also that GRAVITY EFFECT is a consequence of real energy-space 'conditioning' by a mass/energy 'feature' that establishes an 'inwards acceleration gradient' within the surrounding energy-space per se; which AFFECTS ANY subsidiary mass/energy 'feature' occurring/moving within that surrounding energy-space (be they atom, body or photon).

Hence 'escape velocity' is just an 'indicative term' for the necessary 'propagation rate' that such atom, body or photon must achieve if they are to propagate out of and away (from the applicable gravitational field GRADIENT) on a NON-RETURNING TRAJECTORY/PATH.

So no matter HOW WE 'calculate' applicable escape velocities, its GRAVITY EFFECT that determines what escapes or not.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2019
Hence 'escape velocity' is just an 'indicative term' for the necessary 'propagation rate' that such atom, body or photon must achieve if they are to propagate out of and away (from the applicable gravitational field GRADIENT) on a NON-RETURNING TRAJECTORY/PATH.
......you don't know what you're talking about as soon as you include "photon".

Gravity has absolutely ZERO effect on the speed of light. That's Schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath pseudo-science brought to that century by EXACTLY the same bunch who concocted Aether Theory.

It was popular vogue in Schneibo's favorite century that the speed of light depended on the strength of the gravitational field through which the "light particle" was traveling. Then be damned, some smartass over in Germany came along in 1905 & spoiled the party proving light was actually a WAVE & not a PARTICLE & under no conditions was it's velocity governed by the STRENGTH of any gravitational field, and that has NEVER been FALSIFIED.

Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2019
@Benni, Eddington 1919.

You're lying again @Benni.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2019
@Benni, Eddington 1919.
.........what?

Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2019
If you don't know why 1919 was important nor who Eddington was you are not competent to talk about gravity. And you're lying about it. It's like claiming to be a nuclear engineer and not knowing what half-life is. Or like claiming to be able to solve differential equations and trolling when faced with real ones. Or like not being able to solve

2 + 2 / 2 = ?
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2019
If you don't know why 1919 was important nor who Eddington was you are not competent to talk about gravity.
......I'm talking about the velocity of light, it's you who wants to talk about something else that has ZERO to do with the velocity of light.

So why don't you want to talk about your 19th Century TUGMath math solution as it was applied to the speed of light & got fixed by Einstein in 1905, Eddington changed nothing about light velocity in 1919, looks like you're the liar if you claim he did.

So tell us old man, what did Eddington due to prove anything about the velocity of light, that it never changes within the strength of any field of gravity, that it is a never changing CONSTANT ? You can't quote it can you? Or if you can, then quote it.......waiting
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2019
@Benni, what do you think happens to light when it curves around a significant gravitational anomaly?
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 15, 2019
@Benni
Hence 'escape velocity' is just an 'indicative term' for the necessary 'propagation rate' that such atom, body or photon must achieve if they are to propagate out of and away (from the applicable gravitational field GRADIENT) on a NON-RETURNING TRAJECTORY/PATH.
... Gravity has absolutely ZERO effect on the speed of light.
I know what you're saying. And I would agree that a photon's speed going up/down Earth's gravity gradient is neither decreased nor increased; ie, only the frequency differences show up between emitters/detectors in the relevant experiments, no speed change is evident.

But that's not the whole story, mate. There is a SUBTLE FACTOR ALSO to be taken into account in EXTREME gradients such as those around 'Black STAR' features. I cannot say much more at this time, since this further subtlety will be explained as part of my complete ToE.

I will give you a hint though: Going 'up/down', ALL things lose/gain energy of one sort or another. :)
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2019
@Benni, what do you think happens to light when it curves around a significant gravitational anomaly?

......just like when I put one of my trucks on a cruise control setting out on the highway, it doesn't change.

So what do YOU think an EM Wave Photon does? Changes to move at half it's cruise control speed?
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2019
I will give you a hint though: Going 'up/down', ALL things lose/gain energy of one sort or another.


Well then, let Benni be the one to help you out here. An EM Wave Photon has ONLY one speed at ANY wavelength, and neither you nor schneibo can prove differently except to use the farce of schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath that was concocted by exactly the same 19th Century cosmologists that brought us Aether Theory.

Look at what schniebo just tried to pull off, the same thing you are, just by a different means.

Here's a new moniker for the chatroom: RealityCheck/Schneibo
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 15, 2019
@Benni.
I will give you a hint though: Going 'up/down', ALL things lose/gain energy of one sort or another.
An EM Wave Photon has ONLY one speed at ANY wavelength, and neither you nor schneibo can prove differently...
I just posted the agreement with that, even alluding to experiments which have already long proved same, didn't I? :)

Anyhow, the speed value is not the only factor in the context of escaping/not escaping the Black STAR extreme gravity gradient, as I already hinted at. :)
Look at what schniebo just tried to pull off, the same thing you are, just by a different means
No I didn't. :)
Here's a new moniker for the chatroom: RealityCheck/Schneibo
Now that's a 'low blow', mate, equating me with DS. Not sporting, old chap. :)

ps: So if you have further beef with DS that's your affair, Benni, but please leave me out of your mutual loathings. Ta. :)
Da Schneib
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2019
I think it changes direction, and how much depends upon how much mass.

BTW, the correct answer is, "it changes velocity."
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 15, 2019
...
Gravity has absolutely ZERO effect on the speed of light. That's Schneibo's 19th Century TUGMath pseudo-science brought to that century by EXACTLY the same bunch who concocted Aether Theory.
It was popular vogue in Schneibo's favorite century that the speed of light depended on the strength of the gravitational field through which the "light particle" was traveling. Then be damned, some smartass over in Germany came along in 1905 & spoiled the party proving light was actually a WAVE & not a PARTICLE & under no conditions was it's velocity governed by the STRENGTH of any gravitational field, and that has NEVER been FALSIFIED.

While gravity may not be able to change the speed of light, it CAN change the curvature (direction of travel)...
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
@Benni
Hence 'escape velocity' is just an 'indicative term' for the necessary 'propagation rate' that such atom, body or photon must achieve if they are to propagate out of and away (from the applicable gravitational field GRADIENT) on a NON-RETURNING TRAJECTORY/PATH.
... Gravity has absolutely ZERO effect on the speed of light.
I know what you're saying. And I would agree that a photon's speed going up/down Earth's gravity gradient is neither decreased nor increased; ie, only the frequency differences show up between emitters/detectors in the relevant xperiments, no speed change is evident.

But that's not the whole story, mate. There is a SUBTLE FACTOR ALSO to be taken into account in EXTREME gradients such as those around 'Black STAR' features. I cannot say much more at this time, since this further subtlety will be explained as part of my complete ToE.

I'm waiting with (un)bated breath for it...
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
So far I haven't seen evidence from anything either you or Schneibo have written that either one of you know what ESCAPE VELOCITY is & why it DOES NOT apply to an EM Wave Photon.


Wrong. Stick to a subject you understand. Whatever that might be.
......for you it's Anthropology & being an Oncology Physical Therapist, beyond that jonesy you're lost in a sea of self imposed psycho-babble & fantasy from which you will never be able to extricate yourself, at least I have hope for RealityCheck.

I believe that is ON-CALL Physical Therapist...
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
anyhow, the speed value is not the only factor in the context of escaping/not escaping the Black STAR extreme gravity gradient, as I already hinted at.
.......there is NOTHING ELSE other than SPEED, this because that is what determines ESCAPE VELOCITY as derived form KE=1/2mv².

Neither you or schneibo comprehend the difference between SPEED or ACCELERATION. The SPEED of light is not an ACCELERATION factor in E=mc², but it is for a particle in KE=1/2mv², but neither you nor schneibo know enough about either equation that you comprehend the difference between the two,

What other than changing the speed of anything via 1/2mv² will change this: "the speed value is not the only factor in the context of escaping/not escaping the Black STAR" ???? What are you, pregnant with a brainchild? Probably something that will look like Schneibo's 19th Century Cosmology TUGMath solution?



Castrogiovanni
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2019
anyhow, the speed value is not the only factor in the context of escaping/not escaping the Black STAR extreme gravity gradient, as I already hinted at.
.......there is NOTHING ELSE other than SPEED, this because that is what determines ESCAPE VELOCITY as derived form KE=1/2mv².

Neither you or schneibo comprehend the difference between SPEED or ACCELERATION. The SPEED of light is not an ACCELERATION factor in E=mc², but it is for a particle in KE=1/2mv², but neither you nor schneibo know enough about either equation that you comprehend the difference between the two,

What other than changing the speed of anything via 1/2mv² will change this: "the speed value is not the only factor in the context of escaping/not escaping the Black STAR" ???? What are you, pregnant with a brainchild? Probably something that will look like Schneibo's 19th Century Cosmology TUGMath solution?





Shut up. You know nothing about the subject. Why are you here?
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
I think it changes direction, and how much depends upon how much mass.


Yeah, we know old man.......your 19th Century TUGMath solution subjecting as EM Wave Photon to the kinetic energy laws of physics for a particle of mass. Go ahead, "think" any pseudo-science dumbass thing you want about applying the laws of kinetic energy to an EM Wave Photon, but just remember, all you are is a Schneibo who would be laughed right out of ANY physics college classroom by trying to make this kind of a presentation.

BTW, the correct answer is, "it changes velocity."


No, because "velocity" INCLUDES SPEED, drop the vector & speed will not change. All you did was make it directionless by using SPEED as opposed to using VELOCITY , therefore no field of gravity exists that changes the SPEED part of VELOCITY, drop the vector from VELOCITY & you're still left with SPEED which for an EM Wave Photon will ALWAYS remain the same.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
Shut up. You know nothing about the subject. Why are you here?
........ONLY because classless neophytes like you are here promoting 19th Century Cosmology because you're unable to comprehend the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy.

Within the units by which SPEED is measured within the laws of kinetic energy I have my doubts you know the difference between ACCELERATION or VELOCITY which are measured in exactly the same units, that of SPEED.

Castrogiovanni
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2019
Shut up. You know nothing about the subject. Why are you here?
........ONLY because classless neophytes like you are here promoting 19th Century Cosmology because you're unable to comprehend the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy.

Within the units by which SPEED is measured within the laws of kinetic energy I have my doubts you know the difference between ACCELERATION or VELOCITY which are measured in exactly the same units, that of SPEED.



Be quiet, you fool. You know nothing about the subject. I have already asked you to provide the papers which deny that light cannot be trapped by a BH. Let's see them. We are not interested in listening to clueless idiots like you.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
Eddington, 1919, @Benni.

You're lying again.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
Shut up. You know nothing about the subject. Why are you here?
........ONLY because classless neophytes like you are here promoting 19th Century Cosmology because you're unable to comprehend the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy.

Within the units by which SPEED is measured within the laws of kinetic energy I have my doubts you know the difference between ACCELERATION or VELOCITY which are measured in exactly the same units, that of SPEED.


I have already asked you to provide the papers which deny that light cannot be trapped by a BH. Let's see them. We are not interested in listening to clueless idiots like you.
......you put yours up FALSIFYING my claim according to the laws of kinetic energy that light CAN BE TRAPPED without resorting to schneibo's 19th century TUGMath which has zero scientific value in the 21st century.
Castrogiovanni
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2019
Shut up. You know nothing about the subject. Why are you here?
........ONLY because classless neophytes like you are here promoting 19th Century Cosmology because you're unable to comprehend the difference between Kinetic Energy & Electro-Magnetic Energy.

Within the units by which SPEED is measured within the laws of kinetic energy I have my doubts you know the difference between ACCELERATION or VELOCITY which are measured in exactly the same units, that of SPEED.


I have already asked you to provide the papers which deny that light cannot be trapped by a BH. Let's see them. We are not interested in listening to clueless idiots like you.
......you put yours up FALSIFYING my claim according to the laws of kinetic energy that light CAN BE TRAPPED without resorting to schneibo's 19th century TUGMath which has zero scientific value in the 21st century.


Go look in the scientific literature, dumbo.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
TUG isn't from the 19th century. It's Newton.

And it was used to fly to the Moon.

You're lying again, @Benni.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
TUG isn't from the 19th century. It's Newton.

And it was used to fly to the Moon.

You're lying again, @Benni.


.....but you've been using it's 19th Century application to prove the speed "light particles" are subject to is the gravitational fields in which "light particles" are traveling, all brought to us by the same bunch of cosmologists that brought us 19th Century Aether Theory.
Castrogiovanni
2.6 / 5 (10) Mar 16, 2019
TUG isn't from the 19th century. It's Newton.

And it was used to fly to the Moon.

You're lying again, @Benni.


.....but you've been using it's 19th Century application to prove the speed "light particles" are subject to the gravitational fields in which "light particles" are traveling, all brought to us by the same bunch of cosmologists that brought us 19th Century Aether Theory.


Stop talking nonsense you untutored fool.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
No, @Benni. I've been using it to show that the prediction of velocity change seen in light by gravity is a prediction of every gravity theory we have, which would be TUG and GRT. Newton and Einstein both.

You're lying again, @Benni.
rrwillsj
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
benni, you lying slut!
you deliberately twisted RC's comment about velocity in a gravity well.
Obfuscating your own ignorance by claiming RC had said anything about Gravity slowing the Speed of Light.

You bennidiota, are bleating one of your fabulous strawman arguments.
To, futilely, try too conceal your ignorance of Physics,
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
No, @Benni. I've been using it to show that the prediction of velocity change seen in light by gravity is a prediction of every gravity theory we have
......except that your "prediction of velocity change" is meaningless.

You are falsely trying to imply a vector is a force by which you can subject a EM Wave Photon into reversing direction by 180° thereby trapping it into orbit or onto the surface making it immobile to Escape Velocity.

The SPEED of light has nothing to do with DIRECTION & cannot be trapped to prevent it from moving at any SPEED other than that set forth in E=mc².......bet you don't know how to transpose the equation to solve for SPEED.

Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2019
No, @Benni. I've been using it to show that the prediction of velocity change seen in light by gravity is a prediction of every gravity theory we have
......except that your "prediction of velocity change" is meaningless.

You are falsely trying to imply a vector is a force by which you can subject a EM Wave Photon into reversing direction by 180° thereby trapping it into orbit or onto the surface making it immobile to Escape Velocity.

The SPEED of light has nothing to do with DIRECTION & cannot be trapped to prevent it from moving at any SPEED other than that set forth in E=mc².......bet you don't know how to transpose the equation to solve for SPEED.



So show us the scientist who is saying this, you ignorant clown. How difficult can it be? Just post a link, or shut up, you fool.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
The 1919 Eddington results are incontrovertible.

You're lying again, @Benni.

And for the record, velocity is a vector. It's not speed alone but also direction. So a velocity change doesn't necessarily imply a change in speed, but it does imply an acceleration, in this case an acceleration imposed on light by gravity. That's what Eddington proved in 1919.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
So a velocity change doesn't necessarily imply a change in speed, but it does imply an acceleration, in this case an acceleration imposed on light by gravity.
......19th Century TUGMath calculation for calculating "particles of light" in a gravity field. You don't mind tripping all over yourself do you?

You don't even know what "acceleration" is. It's the change in speed of a mass caused by a change of the kinetic energy to the MASS. An EM Wave Photon is not MASS, therefore is not subject to laws of kinetic energy be they inputting or outputting energy to the system, but you will never figure this out, you're too stuck in the 19th Century with the same guys who brought us Aether Therory as well as "an acceleration imposed on light by gravity" theory that has no basis in Einstein's SR or GR.

Old man, you're way over the hill, cash it in & find a different retirement career, being a chatroom Moderator isn't it.
Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
Go around a corner at 30 MPH in a car. Your velocity has changed, but your speed hasn't. And you can feel the acceleration; that's what pushes you to the side as you turn.

And acceleration acts not on speed or KE or any of the other bullshit you're talking about, but on momentum, which if you will recall is a property of matter moving in space; that's why symmetry of experiment across distance is dual under Noether's theorem to conservation of momentum. And momentum is another of those nasty math thingies you can't deal with: a vector, with both magnitude and direction.

This is simple stuff, figured out hundreds of years ago and just as valid today as it was then. Engineers use this math to design a lot of things.

And gee, guess what? Photons may not have mass, but they do have momentum. We can discuss the experiments that prove it if anyone wants to see them, too.

If you're going to argue about physics, it would probably be a good idea to learn some first.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2019
If you're going to argue about physics, it would probably be a good idea to learn some first.


The height of optimism! :)
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
With regard to E=mc², it's actually more properly E² = p²c² + m²c⁴

See that p in there? That's momentum. Note that the fact this has both momentum in it, which is a vectors. Therefore, analysis of this equation requires the use of 4-vectors, and since vectors are scary math and you are innumerate you don't even have a clue what that means.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
So for a photon, since they don't have mass, and the second term has a zero in it, that means it drops out. Therefore, for photons, E² = p²c². There's that nasty mathematical 4-vector in there again.

The full equation applies to matter; the one where the mass term drops out applies to energy. That's how our universe works.

And since gravity acts on momentum, as does acceleration, then gravity can act on photons, and in fact it does, and Eddington proved it in 1919.

Gotta know physics, and if you're gonna know physics, gotta know math. Tossing buzzwords around without understanding what they mean won't help you; everyone will know you're lying.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
With regard to E=mc², it's actually more properly E² = p²c² + m²c⁴

See that p in there? That's momentum. Note that the fact this has both momentum in it, which is a vectors. Therefore, analysis of this equation requires the use of 4-vectors, and since vectors are scary math and you are innumerate you don't even have a clue what that means.

says Da Schniebo

See that p in there? That's Da Pussyman who is all excited to ASSUME that nobody else has learnt all that he thinks he knows, so that he MUST explain what he knows from doing an internet Search to the dummies whom he believes to not know as much as he thinks he knows.
Da Pussyman would be innumerate and lost without the internet Search engines.
Isn't that right, Da S?
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2019
With regard to E=mc², it's actually more properly E² = p²c² + m²c⁴

See that p in there? That's momentum. Note that the fact this has both momentum in it, which is a vectors. Therefore, analysis of this equation requires the use of 4-vectors, and since vectors are scary math and you are innumerate you don't even have a clue what that means.

says Da Schniebo

See that p in there? That's Da Pussyman who is all excited to ASSUME that nobody else has learnt all that he thinks he knows, so that he MUST explain what he knows from doing an internet Search to the dummies whom he believes to not know as much as he thinks he knows.
Da Pussyman would be innumerate and lost without the internet Search engines.
Isn't that right, Da S?


We don't have to ASSUME anything. It is obvious to all and sundry that the likes of you and Benni haven't got a scooby about physics.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
No, @Benni. I've been using it to show that the prediction of velocity change seen in light by gravity is a prediction of every gravity theory we have
......except that your "prediction of velocity change" is meaningless.

You are falsely trying to imply a vector is a force by which you can subject a EM Wave Photon into reversing direction by 180° thereby trapping it into orbit or onto the surface making it immobile to Escape Velocity.

The SPEED of light has nothing to do with DIRECTION & cannot be trapped to prevent it from moving at any SPEED other than that set forth in E=mc².......bet you don't know how to transpose the equation to solve for SPEED.
So show us the scientist. How difficult can it be? Just post a link, or shut up, you fool.
says jonesy

Benni IS CORRECT in that the speed of light is constant and cannot change direction of its initial trajectory, UNLESS it is REDIRECTED by a Mass into another direction but maintains same speed
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
With regard to E=mc², it's actually more E² = p²c² + m²c⁴

See that p in there? That's momentum. Note that the fact this has both momentum in it, which is a vectors. Therefore, analysis of this equation requires the use of 4-vectors, and since vectors are scary math and you are innumerate you don't even have a clue what that means.

says Da Schniebo

See that p in there? That's Da Pussyman who is all excited to ASSUME that nobody else has learnt all that he thinks he knows, so that he MUST explain what he knows from doing an internet Search to the dummies whom he believes to not know as much as he thinks he knows.
Da Pussyman would be innumerate and lost without the internet Search engines.
Isn't that right, Da S?


We don't have to ASSUME anything. It is obvious to all and sundry that the likes of you and Benni
says jonesy

There you go, ASSUMING AGAIN. Benni's qualifications are above yours, jonesy. But don't be so jealous about it.
Castrogiovanni
2.8 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2019
Benni IS CORRECT in that the speed of light is constant and cannot change direction of its initial trajectory, UNLESS it is REDIRECTED by a Mass into another direction but maintains same speed


And when that mass is sufficient, the light cannot escape. It will go round in ever decreasing circles, never to escape. The distance at which this happens is defined by;

Rs = 2GM/ c^2

Which is the Schwarzschild metric, and defines the event horizon. G = gravitational constant, M = mass of the object, and c = speed of light.
You'll notice that the mass of the object being affected is not part of the equation. Plug in 4m solar masses, and see what you get. If you can do that, you are one step ahead of Benni, who couldn't do it.

Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2019


There you go, ASSUMING AGAIN. Benni's qualifications are above yours, jonesy. But don't be so jealous about it.


He has no qualifications, as is obvious from his scientific illiteracy. Certainly not in physics.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
Benni IS CORRECT in that the speed of light is constant and cannot change direction of its initial trajectory, UNLESS it is REDIRECTED by a Mass into another direction but maintains same speed


And when that mass is sufficient, the light cannot escape. It will go round in ever decreasing circles, never to escape. The distance at which this happens is defined by;

Rs = 2GM/ c^2

Which is the Schwarzschild metric, and defines the event horizon. G = gravitational constant, M = mass of the object, and c = speed of light.
You'll notice that the mass of the object being affected is not part of the equation. Plug in 4m solar masses, and see what you get. If you can do that, you are one step ahead of Benni, who couldn't do it.
says jonesy

Sorry, but unless the c photon is on a direct trajectory into an alleged BH, it is NOT going round and round an alleged BH due to its initial and constant speed, where it will just continue on its way into its initial direction
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2019
There you go, ASSUMING AGAIN. Benni's qualifications are above yours, jonesy. But don't be so jealous about it.


In which case he should have no problem finding the scientists who agree with him, and linking to their papers. We are still waiting.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019

Sorry, but unless the c photon is on a direct trajectory into an alleged BH, it is NOT going round and round an alleged BH due to its initial and constant speed, where it will just continue on its way into its initial direction
says I

IF however, its initial trajectory TAKES IT into the path of an alleged BH, it will have no choice but to enter, and possibly go through and emerge from the other side of the BH, without losing speed. Since it is massless, the photon is capable of entering and emerging without being halted or stopped by Mass and Gravity.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2019
Sorry, but unless the c photon is on a direct trajectory into an alleged BH, it is NOT going round and round an alleged BH due to its initial and constant speed, where it will just continue on its way into its initial direction


Stupid fool. What do you think we are talking about? I just showed how close it can get. It is called the event horizon, you stupid boy.

Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2019

Sorry, but unless the c photon is on a direct trajectory into an alleged BH, it is NOT going round and round an alleged BH due to its initial and constant speed, where it will just continue on its way into its initial direction
says I

IF however, its initial trajectory TAKES IT into the path of an alleged BH, it will have no choice but to enter, and possibly go through and emerge from the other side of the BH, without losing speed. Since it is massless, the photon is capable of entering and emerging without being halted or stopped by Mass and Gravity.


What a load of junk. Just link to the scientific work saying that that can happen. Otherwise, stop lying. It is tiresome.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
Sorry, but unless the c photon is on a direct trajectory into an alleged BH, it is NOT going round and round an alleged BH due to its initial and constant speed, where it will just continue on its way into its initial direction


Stupid fool. What do you think we are talking about? I just showed how close it can get. It is called the event horizon, you stupid boy.
says jonesy

Wrong again. The alleged EH has no effect on photons at c, even at 3 million Sun masses. IF you were correct and photons were ALL subjected to capture by alleged Black Holes, the Universe would have gone dark after 13 billion cosmic years. Photons are different from Mass such as Stars, planets, etc.
You continue to equate photons with Mass, for some reason.

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019

Sorry, but unless the c photon is on a direct trajectory into an alleged BH, it is NOT going round and round an alleged BH due to its initial and constant speed, where it will just continue on its way into its initial direction
says I

IF however, its initial trajectory TAKES IT into the path of an alleged BH, it will have no choice but to enter, and possibly go through and emerge from the other side of the BH, without losing speed. Since it is massless, the photon is capable of entering and emerging without being halted or stopped by Mass and Gravity.


What a load of junk. Just link to the scientific work saying that that can happen. Otherwise, stop lying. It is tiresome.


The alleged BH's gravity ends at or near its surface, so that its centre has to be hollow. Which is why there are 2 jets of Matter/Energy emerging from its poles. Photons are able to enter and emerge from the alleged BH due to that hollow within the alleged BH.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019

The alleged BH's gravity ends at or near its surface, so that its centre has to be hollow. Which is why there are 2 jets of Matter/Energy emerging from its poles. Photons are able to enter and emerge from the alleged BH due to that hollow within the alleged BH.
says I

The problem with the BH theory is that its Gravity is soooo strong that even light can't escape from it. The error in the math is that gravity hasn't much power over photons in flight. Otherwise, all the Stars would have gone dark by now, logically.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
Which is the Schwarzschild metric, and defines the event horizon. G = gravitational constant, M = mass of the object, and c = speed of light.


About which Einstein wrote:

Albert Einstein- Oct 1939
On a Stationary System With Spherical Symmetry Consisting of Many Gravitating Masses
Author(s): Albert Einstein Reviewed work(s): Source URL:
http://www.cscamm...hild.pdf

"The "Schwarzschild singularity" does not appear for the reason that matter cannot be concentrated arbitrarily. And this is due to the fact that otherwise the constituting particles would reach the velocity of light.
This investigation arose out of discussions the author conducted with Professor H. P. Robertson and with Drs. V. Bargmann and P. Bergmann on the mathematical and physical significance of the Schwarzschild singularity. The problem quite naturally leads to the question, answered by this paper in the negative."

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019

The alleged BH's gravity ends at or near its surface, so that its centre has to be hollow. Which is why there are 2 jets of Matter/Energy emerging from its poles. Photons are able to enter and emerge from the alleged BH due to that hollow within the alleged BH.
says I

The problem with the BH theory is that its Gravity is soooo strong that even light can't escape from it. The error in the math is that gravity hasn't much power over photons in flight. Otherwise, all the Stars would have gone dark by now, logically.
says I

Ooops. I meant to say: "The error in the math is that gravity has power over photons in flight."
Sorry for my error.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
One star- the Sun- has enough gravity to bend starlight enough that we can see it.

Eddington, 1919.

What will four million stars' worth of mass do? Or is your innumeracy problem so bad you don't know what millions are?
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
And since gravity acts on momentum, as does acceleration, then gravity can act on photons, and in fact it does,
....... E² = p²c² + m²c⁴, don't see anything in this equation with units of gravity in it or units for affecting change in SPEED alias ACCELERATION. There is no acceleration in this equation, only c which is a fixed value.

Da Schneib
3.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
Momentum, @Benni. Old man mo'. Gravity acts on momentum. That's why satellites can stay in orbit.

And what's "SPEED[sic] alias ACCELERATION[sic]" mean? Speed is a scalar; acceleration is a vector. You might as well say "ostriches alias elephants." It would make as much sense.

To put it in more technical terms, velocity is the first derivative of position with respect to time, and acceleration is the second derivative. Newton showed this in the seventeenth century, and no one has disproved it since.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
And since gravity acts on momentum, as does acceleration, then gravity can act on photons, and in fact it does,
....... E² = p²c² + m²c⁴, don't see anything in this equation with units of gravity in it or units for affecting change in SPEED alias ACCELERATION. There is no acceleration in this equation, only c which is a fixed value.

says Benni

Perhaps the "units of gravity" are only inferred, and the reader is required to know what is meant by the lack of such units and place such units of gravity anywhere in the equation, such as where one FEELS is most appropriate, without knowing beforehand where it belongs. ROFLOL
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
And just to drive the stake home, that same equation (as I said above) also holds for mass; so now you're claiming satellites can't orbit the Earth. Which is beyond stupid.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
:D What "units of gravity?" You mean units of mass, like kilograms?

That would be the "m" in the second term.

F = Gmm'/r²

That's Newton's formula for gravity. It turns out what you get is force.

Here, let me translate that for your teeny tiny brain: The force of gravity is equal to the gravitational constant times the product of the two masses divided by the square of the distance between them.

Halley proved it by predicting the return of Halley's Comet, which is why the comet has that name. That was in 1705, and the apparition of his comet occurred as predicted in 1758 (unfortunately after he had died).
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
Incidentally, it's worth noting that Halley funded Newton's publication of the famous "Principia," the full title being, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, or "The Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy." It really is a very famous work, and a fit representation of Newton's genius. I own a copy, translated this decade from the original written in Latin.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
Momentum, @Benni. Old man mo'. Gravity acts on momentum. That's why satellites can stay in orbit.
- Momentum is Mass in Action. Gravity acts on MASS, depending on Velocity, Altitude, Direction and Orientation.

And what's "SPEED[sic] alias ACCELERATION[sic]" mean? Speed is a scalar; acceleration is a vector. You might as well say "ostriches alias elephants." It would make as much sense.
- Speed (velocity) is established, while Acceleration is the force that brings the object up to Speed (velocity).

To put it in more technical terms, velocity is the first derivative of position with respect to time, and acceleration is the second derivative. Newton showed this in the seventeenth century, and no one has disproved it since.
- Velocity is Speed and has nothing to do with the concept of "time" except as a measurement by instruments of the Duration and Distance of that Speed/Velocity wrt the Duration/Distance for which Velocity is measured.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
@Benni.
speed value is not the only factor in the context of escaping/not escaping the Black STAR extreme gravity gradient, as I already hinted
there is NOTHING ELSE other than SPEED, this because that is what determines ESCAPE VELOCITY as derived form KE=1/2mv²
I gave you a hint, mate; ie:
Going 'up/down', ALL things lose/gain energy of one sort or another. :)
Now, if you calmly follow the logical/physical implications of that hint, it should lead you to the FULLER explanation of the REAL energy-space dynamics involved in all phenomena being analysed/described via those ABSTRACT maths etc terms/labels you're all obsessed with, and hence MISS, the REAL energy-space entities/processes (which FUNDAMENTALLY are ALL energy-space 'perturbation features' having more or less inherent/translational degrees of freedom/directional impulse, ie, directed energy-flow-structure/content).
19th Century Cosmology TUGMath
No. Mine is REALITY-BASED-AXIOMATIC maths. Ok? :)
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
Which is the Schwarzschild metric, and defines the event horizon. G = gravitational constant, M = mass of the object, and c = speed of light.


And not a single scientist agrees with that paper. It was a cock-up. Light is affected by gravity. End of story. Einstein was arguing against singularities and BHs. He was wrong, as Oppenheimer showed in '39. And observation has since confirmed. It was nothing to do with light. Get an education, you fool.

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
Speed (velocity)
Speed is not velocity. Speed is a scalar; velocity is a vector. Speed has no direction; velocity is speed plus direction.

The more you bloviate the stupider you look.

And you can't even define speed unless you have time; it's the first derivative of distance with respect to time, which is why it's always in distance per time, like miles per hour, or kilometers per second, or some other distance measurement per a time measurement. Furlongs per fortnight, perhaps.

See, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd already know this. That you don't makes it obvious you're an idiot. Look at the fucking speedometer in your car, idiot. WTF do you think it's measuring if there is no time?
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
Velocity is Speed and has nothing to do with the concept of "time" except as a measurement by instruments of the Duration and Distance of that Speed/Velocity wrt the Duration/Distance for which Velocity is measured.


What the hell are you prattling on about, you untutored fool?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
Sweet jebus, they're now downvoting the history of science.

What kind of idiot do you have to be to do that?

Who's next, Galileo? Da Vinci? Maybe you want to burn them at the stake. Like Giordano Bruno was by their church, with his tongue nailed to the roof of his mouth so he couldn't shout the truth as he died.

These are the same stupid anti-science idiots who have whined about every physics discovery ever.

And who are innumerate. And who worship this: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
Which is the Schwarzschild metric, and defines the event horizon. G = gravitational constant, M = mass of the object, and c = speed of light.


And not a single scientist agrees with that paper. It was a cock-up. Light is affected by gravity. End of story. Einstein was arguing against singularities and BHs. He was wrong, as Oppenheimer showed in '39. And observation has since confirmed. It was nothing to do with light. Get an education, you fool.

says jonesy

You says "light is affected by gravity"? Why, in that case - all light should have been halted by gravitation pull on photons so that they (photons) slow down from their c velocity and can go no further. is that what you're implying?
Singularities/Black Holes are still theoretical, until credible images such as "shadows' are forthcoming. No images - no credibility.
granville583762
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
In this hypothetical blackhole

This Event horizon
this Schwarzschild radius
this Light radius
is only momentarily at a point, differential calculus at a point
in an atomic width
at the speed of light
as
either side of this atomic width
the speed of light diminishes
because
gravity is zero at the centre of mass
so
the speed of light drops to zero at the centre of this blackhole
and
only exist at the speed of light over a femto-metre distance
where
over this miniscule femto-metre distance
this blackholes escape velocity
will in all reality
only reach 299792457m/s
because nature is not perfect
nature is not 100% efficient
in reality
This event horizon will never reach the speed of light
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
When you apologize for burning Giordano Bruno alive with his tongue nailed in his mouth, I will consider whether I wish to forgive. Until you do I will consider you Satan, the enemy of life.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
Speed (velocity)
Speed is not velocity. Speed is a scalar; velocity is a vector. Speed has no direction; velocity is speed plus direction.

And you can't even define speed unless you have time; it's the first derivative of distance with respect to time, which is why it's always in distance per time, like miles per hour, or kilometers per second, or some other distance measurement per a time measurement. Furlongs per fortnight, perhaps.

See, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about, you'd already know this. That you don't makes it obvious you're an idiot. Look at the fucking speedometer in your car, idiot. WTF do you think it's measuring if there is no time?


Speedometers are all manmade instruments to MEASURE THE DISTANCE/DURATION from Point A to B. Time is still only a concept produced by the human mind as an explanation for observed Events/Actions.
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
CLUE: It's not the same as Space
Castrogiovanni
2.7 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
You says "light is affected by gravity"? Why, in that case - all light should have been halted by gravitation pull on photons so that they (photons) slow down from their c velocity and can go no further. is that what you're implying?
Singularities/Black Holes are still theoretical, until credible images such as "shadows' are forthcoming. No images - no credibility.


It is nothing to do with gravitational pull on photons, you fool. Mass warps space-time. Light takes the shortest route through what is a geodesic. Hence gravitational lensing. At extreme masses, such as black holes, the shortest path never leaves the event horizon. It spirals ever inwards. Why don't you go to college, instead of making an ass of yourself on here?

Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
Light is affected by gravity.

Eddington, 1919.

Did you forget, Satan Egg Unit?

Go try to burn someone at the stake with their tongue nailed down so they can't denounce you, Satan.

For an encore you can go lick your dog's vagina again in your basement.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
...
The alleged BH's gravity ends at or near its surface, so that its centre has to be hollow. Which is why there are 2 jets of Matter/Energy emerging from its poles. Photons are able to enter and emerge from the alleged BH due to that hollow within the alleged BH.

This is SO stupid it HAS to be intentionally meant to be so...
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
Quadruplicate. Dafuq is wrong with this site?
Castrogiovanni
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2019
Triplicate.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
Duplicate.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) Mar 16, 2019
Quadruplicate. Dafuq is wrong with this site?

Nothing that a little patience can't cure... :-)
And they shouldn't put the "quote" button right next to the "edit" button....
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
Quadruplicate. Dafuq is wrong with this site?

Nothing that a little patience can't cure... :-)


That's a card game isn't it?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2019
When you apologize for burning Giordano Bruno alive with his tongue nailed in his mouth, I will consider whether I wish to forgive. Until you do I will consider you Satan, the enemy of life.

says Da Schniebo

It is such as YOU who were guilty of burning Giordano Bruno alive for the crime of revealing his own scientific logic to those, such as YOU, who could not accept such logic and condemned him to death. It is such as YOU who are here in this phorum condemning hypotheses such as the nonexistence of "time" and the heresy of new alternative science.
As you are already a worshipper/acolyte of Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub, you will join those others as their flesh begins to rot for all of your sins against the Creator God.
And it is YOU who has invoked the name of your god, Satan.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
Get thee behind me, @Satan_Egg_Unit. I am for life and truth and you are for death and lies.

And for licking your dog's vagina in your basement.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
You says "light is affected by gravity"? Why, in that case - all light should have been halted by gravitation pull on photons so that they (photons) slow down from their c velocity and can go no further. is that what you're implying?
Singularities/Black Holes are still theoretical, until credible images such as "shadows' are forthcoming. No images - no credibility.


It is nothing to do with gravitational pull on photons, you fool. Mass warps space-time. Light takes the shortest route through what is a geodesic. Hence gravitational lensing. At extreme masses, such as black holes, the shortest path never leaves the event horizon. It spirals ever inwards. Why don't you go to college, instead of making an ass of yourself on here?

says jonesy

Mass warps Space, you idiot. Mass can't warp time since time does not exist except in the minds of the observers. Gravitational lensing only occurs when photons encounter Mass and is redirected toward another trajectory.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan_Egg_Unit demonstrates its ignorance again.

1919, Eddington. The time for the photons to arrive was affected by gravity.

You're lying again, @Satan.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan_Egg_Unit demonstrates its ignorance again.

1919, Eddington. The time for the photons to arrive was affected by gravity.

You're lying again, @Satan.
says Da Esh

Too late, Da Schnibo

Everyone already knows that you worship the Evil One, which is how you are allowed to remain in physorg to spill your rotting feces all over these phorums in your foul need to gain attention and adulation from your friends here and from newcomers. You are well known for your sick innuendos and are laughed at by many. Keep on, Da S. we need more comedy from you.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan tempts again. Get thee behind me, @Satan.

Go lick yuor dog's vagina some more.

Now yuo know what I view yuo as. Enemy of life and truth.

Go nail some more peoples' tongues into their mouths and burn them alive.

You are a piece of shit on my shoe.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan_Egg_Unit demonstrates its ignorance again.

1919, Eddington. The time for the photons to arrive was affected by gravity.

You're lying again, @Satan.


Eddington of 1919 is a joke. You like jokes? Keep believing Eddington.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
You deny all science. You are @Satan_Egg_Unit, against all life and truth.

Get thee behind me @Satan.

Go hide in your basement dweller hole.

And lick your dog's vagina some more.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
You deny all science. You are @Satan_Egg_Unit, against all life and truth.

Get thee behind me @Satan.

Go hide in your basement dweller hole.

And lick your dog's vagina some more.


ROFLOL
Da Schniebo the nutcase is at it again. But Da Schniebo still refuses to answer the query of
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
CLUE: It's not the same as Space.
Castrogiovanni
2.5 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Only a cretin could ask such a question. Are you a cretin? Probably rhetorical.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan_Egg_Unit finally is forced into the corner and admits time exists.

So will all your lies fail. @Satan, dog vagina licking basement dweller.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
...
The alleged BH's gravity ends at or near its surface, so that its centre has to be hollow. Which is why there are 2 jets of Matter/Energy emerging from its poles. Photons are able to enter and emerge from the alleged BH due to that hollow within the alleged BH.

This is SO stupid it HAS to be intentionally meant to be so...


You're right. It IS stupid since there are NO direct images/photographs of Black Holes, Event Horizons or Matter falling into it. There are ONLY artist's impressions, illustrations, graphics, and the imaginations of scientists/researchers to offer "evidence" that such things exist in the Cosmos.
We shall have to wait until even a small smidgen of a shadow is allowed for public consumption.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Only a cretin could ask such a question. Are you a cretin? Probably rhetorical.
says jonesy

Are YOU able to answer the question, jonesy? It's not that hard. Do try.
If I did not ask the question, I would be remiss and not up to snuff with the "scientific method".
Give it a go and we'll see what you come up with, righto?
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2019
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Only a cretin could ask such a question. Are you a cretin? Probably rhetorical.
says jonesy

Are YOU able to answer the question, jonesy? It's not that hard. Do try.
If I did not ask the question, I would be remiss and not up to snuff with the "scientific method".
Give it a go and we'll see what you come up with, righto?


Sorry, O dim one? Just link me to a scientist who agrees with you and the fool Benni. Just one. Get on with it. You are talking crap. Again.
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2019
You're right. It IS stupid since there are NO direct images/photographs of Black Holes, Event Horizons or Matter falling into it. There are ONLY artist's impressions, illustrations, graphics, and the imaginations of scientists/researchers to offer "evidence" that such things exist in the Cosmos.
We shall have to wait until even a small smidgen of a shadow is allowed for public consumption.


Fool. Do the maths. What is causing the observed orbits of the stars around Sgr A*? Answer, fool. What is causing the gravitational redshift? Answer, fool. Come on, you untutored poser - show us the science. You can't, because you have the IQ of a hedgehog.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?


Only a cretin could ask such a question. Are you a cretin? Probably rhetorical.
says jonesy

Are YOU able to answer the question, jonesy? It's not that hard. Do try.
If I did not ask the question, I would be remiss and not up to snuff with the "scientific method".
Give it a go and we'll see what you come up with, righto?
says I

Or look at it this way: Surely the scientists, etc. who have included time in spacetime must have known what time is made of; otherwise WHY WOULD THEY INCLUDE TIME IN THEIR EQUATIONS WITH SPACE if they didn't know what time is made of??

So they have included Mass, light, etc into their math equations. right? And they know what those are made of, right? So WHY would they not know what time is made of??
Are you telling us that time is a part of Spacetime without them knowing the properties of time and what it is made of? Does that make any logical sense, hey?

Speak up, jonesy. Don't be shy.
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
This blackhole came out its hole
but did not see its shadow
until we see this blackholes shadow
we will never see this blackhole
for eternity this blackhole
till that day of shadow
this blackhole remains for ever
Just a simulation
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan_Egg_Unit, go lick your dog's vagina in your basement.

You are scum.

Of course "they" have included what can be measured into physics. That's what physics is.

It's not fairy tales in the Babble about the delusions of drunken stone age sheep herders or Jewish propagandists about the super magic daddy in the sky: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
This blackhole came out its hole
but did not see its shadow
until we see this blackholes shadow, we will never see this blackhole
For eternity this blackhole, till that day of shadow
This blackhole for ever remains
Just a simulation
says granville

LOL That's what jonesy, Da Scheide and others believe in. A simulation. A computer-generated work of imagination instead of actual images. Complete and total unicorn fluff without real, true-to-life recognisable images of a hungry monster eating up the Universe.
That is the kind of "scientific method" to which they are all bitter clingers. LOL
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan_Egg_Unit, your god is gonna get angry with you if you don't lick its vagina.

This is what you worship: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

Looks like death and lies to me.

Just sayin'.

BTW, how's that simulation of Pluto's orbit working for New Horizons? Pretty bitchin', huh?
granville583762
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
This TIME in next TIME

This TIME
jonesy has bitten of more TIME than he can chew
he thought he TIMED it to perfection
but got his TIMING wrong
but never mind jonesy
when your TIME come up again
it will be TIME to make amends
as in the fullness of TIME
you will have all the TIME in the world
Next TIME
Castrogiovanni
2.3 / 5 (9) Mar 16, 2019
This TIME in next TIME

This TIME
jonesy has bitten of more TIME than he can chew
he thought he TIMED it to perfection
but got his TIMING wrong
but never mind jonesy
when your TIME come up again
it will be TIME to make amends
as in the fullness of TIME
you will have all the TIME in the world
Next TIME


Eejit.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
This TIME in next TIME

This TIME
jonesy has bitten of more TIME than he can chew
he thought he TIMED it to perfection
but got his TIMING wrong
but never mind jonesy
when your TIME come up again
it will be TIME to make amends
as in the fullness of TIME
you will have all the TIME in the world
Next TIME
says granville

Spot on. I see that jonesy is back to his usual old smelly self who can't help but remove all doubt as to his stupidity.
By the way, Da Schniebo has been REPORTED 7 times now for abusive, inappropriate and trolling language. Hopefully, physorg will straighten out Da Schniebo's hash so that we can all have respect for the administrators once again.

And we now know that jonesy doesn't know what time is made of.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan_Egg_Unit, every time you lie you work for @Satan. Against life, against truth. And for

https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

Get thee behind me, @Satan.
Benni
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2019
And what's "SPEED[sic] alias ACCELERATION[sic]" mean?
.....no, ACCELERATION is the change in SPEED, it's the reason the SPEED of an EM Wave is written as a constant. because it's SPEED can never change. ACCELERATION is ONLY written into Kinetic Energy equations because of the variability of the speed of moving mass, for example: Force = mass x acceleration......derived from 1/2mv².

acceleration is a vector
......as used in kinetic energy calculations.

acceleration is the second derivative. Newton showed this in the seventeenth century, and no one has disproved it since.
......your own words as evidence. Newton knew nothing of E=mc² in the 17th century so how could he apply ACCELERATION to something that wouldn't be revealed for another 200 years?

Two hundred years later it was proven light was not made of particles which SPEED was subject to the strength of local gravity fields as Newton & others had thought it was.

Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
ACCELERATION[sic] is the change in SPEED[sic]
Precisely, and therefore the first derivative of velocity and the second derivative of position, with respect to time. As stated by Newton in the seventeenth century and never disproved.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
ACCELERATION[sic] is the change in SPEED[sic]
Precisely, and therefore the first derivative of velocity and the second derivative of position, with respect to time. As stated by Newton in the seventeenth century and never disproved. .....still no comprenez vous for you schneibo.

Newton could not be applying calculations of ACCELERATION for something he didn't know was not subject to change in speed, LIGHT. Now maybe Newton thought this was what he was doing, and for sure almost everybody else at that thought they did when applying ACCELERATION parameters to light, but it wasn't until 1905 the whole bunch of them were proven wrong, that light was not composed of particles & it had a never changing constant speed.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
This blackhole came out its hole
but did not see its shadow
until we see this blackholes shadow
we will never see this blackhole
for eternity this blackhole
till that day of shadow
this blackhole remains for ever
Just a simulation


Could very well be the case now that the Event Horizon Telescopic Antennae have been shut down with no plans to take new data unless they can find the resources to double the size of the so-called telescope.

We shall have to wait until even a small smidgen of a shadow is allowed for public consumption.
.......never coming Egg, the EHT is forever down.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
Newton described acceleration concisely:

F = ma

Maybe you didn't notice that the "a" is acceleration.

It's Newton's Second Law of Motion, idiot.

Dumb duh dumb dumb, dumb duh dumb dumb duhhhhh.

Meanwhile, @Benni lies again:
Event Horizon Telescopic Antennae have been shut down
No, they haven't. You're lying again, @Benni.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
Newton described acceleration concisely: F = ma
....uh, huh, Kinetic Energy calculations.

You just will never get it will you schneibo, that the speed of light is a constant & therefore has no ACCELERATION parameters with regard to SPEED, if it did there would never have been a need for E=mc² in which c is a constant & all that would be needed is KE=1/2mv² in which v is a variable.

Real science is tough, right schneibo?

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
Da Schniebo the nutcase is at it again. But Da Schniebo still refuses to answer the query of
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
CLUE: It's not the same as Space.

By this you admit that it IS made of something. Ergo, exists.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
Kinetic Energy calculations
You're lying again, @Benni. There's no kinetic energy in there.

There's force, mass, and acceleration. And there's no acceleration in the KE equation.

F = ma

Where's the KE, @Benni?

If you're going to argue about physics, you prolly best actually learn some instead of trying to use buzzwords you don't understand.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
Da Schniebo the nutcase is at it again. But Da Schniebo still refuses to answer the query of
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
CLUE: It's not the same as Space.

By this you admit that it IS made of something. Ergo, exists.
says Whyde

Actually no. I did not ADMIT to its existence, since I don't believe in its existence. I asked what time is made of - due to the fact that since it is not made of anything and doesn't exist, then why would any scientist include a NOTHING that is without substance along with Space in their math equations. It isn't real. If there is someone who KNOWS what time is made of, I would love to hear from that person and his/her explanation as to what it is.

The title of "time", and it is only a title and not a description, is too ambiguous and unclear as to what it is or is not. I want to get to the bottom of this mystery. We already know what "Space" is and what it does or doesn't do.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
There's no kinetic energy in there.

There's force, mass, and acceleration. And there's no acceleration in the KE equation.

F = ma

Where's the KE, @Benni?
.....ACCELERATION of mass cannot occur unless there is first an input of energy, KINETIC ENERGY.

F=ma

a=v/t

Therefore: F=mv/t

K.E=1/2 mv²

You capiche schneibo? That acceleration is velocity/time derived within the KE equation & that's the kinetic energy connection. Sorry if this is a little complicated for you, but if you had taken a high school physics course you wouldn't be stumbling over this so badly.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
If there is someone who KNOWS what time is made of, I would love to hear from that person and his/her explanation as to what it is.


Awww come on here Egg, not everybody here is as mis-educated as the WhyGuy & schneibos. Benni knows EXACTLY what time is made of: Pop-Cosmology FANTASY..........there now, could it be more succinctly stated? Well, maybe by granDy it could be, so I apologize ahead of time (whoops, there's that word) just in case.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
Newton described acceleration concisely: F = ma
....uh, huh, Kinetic Energy calculations.

You just will never get it...that the speed of light is a constant & therefore has no ACCELERATION parameters with regard to SPEED, if it did there would never have been a need for E=mc² in which c is a constant & all that would be needed is KE=1/2mv² in which v is a variable.
says Benni

Wiki tells us: (not about photons/light)
In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion.[1] It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a BODY OF A GIVEN MASS from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body when decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.
In classical mechanics, the kinetic energy of a non-rotating object of mass m traveling at a speed v is 
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
@Benni, you're lying again.

None of your equations derive one from another.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan, you are lying again too. Photons don't have kinetic energy, they have momentum.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
If there is someone who KNOWS what time is made of, I would love to hear from that person and his/her explanation as to what it is.


Awww come on here Egg, not everybody here is as mis-educated as the WhyGuy & schneibos. Benni knows EXACTLY what time is made of: Pop-Cosmology FANTASY..........there now, could it be more succinctly stated? Well, maybe by granDy it could be, so I apologize ahead of time (whoops, there's that word) just in case.
says Benni

Agreed. Pop-Cosmology Fantasmigorical science it is. And time can't fly, although it is often claimed to do so. All I ever see are Events/Actions going on, sometimes overlapping or occurring separately. When I look at my expensive wristwatch (or rather my human host's wrist), we both see a second hand speedily moving towards 12 (motion, momentum) while the minute hand is slower (velocity). In my world, time doesn't exist - and neither does it in yours.
:)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan, "pop-sosmology" is one of your favorite lies. It prevents some people from seeing the truth, and you hate the truth.

Now go lick your dog's vagina in your basement.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan, "pop-sosmology" is one of your favorite lies. It prevents some people from seeing the truth, and you hate the truth.


Your master is Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub. You had sold your fooked-up soul to your master in exchange for knowledge that you can brag about to impress the denizens of the physorg phorums. I can see that it is wearing you down, as even your spelling of certain words is often awry and wrong.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan, "pop-sosmology" is one of your favorite lies. It prevents some people from seeing the truth, and you hate the truth.

Now go lick your dog's vagina in your basement.


That's 8x you've been reported for abusive, inappropriate and trolling language. Not to mention stupidity and brainless/mindless knee jerking idiocy.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan_Egg_Unit, you are against science and against truth and against right and against life.

You troll because you don't know what you're talking about, you're innumerate, and you make up lies. Go lick your dog's vagina in your basement.

And worship your jebus: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2019
@Satan_Egg_Unit, you are against science and against truth and against right and against life.

You troll because you don't know what you're talking about, you're innumerate, and you make up lies. Go lick your dog's vagina in your basement.

And worship your jebus: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large


That's 9x you've been reported
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2019
Work it, troll. Lick the dog's vagina again. And worship your jebus: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

Now go away, @Satan.

Maybe you can tell the moderators how you're a space alien and can read their minds and it will scare them.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 16, 2019
Hey yall... something to consider
That's 8x you've been reported for abusive, inappropriate and trolling language
Surveillance_Egg_Unit has a valid point... we shouldn't allow such language like
Your master is Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub. You had sold your fooked-up soul to your master in exchange for knowledge
or being called
Captain Dumpy
Captain Beelzebub
in point of fact, since the site says
Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted
and
Avoid political and religious discussions
this means we should all take some time to reciprocate and ensure Surveillance_Egg_Unit posts are reported if they're pseudoscience, religious, conspiracist, or anything else per the guidelines...

especially since he's set the precedent above
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 16, 2019
@Benni
@Da Schneib.
ACCELERATION of mass cannot occur unless there is first an input of energy, KINETIC ENERGY.
That is not always the case. A KINETICALLY NEUTRAL 'motive force' can be experienced by a body/feature being 'accelerated'; eg, an Earth-orbiting Satellite CAN CHANGE its VELOCITY even though NO CHANGE IN SPEED is involved; acceleration in that case is from GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT directed radially towards Earth: NOTE ESPECIALLY that the satellite's KINETIC ENERGY 'content' is UNCHANGED, because ACCELERATIVE 'force' is 'perpendicular' to the satellite's forward motion.

Abstract mathematical descriptors MISS what's actually going on with the real energy-space entities/processes involved fundamentally; hence why all your exchanges with DS et al are merely futile/misleading 'abstraction mathturbation' in lieu of physical reality descriptors.

I suggest you both calm down and THINK BEYOND maths/equation terms/abstractions, and ponder the real things. :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 16, 2019
I will point out that @Satan set the precedent by insulting my wife. I could, if I chose, go report all those posts. But I choose not. I meet the troll bully on its own ground. And like most troll bullies, it turns out to be a sniveling cowardly yellow-bellied scum-sucking wuss.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Hey yall... something to consider
That's 8x you've been reported for abusive, inappropriate and trolling language
Surveillance_Egg_Unit has a valid point... we shouldn't allow such language like
Your master is Satan/Lucifer/Beelzebub. You had sold your fooked-up soul to your master in exchange for knowledge
or being called
Captain Dumpy
Captain Beelzebub
in point of fact, since the site says
Keep science: Include references to the published scientific literature to support your statements. Pseudoscience comments (including non-mainstream theories) will be deleted
and
Avoid political and religious discussions
this means we should all take some time to reciprocate and ensure Surveillance_Egg_Unit posts are reported if they're pseudoscience, religious, conspiracist, or anything else per the guidelines...

especially since he's set the precedent above


Well, speak of the devil and here he is. ROFLOL
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
Da Schniebo the nutcase is at it again. But Da Schniebo still refuses to answer the query of
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?
CLUE: It's not the same as Space.

By this you admit that it IS made of something. Ergo, exists.
says Whyde

Actually no. I did not ADMIT to its existence, since I don't believe in its existence. I asked what time is made of - due to the fact that since it is not made of anything and doesn't exist, then why would any scientist include a NOTHING that is without substance along with Space in their math equations. It isn't real. If there is someone who KNOWS what time is made of, I would love to hear from that person and his/her explanation as to what it is.

The title of "time", and it is only a title and not a description, is too ambiguous and unclear as to what it is or is not. I want to get to the bottom of this mystery. We already know what "Space" is and what it does or doesn't do.

No, YOU don't....
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
oops
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Go lick your dog's vagina in your basement, sniveling cowardly yellow-bellied scum-sucking wuss @Satan_Egg_Unit.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
And... oops, again....
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
@eggy troll
Well, speak of the devil and here he is. ROFLOL

to use your own words as well as your own justification posted above
you've been reported for abusive, inappropriate and trolling language. Not to mention stupidity
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
Da Schniebo the nutcase is at it again. But Da Schniebo still refuses to answer the query of
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?

By this you admit that it IS made of something. Ergo, exists.
says Whyde

Actually no. I did not ADMIT to its existence, since I don't believe in its existence. I asked what time is made of - due to the fact that since it is not made of anything and doesn't exist, then why would any scientist include a NOTHING that is without substance along with Space in their math equations. It isn't real. If there is someone who KNOWS what time is made of, I would love to hear from that person and his/her explanation as to what it is.

The title of "time", and it is only a title and not a description, is too ambiguous and unclear as to what it is or is not. I want to get to the bottom of this mystery. We already know what "Space" is and what it does or doesn't do.

No, YOU don't....

No you don't what?

Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
Da Schniebo the nutcase is at it again. But Da Schniebo still refuses to answer the query of
WHAT IS TIME MADE OF?

By this Ergo, exists.
says Whyde

Actually no. I did not ADMIT to its existence, since I don't believe in its existence. I asked what time is made of - due to the fact that since it is not made of anything and doesn't exist, then why would any scientist include a NOTHING that is without substance along with Space in their math equations. It isn't real. If there is someone who KNOWS what time is made of, I would love to hear from that person and his/her explanation as to what it is.

The title of "time", and it is only a title and not a description, is too ambiguous and unclear as to what it is or is not. I want to get to the bottom of this mystery. We already know what "Space" is and what it does or doesn't do.

No, YOU don't....

No you don't what?


Still waiting for Whyde's answer
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
Sniveling cowardly yellow-bellied scum-sucking wuss @Satan_Drug_Unit is too yellow to respond to accusations of licking it's dog's ass in its basement after insulting someone's wife. Were you born an asshole or did you have to practice?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@eggy troll
Well, speak of the devil and here he is. ROFLOL Da Schnitzophrenic's master has come to save him.

to use your own words as well as your own justification posted above
you've been reported for abusive, inappropriate and trolling language. Not to mention stupidity


LMAO
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Did you ask your jebus to tell you how to insult people's wives who don't accept the Babble by the drunken stone age sheep herders about the super magic daddy in the sky?

Here, worship your jebus: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

This is the one you tell all the little kids is real, right, sniveling cowardly yellow-bellied scum-sucking wuss @Satan_Drug_Unit? Not only does it lick its dog's vagina in its basement, it promulgates jebus pr0n like this. Now who was that running a child pr0n ring again?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
Did you ask your jebus to tell you how to insult people who don't accept the Babble by the drunken stone age sheep herders about the super magic daddy in the sky?

Here, worship your jebus: https://pbs.twimg...pg:large

This is the one you tell all the little kids is real, right, Sniveling cowardly yellow-bellied scum-sucking wuss @Satan_Drug_Unit? Not only does it lick its dog's vagina in its basement, it promulgates jebus pr0n like this.


ROFLOL
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Posting "Roflol" won't help, sniveling cowardly yellow-bellied scum-sucking wuss @Satan_Drug_Unit. Either you have a reply or you don't, and if you don't everyone can see you're a sniveling cowardly yellow-bellied scum-sucking wuss. Typical troll. Go pick your nose under a bridge.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2019
@Captain Stumpy
@S_E_U.
@eggy troll
Well, speak of the devil and here he is. ROFLOL
to use your own words as well as your own justification posted above
you've been reported for abusive, inappropriate and trolling language. Not to mention stupidity
I trust to your honesty that you also 'reported' DS for similar reasons, CS. Otherwise it would make you a hypocrite, wouldn't it? I also trust you will not in future be addressing your posts to me with...
abusive, inappropriate and trolling language. Not to mention stupidity
...which you have been doing for far too long now. I look forward to you living up to your expressed concern at such ungentlemanly/unscientific language, CS. Good luck. :)

ps @S_E_U: I think you've made your point by responding in kind to insulting language/tactics from others; now it's time you toned down that 'line of attack'; just stick to science/logics issues/substance (oh, and please drop the 'creator god' gambits). :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@105LiarRC tried this years ago and it didn't work then.

Of course @RC didn't insult my wife... very often.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
@105LiarRC tried this years ago and it didn't work then.

Of course @RC didn't insult my wife... very often.
Stop digging, mate. :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
A good response would be "@Da Schneib, I never intended to insult your wife and I'm sorry if I did."

Instead you have another self-aggrandizing lie. This is why I mostly ignore you.

Eventually, I'll ignore @Satan too. You're two trolls out of the same bucket.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
A good response would be "@Da Schneib, I never intended to insult your wife and I'm sorry if I did."

Instead you have another self-aggrandizing lie. This is why I mostly ignore you. Eventually, I'll ignore @Satan too. You're two trolls out of the same bucket.
Please, for your own sake, stop digging, mate. :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Speaking of digging your own grave, you did that long ago by lying on over a hundred threads, @RC. Shall I start posting them again?
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Speaking of digging your own grave, you did that long ago by lying on over a hundred threads, @RC. Shall I start posting them again?
You lost all credibility on that 'troll's gambit' long ago, mate. Stop digging. :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Thread where @106LiarRC makes conflicting claims within ten posts and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ome.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims there is "REAL/PHYSICAL UNIVERSAL 'infinity'" and gets caught: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims Rubin said galaxies will implode with out DM and confuses Zwicky with Rubin:
https://phys.org/...zzy.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims inflation is a "religion:" https://phys.org/...ure.html

Damn you're dumb. Get pwnt the same way every time.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2019
@Forum.

From @Da Schneib.
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about current research into cosmic voids and gets caught: https://phys.org/...ies.html
The 'troll psychosis' continues. Where is his much-mentioned wife to snap him out of it? Sad.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about how long it takes a shockwave to move through a giant molecular cloud: https://phys.org/...cal.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies fifteen times in ten posts and still can't stop, even when told he's being baited into lying: https://phys.org/...h_1.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies that defining a black hole is "calling it black." https://phys.org/...ole.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about helium flash white dwarf detonations: https://phys.org/...arf.html

I got this for longer than @106LiarRC can handle.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2019
@Forum.
Thread where @106LiarRC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html

I got this for longer than @106LiarRC can handle.
Spamming and trolling futility at its most basic. Where is his much-mentioned wife to snap him out of this most recent 'troll psychosis' episode? Truly sad.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2019
@Forum.
Thread where @106LiarRC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html

I got this for longer than @106LiarRC can handle.
Spamming and trolling futility at its most basic. Where is his much-mentioned wife to snap him out of this most recent 'troll psychosis' episode? Truly sad.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
You're lucky I don't gig you for lying about the lies. Seems like it would be unfair. You keep this up, though, I might start.

I can imagine nothing more arrogant than thinking anyone besides the trolls listens when you "address the forum." The only ones listening are assholes like you, and they don't matter for much.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Forum.
You're lucky I don't gig you for lying about the lies. Seems like it would be unfair. You keep this up, though, I might start.
And now it's the "I dare you!" stage of the 'troll psychosis' syndrome. Please, CS's wife, if you are reading DS's internet activity, for his sake, do something to snap him out of this self-destructive internet behaviour. Good luck.
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about galactic dynamics following visible matter: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about dark matter existing inside stars: https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about what Penrose and Steinhardt said about the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about fractals even though it claims to reject math: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about real infinity existing in physical reality again: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Da Schneib
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC tries to support EUdiocy (despite claiming not to): https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @106LiarRC makes up stories about another poster: https://phys.org/...ars.html
Thread where @106LiarRC insults a user by lying about what that user said: https://phys.org/...ter.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about GR "predicting" singularities: https://phys.org/...s_1.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about BICEP2 and gets pwnt: https://phys.org/...urt.html
Note this last thread recapitulates an ongoing claim by @106LiarRC that "four defects" were found in the BICEP2 paper on inflation and @106LiarRC has never said what three of them are.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Forum.
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about galactic dynamics following visible matter: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Oh the humanity! Where is DS's wife to snap him out of it? Does she exist? If so, then please can someone direct her attention to DS's latest bout of 'internet troll psychosis' as a matter of urgency, before he digs himself in too deep again. Sad.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Note, this isn't a hundred individual lies; it's a hundred threads on which this troll has lied at least once and that's a very different thing. I only bothered to gather it up because this troll challenged me to prove it. That turned out very badly for the troll, and its ass still burns from it.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2019
@trolling pseudoscience fraudulent sam fodera
Please, CS's wife, if you are reading DS's internet activity...
dafuq?

why are you appealing to my wife because DS is outing you as a liar?

.

to be fair, and because you've hit 8,665 posts without evidence and you still refuse to provide links and references, per the guidelines
you've been reported for abusive, inappropriate and trolling language. Not to mention stupidity
it's only fair, per your own request

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2019
@Forum.
Note, this isn't a hundred individual lies; it's a hundred threads on which this troll has lied and that's a very different thing. I only bothered to gather it up because this troll challenged me to prove it. That turned out very badly for the troll, and its ass still burns from it.
Now the poor thing is claiming to have 'won' before; despite the recorded reality being the opposite. Sad.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about "the cosmological community" denying the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ast.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about "inconsistencies" it claims exist in the Big Bang model: https://phys.org/...ack.html]https://phys.org/...ack.html[/url]
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about Standard Model cosmologies "confirming [it] all along:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about BICEP2 again, still without any evidence of four errors in the paper: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about "current flows" without sources and sinks, obviously touting EUdiocy while claiming not to again: https://phys.org/...ack.html]https://phys.org/...ack.html[/url]

Hit you again, @106LiarRC.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about "the cosmological community" denying the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...ast.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about "inconsistencies" it claims exist in the Big Bang model: https://phys.org/...ack.html]https://phys.org/...ack.html[/url]
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about Standard Model cosmologies "confirming [it] all along:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about BICEP2 again, still without any evidence of four errors in the paper: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about "current flows" without sources and sinks, obviously touting EUdiocy while claiming not to again: https://phys.org/...ack.html]https://phys.org/...ack.html[/url]
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Captain Stumpy.
@trolling pseudoscience fraudulent sam fodera
Please, CS's wife, if you are reading DS's internet activity...
dafuq?

why are you appealing to my wife because DS is outing you as a liar?
The reasonable reader will immediately understand that was a typo, typing C instead of D. So why do you make such a song and dance about an obvious typo, CS? Because you have no real substantive case. And the fact you enable DS's 'troll psychosis' by subscribing to his patently false version of events is telling that you are not fair dinkum, and are just making things worse for DS's 'troll psychosis' condition. With 'friends' like you, DS doesn't need enemies. Bad.

ps: So, CS, did you 'report' DS when he used bad language? Or are you a hypocrite? Do tell.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
Shall I continue, @106LiarRC?

Or are we done here? I got another 81 threads you lied on to go.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schnieb.

Shall I continue, @106LiarRC?

Or are we done here? I got another 75 threads you lied on to go.
You were "done" long ago, mate; only your 'troll psychosis' won't let you see it. Stop digging, mate.
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about an "infinite number of points" having actual physical significance: https://phys.org/...ess.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about "not belonging to... EU crowd:" https://phys.org/...ted.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about the current SM of cosmology by equating it to the original LeMaitre hypothesis: https://phys.org/...big.html
Thread where @106LiarRC lies about "Electric Currents" driving gas outflows from black holes, and note that this individual still claims not to be an EUdiot: https://phys.org/...due.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims EUdiots have "provided learning opportunities" for professional astrophysicists without evidence: https://phys.org/...big.html
Da Schneib
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
I can do this all night, @106LiarRC. And it doesn't matter what you say; you've lied too much for anyone ever to believe anything you say.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
@trolling fraudulent pseudoscience sam fodera the proven liar
calling BS on the typo - your spellcheck is broken?
grammarly is free, even for criminals
And the fact you enable DS's 'troll psychosis' by subscribing to his patently false version of events
erm... ya know, just to check facts, I opened about 50 links (starting here: https://phys.org/...html#jCp ) out of his list and I can't see where he is making a false statement

now, he and I don't get along for personal reasons and I dislike his politics, but when it comes to maths, physics, computers, and a few other things, I respect his knowledge and ability to actually validate his claims with references

now that makes 8,668 posts for you, rc

so, per your request for fairness:
you've been reported for abusive, inappropriate and trolling language. Not to mention stupidity
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Forum.
I can do this all night, @106LiarRC. And it doesn't matter what you say; you've lied too much for anyone ever to believe anything you say.
And so we come to this next stage of DS's 'troll psychosis': Threats of more unreasoning trolling; and defaulting to 'projection' in order to 'protect' his psyche from the rampant cognitive dissonance damage which must be occurring if this sad behaviour is any indication. Too sad.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Captain Stumpy.
calling BS on the typo - your spellcheck is broken?
What are you on about, mate? Spellcheck is no help with CS or DS. Spellcheck doesn't even enter the picture. :)

ps: And your continuing address-line insults says it all about your hypocrisy, CS.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
@trolling fraudulent pseudoscience sam fodera the demonstrable (and repeatedly proven) liar
@Captain Stumpy.
calling BS on the typo - your spellcheck is broken?
What are you on about, mate? Spellcheck is no help with CS or DS. Spellcheck doesn't even enter the picture
really?

here is a "realitycheck" for you: you can customize your dictionary in a spell-checker allowing you to use professional jargon (or in your case, pseudoscientific bullsh*t rantings from your ToE and web-page)
ps: And your continuing address-line insults
it's not an insult - it's a factual label that truly
says it all


.

also note: that makes 8,670 posts of your hypocrisy

so, per your request for fairness:
you've been reported for abusive, inappropriate and trolling language. Not to mention stupidity
addendum and correction for clarity: I checked 58 of DS's original list and found no false statements
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Captaiun nStumpy.
here is a "realitycheck" for you: you can customize your dictionary in a spell-checker
Been there, done that, long ago, with instructions to ignore spelling for frequent abbreviations like "CS" and "DS". That's why that typo passed and I missed it when editing. ''ps: Stumpy, you wouldn't't know facts if they bit you; and especially if those facts were 'inconvenient' to your hypocritical agendas here. Get honest, Stumpy. :)
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Mar 17, 2019
Anyhow, back to science...

@Benni.
ACCELERATION of mass cannot occur unless there is first an input of energy, KINETIC ENERGY.
That's not always so. A KINETICALLY NEUTRAL 'motive force' can be experienced by a body/feature being 'accelerated'; eg, an Earth-orbiting Satellite CAN CHANGE its VELOCITY even though NO CHANGE IN SPEED is involved; acceleration in that case is from GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT directed radially towards Earth: NOTE ESPECIALLY that the satellite's KINETIC ENERGY 'content' is UNCHANGED, because ACCELERATIVE 'force' is 'perpendicular' to the satellite's forward motion.

Abstract mathematical descriptors MISS what's actually going on with the real energy-space entities/processes involved fundamentally; hence why all your/DS's etc exchanges are merely futile/misleading 'abstraction mathturbation' in lieu of physical reality descriptors.

I suggest you all calm down and THINK BEYOND maths/equation terms/abstractions, and ponder the real things. :)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@trolling fraudulent pseudoscience sam fodera the chronic criminal liar
Been there, done that, long ago
really? then why did you state
Spellcheck is no help with CS or DS. Spellcheck doesn't even enter the picture
that statement specifically indicates that spellcheck can't help with commonly used words and abbreviations

that makes you a liar WRT spellcheck
you wouldn't't know facts if they bit you
it's not a matter of agendas or convenience

it's a matter of black and white evidence - and the evidence speaks for itself for anyone who is willing to open the links and read

IOW - everyone who reads can and will validate the claim

.

you are going to attempt to respond and deflect from your blatant lies, likely with some justification (in your mind) for your chronic lies

feel free to get the last word, but remember

per your own request for fairness
you've been reported for abusive, inappropriate and trolling language. Not to mention stupidity
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Posting "Roflol" won't help, sniveling cowardly yellow-bellied scum-sucking wuss @Satan_Drug_Unit. Either you have a reply or you don't, and if you don't everyone can see you're a sniveling cowardly yellow-bellied scum-sucking wuss. Typical troll. Go pick your nose under a bridge.


ROFLOL LMAO
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Captain Stumpy.
Been there, done that, long ago
then why did you state
Spellcheck is no help with CS or DS. Spellcheck doesn't even enter the picture
that statement specifically indicates that spellcheck can't help with commonly used words and abbreviations
What hairs are you trying to split now, mate? Or are you really this obtuse/desperate to use any pretence to troll/bury the science discourse in this thread? It's obvious to the intelligent reader that if Spellcheck is already 'conditioned' to PASS "CS" and "DS", then spellcheck will IGNORE them. So if I type CS instead of DS, it is up to ME to change it...if I catch it. Since Spellcheck has ignored and NOT FLAGGED it, then if I miss it, it is a typo; and as I already pointed out, an OBVIOUS one to the intelligent non-troll reader. Seems your agenda to bury thread discussions with your hypocritical noises is still current, CS. As is your juvenile address-line highlighting that hypocrisy. Not good, CS.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
A good response would be "@Da Schneib, I never intended to insult your wife and I'm sorry if I did."

Instead you have another self-aggrandizing lie. This is why I mostly ignore you.

Eventually, I'll ignore @Satan too. You're two trolls out of the same bucket.
says Da Scheide

Guess that means that Da Scheide plans to ignore Captain Beelzebub for trolling for Souls.
ROFLOL
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Forum.
Thread where @106LiarRC claims his "non math" approach is both abstract and non-abstract, and both is and is not math: https://phys.org/...ure.html

I got this for longer than @106LiarRC can handle.
Spamming and trolling futility at its most basic. Where is his much-mentioned wife to snap him out of this most recent 'troll psychosis' episode? Truly sad.
says RC

Doubtful that Da Scheide has a wife. Some have said Da Scheide has a boyfriend. Any woman who puts up with his schit has to be literally insane. Ok so they're both insane. Happily married couples do NOT spend this much time on a science website to talk crap the way Da Scheide does.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
Note, this isn't a hundred individual lies; it's a hundred threads on which this troll has lied at least once and that's a very different thing. I only bothered to gather it up because this troll challenged me to prove it. That turned out very badly for the troll, and its ass still burns from it.

says Da Schneide

There he goes again, talking about his predilection for asses. This talking about mens' posteriors has been going on for a long time by Da Schniebo.
Hmmm maybe Captain Beelzebub and Da Schniebo are both queer for each other, as they say. It's odd how the Cap came in suddenly to save Da Schniebone from Benni and me.
LOL
Quite odd. Not that there would be anything wrong with that, as they say.
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
We already know what "Space" is and what it does or doesn't do.

No, YOU don't....

No you don't what?

Still waiting for Whyde's answer

Don't know what space is made of...
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
We already know what "Space" is and what it does or doesn't do.

No, YOU don't....

No you don't what?

Still waiting for Whyde's answer

Don't know what space is made of...
says Whyde

And HOW would you know what I know and don't know? Are you one of Da Scheide's alien mindreaders or an alien lizard that he talks about frequently?
To be precise, Whyde, I DO know what Space is made of. I move through Space every day in every way with my human host and his many friends and housemates.
Space is everywhere. Your idea of "time" is nowhere. Thanks for reading.
Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2019
That's not always so. A KINETICALLY NEUTRAL 'motive force' can be experienced by a body/feature being 'accelerated'; eg, an Earth-orbiting Satellite CAN CHANGE its VELOCITY even though NO CHANGE IN SPEED is involved; acceleration in that case is from GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT
.....you don't know what you're talking about.

First you say " NO CHANGE IN SPEED is involved", then you say "acceleration in that case is from GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT". There is no such thing as ACCELERATION unless there is a change in SPEED, & change in SPEED cannot occur unless there is kinetic energy input/output to the system, period.

Benni
2 / 5 (8) Mar 17, 2019
Newton described acceleration concisely: F = ma
....uh, huh, Kinetic Energy calculations.

You just will never get it...that the speed of light is a constant & therefore has no ACCELERATION parameters with regard to SPEED, if it did there would never have been a need for E=mc² in which c is a constant & all that would be needed is KE=1/2mv² in which v is a variable.
says Benni

Wiki tells us: (not about photons/light)
In physics, the kinetic energy of an object is the energy that it possesses due to its motion. It is defined as the work needed to accelerate a BODY OF A GIVEN MASS from rest to its stated velocity. Having gained this energy during its acceleration, the body maintains this kinetic energy unless its speed changes. The same amount of work is done by the body when decelerating from its current speed to a state of rest.


.......yeah Egg, Just as soon as ACCELERATION appears in the discussion, it's ALL about KINETIC ENERGY, 1/2mv².
granville583762
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
This secret of quantum of acceleration

Is how the proton and its scrumptious electron eek out their quantum of energy
the proton and its scrumptious electron
are finding all this energy
apparently out of thin air
the answer lies
in
Bennies formula 2ke = mv²
to realise this ke, is to quantize acceleration in steps
Sir Isaac Newton knew of this secret 330 years hence
as Sir Isaac Newton
did not have access to modern equipment
dear old Isaac kept this secret to him self
as all Bennies formulas
are in all reality, Sir Isaac Newton's laws of motion
so dear old Isaac took his secret, quantum of acceleration
to his grave
as their its lain these nigh on 330 years
untill
quantum of acceleration raised its head from the quantum fluctuations once again
so here it is
a secret for 330 years
Still a secret still, as Sir Isaac Newton still continues his peaceful sleep
Till the next time, when quantum of acceleration emerges one more time
Whydening Gyre
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Don't know what space is made of...
says Whyde

And HOW would you know what I know and don't know?

I don't, but it's obvious.
Are you one of Da Scheide's alien mindreaders or an alien lizard that he talks about frequently?

Maybe... :-)
To be precise, Whyde, I DO know what Space is made of. I move through Space every day in every way with my human host and his many friends and housemates.

Can you hold it in your hand?
Space is everywhere.

But what is it MADE of? And WHY is it made up of whatever you think it is?
Your idea of "time" is nowhere.

How much time did it take to you to come up with that snappy answer?

Thanks for reading.

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Benni.
A KINETICALLY NEUTRAL 'motive force' can be experienced by a body/feature being 'accelerated'; eg, an Earth-orbiting Satellite CAN CHANGE its VELOCITY even though NO CHANGE IN SPEED is involved; acceleration in that case is from GRAVITATIONAL EFFECT
There is no such thing as ACCELERATION unless there is a change in SPEED, & change in SPEED cannot occur unless there is kinetic energy input/output.
It's subtle. Gravity effect is 'accelerative effect' consistent with Einstein's SRT/GRT 'Equivalence Principle' re INERTIAL/GRAVITATIONAL acceleration. Ergo, a Satellite in stable 'geostationary' orbit moving without rocket thrust is being constrained to that orbit by GRAVITATIONAL 'acceleration' affects on its INERTIAL motion...even though there is NO FURTHER kinetic energy INPUT from rockets!

The 'change' is in VECTOR of UN-CHANGED SPEED as Gravitational acceleration affects satellite's otherwise INERTIAL path; ie, VELOCITY change without SPEED change. Ok? :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
There is no such thing as ACCELERATION unless there is a change in SPEED, & change in SPEED cannot occur unless there is kinetic energy input/output to the system, period.


,,,, or no change in the speed but a change in direction, period and period. That's why speed is a scalar and velocity is a vector, another period (since you like the periods so much.)
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
It's subtle. Gravity effect is 'accelerative effect'
......and there's that word "acceleration".....Kinetic Energy.

The 'change' is in VECTOR of UN-CHANGED SPEED as Gravitational acceleration affects satellite's otherwise INERTIAL path; ie, VELOCITY change without SPEED change. Ok?


The vector of direction is not calculable into the value for VELOCITY because it has no hard number value. VELOCITY is merely a definition, as opposed to a VALUE that changes only with regards to SPEED, knock it off with trying to pull a schneibo.

On the other hand ACCELERATION is a completely different matter & neither you, nor schneibo, appeared to have figured that out yet.

consistent with Einstein's SRT/GRT 'Equivalence Principle' re INERTIAL/GRAVITATIONAL acceleration
......So what about your asserting the EP? Either manner of inserting kinetic energy to a mass results in the same outcome, ACCELERATION, that's why it's called the EP.
Benni
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
>RC...

So tell me, which is correct:

Light has a velocity of 186k mi/sec

or

Light has a speed of 186k mi/sec

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Benni.
consistent with Einstein's SRT/GRT 'Equivalence Principle' re INERTIAL/GRAVITATIONAL acceleration
......So what about your asserting the EP? Either manner of inserting kinetic energy to a mass results in the same outcome, ACCELERATION, that's why it's called the EP.
You keep missing the subtle but important points, mate. In the case of the geostationary satellite, there is NO CHANGE in KINETIC ENERGY, and hence NO CHANGE IN ITS SPEED, despite the GRAVITATIONAL 'accelerative effect' acting upon it. That gravitational 'accelerative effect' DOES NOT INPUT MORE KINETIC ENERGY, even though its path changes.

Get it? The vector of that speed changes, but not the speed itself....that is what the 'velocity versus speed' DISTINCTION is all about.

The other distinction you need to 'get' is: The maths/abstract CALCULATION/DESCRIPTION 'analysis' constructs are NOT the REAL PHYSICAL 'things/processes' THEMSELVES (which distinction I ALSO made previously, Benni). :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
The vector of direction is not calculable into the value for VELOCITY because it has no hard number value. VELOCITY is merely a definition, as opposed to a VALUE that changes only with regards to SPEED,
@Bennie-Skippy. You are going to look really bad if ol Ira-Skippy is the one who helps you with the simple stuffs,,,

I thought you was into all those differential calculus stuff.

You got position and speed to start with,,,, but if either of those numbers is changing you got your first derivative = velocity.

Then if your velocity (speed OR direction) is changing you got your 2nd derivative = acceleration.

Then if your acceleration is changing you got your 3rd derivative = jerk. (No not the kind of jerk like the Really-Skippy, the engineer's type of jerk which is a change in acceleration.)
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
That gravitational 'accelerative effect' DOES NOT INPUT MORE KINETIC ENERGY, even though its path changes.
.......okay then smart guy, put up an example calculation for how VELOCITY changes that is a different value when SPEED changes? You can't do it can you?

And by the way, when VELOCITY changes is that ACCELERATION or is that for when SPEED changes?

Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
>RC...

So tell me, which is correct:

Light has a velocity of 186k mi/sec

or

Light has a speed of 186k mi/sec


BOTH are.
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
.......okay then smart guy, put up an example calculation for how VELOCITY changes that is a different value when SPEED changes?
Driving in a circle? Even if you don't change the speed, you are constantly changing direction. And because you are you are also accelerating even if you don't change your speed.

You can't do it can you?
Sure I can Cher, as long as I don't try to go too fast around the circle.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Actually not quite. "Light has a velocity of 299,792,458 m/s" is an incomplete statement because it doesn't specify a direction. It's like saying "I have a green." "Light has a speed of 299,792,458 m/s" is a complete statement because speed is a scalar and doesn't specify velocity.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Gah! That should read "...and doesn't specify *direction*." Just missed the edit cutoff.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Benni.
Light has a velocity of 186k mi/sec...or...Light has a speed of 186k mi/sec?
Please forget abstract maths analysis/calculation constructs, as these get in the way of your understanding the reality entities/processes themselves. To get the subtle distinctions to be made in 'velocity versus speed' issue (especially where UNchanged kinetic-energy/linear-speed comes into it, despite gravity acceleration effect Changes velocity), recall my previous posts where I pointed out the radial acceleration due to gravity; where 'geostationary' satellite moves ACROSS radials but does NOT increase speed/kinetic-energy while doing so).

Now re your above question: the speed of light refers to its rate of propagation per se; whereas the velocity of light refers to its propagation DIRECTION relative to and/or within a particular reference frame/analytical construct. It's subtle.

The point: KINETIC ENERGY is NOT necessarily 'increased/decreased' by gravitational 'acceleration'. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
ps @Benni.

If you read the wiki on "Acceleration" it might give you fuller background/insights re types of acceleration and impacts (or not) on speed/direction of motion of propagating feature/body under analysis; link follows:

https://en.wikipe...leration

Cheers. :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
That gravitational 'accelerative effect' DOES NOT INPUT MORE KINETIC ENERGY, even though its path changes.
.......okay then smart guy, put up an example calculation for how VELOCITY changes that is a different value when SPEED changes? You can't do it can you?
Velocity and speed do not measure the same thing. Speed is a scalar, a magnitude without a direction, so it can be measured in, for example, meters per second. Velocity is a vector, which is a speed with a direction, so it can be measured in, for example, meters per second northeast and thirty degrees up. You're trying to stuff a round block through the square hole.

And by the way, when VELOCITY changes is that ACCELERATION or is that for when SPEED changes?
Both. You will feel the effects of acceleration any time you change velocity, and when you change speed you change velocity, or when you change direction you change velocity.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
@RC, so how come we can calculate speed and velocity? Math works. That's the thing, see. If you don't have math, you can't even talk about things like "the speed of light is 299,792,458 m/s." In fact, you can't talk about quantities at all; without math numbers are meaningless.

And you couldn't decide whether it was fair if you gave someone five oranges now because they're hungry, and later they gave you three oranges. Math is ingrained in our world; all primates and a few birds judge whether something is fair and determine later actions upon it. If they decide it's not fair, they become upset, and may become hostile. Certainly if you don't deal fairly, it gets noticed and no one will deal with you later.

This is the very basis of math.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
In fact, cognitive experiments on fairness have been done with chimps, and they are smart enough to notice if you consistently give back less than you get from them. In the early days, some handlers got attacked over this. This isn't something people made up; it's instinctive. It's built into our genes.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
so how come we can calculate speed and velocity? Maths works.
I never said we couldn't, mate. :)

Please re-read my post in context of the crucial distinction which should always be borne in mind, between abstract math/analytical 'constructs' and actual real physical entities/processes being analysed/calculated.

Oh, by the way, @DS, in re this part of your response to @Benni above:
You will feel the effects of acceleration any time you change velocity,....when you change direction you change velocity
You should have further pointed out that in a stable FREE-FALLING (ie no rocket etc thrust) circular orbit, a 'geostationary orbiting' satellite/person does NOT 'feel' ANY GRAVITATIONAL acceleration effects because its/their change in direction (ie constantly motion across the radials) does NOT change its kinetic energy and its motion is CONSTANT even while the satellite responds to gravitational acceleration REDIRECTION effect. Correct?

Cheers. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@RC, if the math always gives the same result as reality does, where's the distinction?

As for the rest, in orbit you are continuously falling and because your vector is orbital, continuously missing the Earth.

You don't feel any acceleration in free fall. And this is true whether it's orbital or simply skydiving. Of course, if you don't pop the parachute and accelerate yourself, you'll get a mighty acceleration when you hit the surface. But the measured physical state is the same. And that's not math, it's experiment.

So, arguably, in orbit, you are not feeling acceleration because you aren't undergoing any from your local point of view; that someone standing on Earth's surface rationalizes it that way doesn't mean that's what's happening locally to you. This is bog-standard relativity. Uncle Ira's example of the car driving in a circle is better than trying to figure out orbital mechanics.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2019
Actually not quite. "Light has a velocity of 299,792,458 m/s" is an incomplete statement because it doesn't specify a direction. It's like saying "I have a green." "Light has a speed of 299,792,458 m/s" is a complete statement because speed is a scalar and doesn't specify velocity.

Actually, your velocity figure is KM/s...
Same for your speed....
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Errata: In the last sentence of my previous post, the "its motion is CONSTANT" should have said "its SPEED is CONSTANT". Thanks.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Actually not quite. "Light has a velocity of 299,792,458 m/s" is an incomplete statement because it doesn't specify a direction. It's like saying "I have a green." "Light has a speed of 299,792,458 m/s" is a complete statement because speed is a scalar and doesn't specify velocity.

Actually, your velocity figure is KM/s...
Umm, no, that would be 299,792.458 km/s. In round figures 300,000 km/s.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
This is the most rational discussion we have had, @RC. Don't let it go to your head, but if you can keep this up I might take you off ignore and give you some 5s. But you're going to have to get off the irrational prejudice against math first.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
if the math always gives the same result as reality does, where's the distinction
You've said it yourself in the past, mate: "The map is NOT the territory"; a crucial distinction; because at times (like now with @Benni) maths ATTEMPTS to REPRESENT 'reality' via/within ABSTRACT ANALYTICAL 'constructs' can get in the way of REAL understanding of what is actually happening in reality. That's all. :)
in a stable FREE-FALLING (ie no rocket etc thrust) circular orbit, a 'geostationary orbiting' satellite/person does NOT 'feel' ANY GRAVITATIONAL acceleration effects
in orbit, you are not feeling acceleration because you aren't undergoing any from your local point of view;
Thanks for agreeing. :)
Uncle Ira's example of the car driving in a circle is better than trying to figure out orbital mechanics.
But that involves INERTIAL FORCE 'acceleration', NOT the GRAVITATIONAL 'acceleration' of the original BH EH ESCAPE VELOCITY issue. Correct?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
While it's true that the map is not the territory, math is much finer grained than a map. The representation goes all the way down to atoms, of which you can hold a billion in your hand. At that point the representation is so detailed that if we made maps that good, it would have every grain of dust on the map. What if ihe map showed every atom? How big do you think such a map would need to be? I'd say it would need to be bigger than the territory. So what now?
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
Uncle Ira's example of the car driving in a circle is better than trying to figure out orbital mechanics.
But that involves INERTIAL FORCE 'acceleration', NOT the GRAVITATIONAL 'acceleration' of the original BH EH ESCAPE VELOCITY issue. Correct?


No. By the equivalence principle, there isn't any difference between inertial and gravitational acceleration; certainly there is none we can measure. At least not locally; how non-local observers rationalize it is not the point. From the GRT viewpoint, acceleration is measured locally by local experiments; for example, am I being pushed across the car by acceleration, or not? If I am, then I am undergoing acceleration, and there's no substantial difference between the acceleration my legs resist against the ground or the acceleration my arm resists against the door.

[contd]
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
[contd]
Just because it's a black hole doesn't mean gravity is somehow different outside the event horizon. It's just acceleration, the effect of the force of gravity on a mass. And the force arises from the mass; it's a force, and all forces act on momentum of both matter and energy.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
This is the most rational discussion we have had, @RC. ... But you're going to have to get off the irrational prejudice against math first.
As the record shows, my part of our exchanges have always been rational (and polite until you started with unwarranted "lying" accusations/tactics, hey?). Anyhow, I have NO "irrational prejudice against maths". In fact I always state that it is OK UNTIL it 'breaks down' (and gives 'singularities' and 'undefined' and other nonsense 'results'). Mainstream mathematicians/physicists are well aware of this 'problem' with the current abstract/unreal-axiomatic maths construct; hence why I am NOT ALONE in trying to IMPROVE it. :)
While it's true that the map is not the territory, math is much finer grained than a map.
Again, mate, I only HIGHLIGHT current abstract/unreal math construct 'domains of applicability' and 'overall limitations problems'. Reality-Based-Axiomatic Maths will enhance/remedy applicability/problems. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@RC, you aren't trying to "improve" math. You're saying it doesn't work at all ever, and that's not gonna fly.

And, since we can't see atoms, a map that had them all would necessarily be a billion times bigger than the territory since we can't see atoms. The math can define them, though.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
I also disagree that math is abstract. Chimps seem to understand it just fine.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
By the equivalence principle, there isn't any difference between inertial and gravitational acceleration;
I already pointed that out to @Benni. Thanks for agreeing.
for example, am I being pushed across the car by acceleration, or not? If I am, then I am undergoing acceleration, and there's no substantial difference
You fail to realise that there is an EXTRA FACTOR in that case: INERTIAL ACTION-REACTION forces arises in turning-car case, because wheel-road FRICTION IMPARTS an OPPOSITELY DIRECTED INERTIAL accelerative FORCE to EARTH (road surface). :)

Whereas NO INERTIAL action-reaction 'forces' arise in the geostationary free-falling-satellite constant GRAVITATIONAL accelerative effect case. Get the crucial distinction? :)

Besides, I was STRICTLY addressing @Benni's PHOTON "escape/no-escape from BH" concerns. :)

You're saying it [current abstract/unreal-axiomatic Maths] doesn't work at all ever,
I said it DOES WORK...UNTIL it breaks down. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Get the crucial distinction?
No. You're implicitly denying the equivalence principle, which you espoused maybe 50 or a hundred posts ago.

Acceleration is change of momentum. You can always feel momentum changes from forces, whether in your arm or your legs, i.e. from your so-called inertial forces or from gravity. The equivalence principle guarantees this.

And of course, math giving ridiculous answers indicates that we require more math.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
I also disagree that math is abstract. Chimps seem to understand it just fine.
It is merely a matter of degree, not difference in kind. Chimp brain-minds can also do 'abstraction' on many levels, just like human brain-minds. They also 'think' abstractly' and 'plan ahead' and 'dream' etc just like us. That is a signature of ABSTRACT THOUGHT 'constructs' (or a 'world view' effected by/within the brain-mind construct. Hence Chimps can abstractly 'count', either instinctively (subconsciously) or deliberately (consciously) after long staring and/or trial-and-error/comparison (learning) etc etc. It's a complex field of study. But the upshot insofar as our current abstract maths is concerned: it involves unreal axiomatic concepts (like 'dimensionless point') and gives unreal/unhelpful 'results' (singularities, undefined, nonsense). It is the latter problems/limitations which need remedying; hence my reality-based-axioms maths work to that end. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
Here, consider this:

In the frame of the satellite, it is on a constant-momentum path that includes not only its speed forward but also its rotational and revolutionary momenta, which are by Noether's theorem dual to conservation of angular momentum. This is another basic feature of how matter behaves in spacetime.

So the satellite case can in fact be explained in any frame. And the postulated inhabitants of the satellite would still experience free-fall. Only acceleration produces forces, and only moving apart from the inertial path produces acceleration.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
Y'know, if chimps observe it and will bite you if you violate it, I'm kinda wondering how abstract it is. Looks to me more like a physical law.

Let's start with 1 = 1.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Get the crucial distinction?
No. You're implicitly denying the equivalence principle, which you espoused maybe 50 or a hundred posts ago.
How am I doing that, mate? I merely pointed out the differences in the gravity-freefalling/car-turning cases; ie, FORCES arise in the LATTER case whereas NO FORCES arise in the former case. That's all. The equivalence principle I already pointed out for @Benni's benefit was for HIM to consider 'acceleration' per se irrespective of context....and THEN for HIM to further consider what is actually happening that distinguishes his ABSTRACT maths KINETIC 'calculation' view versus the actual GRAVITATIONAL 'reality' entities/dynamics.
And of course, math giving ridiculous answers indicates that we require more math.
No, mate; [abstract/unreal-axiomatic] math giving ridiculous answers indicates that we require BETTER [ie, reality-based-axiomatic] math. Get the subtle but crucial distinction there, mate. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
In the frame of the satellite, it is on a constant-momentum path that includes not only its speed forward but also its rotational and revolutionary momenta, which are by Noether's theorem dual to conservation of angular momentum. This is another basic feature of how matter behaves in spacetime. So the satellite case can in fact be explained in any frame. And the postulated inhabitants of the satellite would still experience free-fall. Only acceleration produces forces, and only moving apart from the inertial path produces acceleration.
No problem. I NEVER denied that we CAN 'abstract/calculate' things; but merely recognise that we CAN look/think BEYOND )current) maths to fully understand reality....IF that maths is getting in the way of reality understanding. That was my point to @Benni. :)
Y'know, if chimps observe it and will bite you if you violate it, I'm kinda wondering how abstract it is.
It's BEHAVIOUR results from instinct/thought/learnings. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2019
Actually not quite. "Light has a velocity of 299,792,458 m/s" is an incomplete statement because it doesn't specify a direction. It's like saying "I have a green." "Light has a speed of 299,792,458 m/s" is a complete statement because speed is a scalar and doesn't specify velocity.

Actually, your velocity figure is KM/s...
Umm, no, that would be 299,792.458 km/s. In round figures 300,000 km/s.

you typed it as m/s, initially... :-)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Whyde
@Da Schneib.
@DS.
Actually not quite. "Light has a velocity of 299,792,458 m/s" is an incomplete statement because it doesn't specify a direction. It's like saying "I have a green." "Light has a speed of 299,792,458 m/s" is a complete statement because speed is a scalar and doesn't specify velocity.

Actually, your velocity figure is KM/s...
Umm, no, that would be 299,792.458 km/s. In round figures 300,000 km/s.

you typed it as m/s, initially... :-)
I suspect you misread the comma/period situation in DS's original/subsequent post re that, Whyde. :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2019
@Whyde
@Da Schneib.
@DS.
Actually not quite. "Light has a velocity of 299,792,458 m/s" is an incomplete statement because it doesn't specify a direction. It's like saying "I have a green." "Light has a speed of 299,792,458 m/s" is a complete statement because speed is a scalar and doesn't specify velocity.

Actually, your velocity figure is KM/s...
Umm, no, that would be 299,792.458 km/s. In round figures 300,000 km/s.

you typed it as m/s, initially... :-)
I suspect you misread the comma/period situation in DS's original/subsequent post re that, Whyde. :)

Nothing to do with comma's or periods.
He typed the number followed by m/s (miles per second)

Wasn't meant to be anything more than a little friendly rib poking....
But, it is an example of how maths can be wrong, if you will...
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2019
Errr, no, miles per second is mi/s. m/s is meters per second.

Besides, the speed of light in mi/s is 186,000 mi/s in round numbers.

I suspect you misread the comma/period situation in DS's original/subsequent post re that, Whyde. :)
No, but he tells what the problem was, so that's that.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
says Whyde
To be precise, Whyde, I DO know what Space is made of. I move through Space every day in every way with my human host and his many friends and housemates.


Can you hold it in your hand?
- Of course, and so could you if you were conscious of Space surrounding your hand.

Space is everywhere.

But what is it MADE of? And WHY is it made up of whatever you know it is?
- In the airless Cosmos outside of Earth, Space is still made up of the same components that air is basically made of. Note that I said, "BASICALLY".

Your idea of "time" is nowhere.

How much time did it take to you to come up with that snappy answer?
- It came to mind instantly. How much time did it take you to come up with that snappy question?
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
You're implicitly denying the equivalence principle, which you espoused maybe 50 or a hundred posts ago.
How am I doing that, mate?
By your next statement:
I merely pointed out the differences in the gravity-freefalling/car-turning cases
There are no differences unless you deny the equivalence principle.
Benni
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
Schneibo & RC.........bantering over the best way to define Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2019
Errr, no, miles per second is mi/s. m/s is meters per second.

Well, that's different, then... :-)

Besides, the speed of light in mi/s is 186,000 mi/s in round numbers.

I know that. I know you do, too.
Just thought it was a "typo"...
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
You're implicitly denying the equivalence principle, which you espoused maybe 50 or a hundred posts ago.
How am I doing that, mate?
By your next statement:
I merely pointed out the differences in the gravity-freefalling/car-turning cases
There are no differences unless you deny the equivalence principle.
The difference was in the FORCES versus NO FORCES arising in the two distinctly different scenarios where acceleration occurs. One acceleration is from GRAVITY the other from INERTIAL effects, and hence there can be NO FEELING of acceleration in the satellite/gravitational acceleration scenario case, while THERE IS FEELING of acceleration in the car/inertial scenario case. Get it? The difference I was highlighting was ONLY in regards to the force/effects, NOT in the acceleration per se. Again, there is principle-of-equivalence in re acceleration PER SE, but there is effective-difference in experience in the two cases. Ok? :)
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2019
says Whyde


Can you hold it in your hand?
- Of course, and so could you if you were conscious of Space surrounding your hand.

I am conscious of it as it is one the two things everything existing has in common.

But what is it MADE of? And WHY is it made up of whatever you know it is?
- In the airless Cosmos outside of Earth, Space is still made up of the same components that air is basically made of. Note that I said, "BASICALLY".

List those "components"...

Your idea of "time" is nowhere.

How much time did it take to you to come up with that snappy answer?
- It came to mind instantly. How much time did it take you to come up with that snappy question?

The same number of milliseconds as yours, roughly...
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Mar 17, 2019


The difference was in the FORCES versus NO FORCES arising in the two distinctly different scenarios where acceleration occurs. One acceleration is from GRAVITY the other from INERTIAL effects, and hence there can be NO FEELING of acceleration in the satellite/gravitational acceleration scenario case, while THERE IS FEELING of acceleration in the car/inertial scenario case. Get it? The difference I was highlighting was ONLY in regards to the force/effects, NOT in the acceleration per se. Again, there is principle-of-equivalence in re acceleration PER SE, but there is effective-difference in experience in the two cases. Ok? :)

The biggest difference being the size of the circle being driven...
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Benni.
Schneibo & RC.........bantering over the best way to define Pop-Cosmology psycho-babble.
I've been highlighting the detrimental effects on yours/others understanding of the reality per se instead of just adding to the pop-cosmology/maths abstraction which you and others have been doing while you/they have been 'getting nowhere fast'. Anyhow, mate, did you try to read/understand what I have been pointing out to clarify the confusions which you/others are labouring under while insulting each other heedless of the misunderstandings on all sides? Try to read/understand instead of continuing your baiting/insulting campaign like there have been doing (else you will be actively confirming that you are are no better than they are, mate).

ps: Time to ditch old feuds/tactics and start afresh trying to discuss politely/fairly; and in common effort towards understand reality instead of playing ego-games with each other, hey? Good luck Benni/all. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Whyde.
The difference was in the FORCES versus NO FORCES arising in the two distinctly different scenarios where acceleration occurs. One acceleration is from GRAVITY the other from INERTIAL effects, and hence there can be NO FEELING of acceleration in the satellite/gravitational acceleration scenario case, while THERE IS FEELING of acceleration in the car/inertial scenario case. Get it? The difference I was highlighting was ONLY in regards to the force/effects, NOT in the acceleration per se. Again, there is principle-of-equivalence in re acceleration PER SE, but there is effective-difference in experience in the two cases. Ok? :)

The biggest difference being the size of the circle being driven
No, mate. The different turning circle DIAMETER of turning cars may vary, but FORCES arise in ALL such turning car cases which DO NOT ARISE in the GRAVITATIONAL regardless of the ORBITAL CIRCLE diameter. It is THAT FORCES-versus-NO FORCES difference I was highlighting. :)
Uncle Ira
5 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2019
Again, there is principle-of-equivalence in re acceleration PER SE, but there is effective-difference in experience in the two cases. Ok? :)
There ain't no PER Saying about it Cher. There is no difference the acceleration forces.

The only difference is one is unrestrained (free falling in orbit) and one is restrained (riding around the circle in your car.) If you was hanging by a rope in a tree, you would feel the gravity accelerating at you just fine,,,,, the rope is pulling back on you. But the very same gravity you would not feel if you were in a plane diving towards the ground. (I think the Einstein-Skippy pondered on the elevator instead of the airplane the way the NASA peoples practice.) They are both the very same Earth and Really-Skippy gravity.

You guys don't mind letting everybody in the world see a couyon like me showing you up?
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
@RC, tell me this: do you feel an upward force in an airliner when it takes a great circle route?

OK, so explain that.

I'll let you ponder it for a little while.

I'll also tell you that when calculating centripetal force, it is not the meters per second, but the radians per second that count. This may give you a bit of a hint.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2019
Here's the key: the orbit doesn't cancel the centripetal force. It only cancels the gravity.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Uncle Ira.
Again, there is principle-of-equivalence in re acceleration PER SE, but there is effective-difference in experience in the two cases. Ok? :)
There ain't no PER Saying about it Cher. There is no difference the acceleration forces.

The only difference is one is unrestrained (free falling in orbit) and one is restrained (riding around the circle in your car.) If you was hanging by a rope in a tree, you would feel the gravity accelerating at you just fine,,,,, the rope is pulling back on you. But the very same gravity you would not feel if you were in a plane diving towards the ground. (I think the Einstein-Skippy pondered on the elevator instead of the airplane the way the NASA peoples practice.) They are both the very same Earth and Really-Skippy gravity.

You guys don't mind letting everybody in the world see a couyon like me showing you up?
Thanks for agreeing with what I have been pointing out for many posts now, Ira; your apology accepted. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
the orbit doesn't cancel the centripetal force. It only cancels the gravity.
Correct, that's what I have been trying to get through to you: ie, the gravitational accelerative effect is NOT 'cancelled', AND in the free fall geostationary orbit I mentioned, the gravitational accelerative effect IS NOT FELT by satellite/person thus orbiting. And, DS, I ONLY posted that reminder because YOU didn't point THAT out in your relevant response to @Benni. Ok? Have you ever ridden on a 'vomit comet' astronaut training flight? All the forces are a result of the plane's motions; any gravity effects are counteracted/enhanced depending on the instantaneous trajectory at any particular moment. If the plane was in level flight, the only things you'd feel is the pressure of the floor acting against your weight due to the ever-present gravitational acceleration you are under. Why bring these unnecessary diversions when the geostationary orbit case said it all, DS? :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2019
Well, technically moving along a geodesic path cancels gravity, so I don't know why you said
the gravitational accelerative effect is NOT 'cancelled'
We're not talking about gravitational acceleration. We're talking about centripetal acceleration. The reason you feel it in the car and not in the airplane, or on the satellite, is because their angular velocity is too low for it to be measurable in the airplane or satellite, but high enough to be easily felt in the car.

Simple as that. It's like the billion-times lifesize map. It's a matter of scale. Size matters.

Since both the satellite and the car feel the centripetal acceleration, the only difference is the absence of gravitational acceleration on the satellite. But that has nothing to do with the case in the car, whereas the centripetal acceleration does. And the reason the satellite feels no gravity is because it's in free fall, which the car is not.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
a geodesic path cancels gravity, so I don't know why you said:
the gravitational accelerative effect is NOT 'cancelled'
I used that phrase advisedly, after your comment:
the orbit doesn't cancel the centripetal force. It only cancels the gravity
I used the "gravitational accelerative effect' in place of your 'centripetal force' (because in gravitational free falling GR context there is NO such 'force'...only gravitational accelerative effect). The only contexts in which 'centripetal FORCES' arise is in 'INERTIAL accelerative effect' scenarios as I already pointed out. So, I AGREED with you that gravitational accelerative effect (your so-called 'centripetal force' which actually shouldn't be used in GR contexts) is NOT 'cancelled'; AND I also agreed that the 'gravitational accelerative effect' IS COUNTERACTED (but NOT 'cancelled' as you said, because gravity is 'always on' irrespective of other INERTIAL forces at play). It's subtle but crucial. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2019
To put a finer point on it, claiming there are "no forces" on the satellite is wrong. Even though it's not obvious.

It depends on your frame. In the frame of Earth's surface, the falling satellite is experiencing the force of gravity. But in the satellite's own frame, it's in free fall.

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
To put a finer point on it, claiming there are "no forces" on the satellite is wrong. Even though it's not obvious.

It depends on your frame. In the frame of Earth's surface, the falling satellite is experiencing the force of gravity. But in the satellite's own frame, it's in free fall.

In GR there is NO 'force' arising; because the WHOLE satellite is following a free fall path according to energy-space curvature (that is WHY you would feel NO 'accelerative effect' (ie, NO what you called 'centripetal force') in that case.

That's all that is salient. Except that in INERTIAL cases such as your turning cars, there ARE 'forces' arising because YOU and the CAR are NOT SIMULTANEOUSLY affected by the INERTIAL accelerative effects.

In short: In GR, there IS NO such thing as action-and-reaction 'forces' involved for geostationary orbiting satellite; whereas in a turning car there IS action-and-reaction 'forces', as I already pointed out. Ok?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2019
And now the kicker: why is the car not in free fall? It's orbiting.

Meanwhile, no forces according to whom? If there are no forces acting on the satellite, why doesn't it just fly off on a straight line and leave orbit, flying off into space?

If you're talking about relativity, ignoring the question "what frame are you measuring from?" is a capital mistake.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
And now the kicker: why is the car not in free fall? It's orbiting.
You are conflating TWO separate scenarios there, mate. The 'turning car' on Earth is NOT 'orbiting' around a bend in the road!....whereas it is the satellite that IS 'orbiting' around Earth! And as I already pointed out for you, the CAR is affected due to FRICTION forces between tyres and road. There is NO such 'friction' etc 'forces' in free falling context in energy-space. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2019
Not really. The satellite experiences centripetal force too; it's just too small to measure.
And the satellite is acted upon by the force of gravity, according to an observer on Earth. Otherwise satellites would fly off into space.

So does that count as "friction?"

I keep telling you, what you see depends on where you're standing. That's what relativity says.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Not really. The satellite experiences centripetal force too; it's just too small to measure.
And the satellite is acted upon by the force of gravity, according to an observer on Earth. Otherwise satellites would fly off into space.

So does that count as "friction?"
I just again pointed out for you that in GR there is NO 'force' in GRAVITATIONAL 'free falling' case. Period. And again, 'centripetal force' is ONLY in INERTIAL contexts where accelerations OTHER THAN GRAVITATIONAL give rise to 'forces' of all kinds (as I already explained)...eg, in the turning car scenario the car is first 'turned' by FRICTION forces between tyres and road; THEN YOU are 'sent sideways' by the 'forces' imparted by the CAR INTERIOR (ie, walls IMPACT; seat FRICTION) acting against your body. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2019
The thing is, see, gravity acts on the satellite to constrain its path just like the tires on the car constrain its path. Both the satellite and the car experience centripetal force, due to being constrained to move in a circle. It's just that the satellite has such a slow revolution rate that the centripetal force is too small for us to measure.

And if not, why doesn't either the car or the satellite simply move off in a straight line?

And this is why you need math.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2019
The frame determines what you see. It's possible to define a frame in which the starlight curving around the Sun moves in a straight line. And defining that frame requires GRT. And therefore math. There's no getting away from it; if you're a chimp you gotta count bananas; if you're a scientist you gotta work tensors.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
gravity acts on the satellite to constrain its path just like the tires on the car constrain its path. Both the satellite and the car experience centripetal force, due to being constrained to move in a circle. It's just that the satellite has such a slow revolution that the centripetal force is too small for us to measure.
I see what you are saying, but the two contexts are entirely different re the 'forces' aspect. Consider: the whole satellite (and any passenger) is ALL affected by gravitational accelerative effect EQUALLY; hence NO 'force' is 'felt' by either satellite OR passenger. Whereas in CAR turning around a bend in the road case, there ARE 'forces' (as I previously pointed out)...and those forces are FRICTION forces acting on the whole planet Earth. Whereas there is NO 'planet' or other material body in space on which the satellite can act against to produce friction 'forces'; ie, free falling WITHOUT ACTION-REACTION 'forces' dynamics involved.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
The frame determines what you see. It's possible to define a frame in which the starlight curving around the Sun moves in a straight line. And defining that frame requires GRT. And therefore math. There's no getting away from it; if you're a chimp you gotta count bananas; if you're a scientist you gotta work tensors.
I'm trying to get you to FOCUS on the REALITY happenings rather than "what you see/calculate etc from some frame of reference or other". I now remind you that (years ago, back in physforum) @rpenner agreed/confirmed that 'frames of reference' are NOT 'real things; but merely abstract analytical constructs from which one can 'move' from one analytical perspective to another...WITHOUT actually changing the physical things themselves, only calculating the different RELATIVE results depending on frame of reference CHOSEN for analysis. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2019
They weren't supposed to be the same. The car is constrained by a completely different force than the satellite. One is friction, one is gravity. But ultimately, the result is the same; centripetal force. If we had good enough accelerometers (and as an aside, these are also called gravitometers; they're the same thing through the equivalence principle) we could measure it for the satellite too.

But if you believe the equivalence principle, you cannot determine what the source of the acceleration is without looking at another frame of reference. And there may be more than one frame and more than one correct answer.

In fact, there is one correct answer for each frame, and an infinite number of frames.

There's the math thingie again.

And see, when you talk about "reality," since it's different from different frames I have no idea what you're talking about and don't think you do either.

In one frame, the satellite is falling; in another it's orbiting.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
They weren't supposed to be the same. The car is constrained by a completely different force than the satellite. One is friction, one is gravity. But ultimately, the result is the same; centripetal force. If we had good enough accelerometers (and as an aside, these are also called gravitometers; they're the same thing through the equivalence principle) we could measure it for the satellite too.
No, mate. Again, NO FORCE in free fall GR context. Period. THAT is the crucial understanding/takeaway. Please stop 'conflating' force-free, force-present scenarios.
But if you believe the equivalence principle,
I already pointed out that the Equivalence Principle is to do with acceleration PER SE; NOT with FORCE or NO FORCE scenarios. Ok?
In fact, there is one correct answer for each frame, and an infinite number of frames.
PLease see my previous post re 'frames' etc. Thanks.
There's the math thingie again.
Yes; whence your confusing/conflating things.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2019
I'm trying (and have been for years) to get you to focus on the fact that what you see from different frames of reference is equally true for each frame, but different from each frame. You're too stuck on one frame to allow any other to be "real," but the fact is, each one is.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2019
Zero net force is not no force.

And if you can't accept reality from a different frame from your own, you are prejudiced. And I don't mean racially.

Simply, if I see events X and Y from position A, their order is X then Y. If I see them from position B, their order is Y then X. Which one is reality?

And I ask again, if there is no force, why are the satellites orbiting?

C'mon, dude, this is easy stuff.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
I'm trying (and have been for years) to get you to focus on the fact that what you see from different frames of reference is equally true for each frame, but different from each frame. You're too stuck on one frame to allow any other to be "real," but the fact is, each one is.
Again, please read my earlier post regarding 'frames of reference'.

Wherein I REMINDED you/all that @rpenner HIMSELF agreed/confirmed that 'frames of reference' are NOT 'real things', but merely abstract analytical 'constructs' which we can CHOOSE arbitrarily for one analysis or another analysis perspective. None of those changes in perspectives actually affects what is REALLY HAPPENING OVERALL, irrespective of which frame we are 'viewing/analysing FROM.

So, DS, can you 'get' that so you can move away from the math-related confusions and start actually understanding the real things FIRST and THEN 'do the maths' as appropriate? :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2019
You either got an answer to why the satellite is orbiting or you don't. You either can explain why the orbiting satellite doesn't experience any local force or you don't.

Every time you engage in one of these handwaving ceremonies you fail to explain one or the other.

You are hooked on the horns of a dilemma and cannot figure out how to get off.

I'm telling you how, which is to accept that observers in different frames see different things, and you're trying everything you can to deny it. I expect the lies will start shortly. Sorry but that's what you always do.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2019
@RC, what you call "reality" has no existence. There is only reality as seen from this frame, and reality seen from that frame, and an infinite number of frames. Which one is "reality?" All of them.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
You either got an answer to why the satellite is orbiting or you don't. You either can explain why the orbiting satellite doesn't experience any local force or you don't.

Every time you engage in one of these handwaving ceremonies you fail to explain one or the other.

You are hooked on the horns of a dilemma and cannot figure out how to get off.

I'm telling you how, which is to accept that observers in different frames see different things, and you're trying everything you can to deny it. I expect the lies will start shortly. Sorry but that's what you always do.
Please see wiki, wherein the first paragraph explicitly differentiates between GR and other contexts re 'force/no-force; to wit:
In Newtonian physics, free fall is any motion of a body where gravity is the only force acting upon it. In the context of general relativity, where gravitation is reduced to a space-time curvature, a body in free fall has no force acting on it.
Take your time. mate. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 17, 2019
Yes, those are both true. GRT does not construct gravity as a force, but as curvature of spacetime and therefore of geodesic paths. TUG constructs gravity as the action of a force.

Did you have a point here?
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
@RC, what you call "reality" has no existence. There is only reality as seen from this frame, and reality seen from that frame, and an infinite number of frames. Which one is "reality?" All of them.
No, mate. What you are alluding to is PERCEIVED 'reality' from particular analytical frame of reference/calculation. Whereas I am referring to the real things that are occurring fundamentally in the universal energy-s[ave IRRESPECTIVE of whether or not WE are observing/calculating/analysing from some particular frame of reference.

Did you understand that REMINDER, DS; wherein I pointed out that @rpenner agreed/confirmed that frames of reference are NOT 'real things'? Hence 'reality' as PERCEIVED from one or other frame of reference does NOT change the fundamental reality dynamics involved, irrespective of observers/calculators/frames of reference ABSTRACTIONS.

And did you READ that wiki re GR being FORCE-FREE context, DS?

Thanks. :)
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 17, 2019
Then you are limiting yourself to a single frame, without being able to specify why this single frame should be accepted as "reality." The entire point of relativity is that there is no special frame that should be accepted as reality; what you see is what you get, and if someone else sees it differently, you cannot reject their claim a priori because you saw something different.

The way to rationalize one frame with another is called a "transform," and you cannot do it without math.
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Yes, those are both true. GRT does not construct gravity as a force, but as curvature of spacetime and therefore of geodesic paths. TUG constructs gravity as the action of a force. Did you have a point here?
THAT was the point, mate. I'm glad you 'got' it. It's the GR *and BH EH etc) context in which my comments were made in order to address @Benni's concerns re PHOTON escape velocity/speed etc. Ok? :)
Then you are limiting yourself to a single frame, without being able to specify why this single frame should be accepted as "reality." The entire point of relativity is that there is no special frame ...
I'm NOT. That's why I pointed out the NON-reality of 'frames' which can BE ARBITRARILY 'chosen' and then re-chosen according to abstract analytical methods/requirements. THE UNDERLYING REALITY is NOT the frame-dependent one (which can be changed at whim); it is the ACTUAL DYNAMICS IRRESPECTIVE OF OBSERVER-CONSTRUCTED 'RELATIVELY perceived realities'.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
No, your point was that one is right and one is wrong.

And that's not true.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
No, your point was that one is right and one is wrong.

And that's not true.
No no no, mate; THAT is YOUR misreading/misunderstanding of what I have actually been saying to you/@Benni. You are confusing/conflating all sorts of things, DS. It's time to stop and re-read/re-think through all I wrote IN CONTEXT. Then maybe your mind can dispel the confusions re reality/maths and gravitational/inertial aspects/forces/perceptions etc which I tried to clarify for you/@Benni. Good luck. :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
Incidentally, the guidance for New Horizons appears to use Newton's Theory of Universal Gravitation (TUG). The corrections for GRT were swamped by corrections for the TUG multi-body problem, and as a result didn't require relativity calculations. I haven't found a site that denies it on Google.
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
No, @RC. I'm trying to introduce you to the flaws in your conception of reality. And you're starting to lie and deny again.

How about you tell me where I'm missing context?

Can you do that?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 17, 2019
says Whyde

But what is it MADE of? And WHY is it made up of whatever you know it is?
- In the airless Cosmos outside of Earth, Space is still made up of the same components that air is basically made of. Note that I said, "BASICALLY".
List those "components"...

Subatomic particles such as quarks and leptons, eg.
From Fermilab:
"Empty space, we have discovered, is actually not empty at all. Quantum effects constantly produce particles and antiparticles "out of nothing," only to have them disappear few moments later. And space itself can either be almost flat or curved, depending on the amount of matter it contains."
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
How about you tell me where I'm missing context?
The laws by which underlying universal phenomena operate in REALITY are what they are, irrespective of our maths/theory/representations of them. That is one context. Another context is what I was trying to clear up for @Benni in relation to HIS concerns re GR context of photon escape/no-escape issues which he is having problems with understanding clearly. The further context is your introducing all sorts of digressions/misunderstood incidentals/irrelevancies which MISS the SALIENT point I was actually addressing for @Benni/everyone. A further context still is the REMINDER that #rpenner himself long ago agreed/confirmed that 'frames of reference' are NOT 'real things', and hence any 'results' from such analyses should NOT be taken as REALITY...eg, the FORCE/NO-FORCE example is a case in point, and you conflating GR FORCE-FREE 'accelerative effect' with INERTIAL(Newtonian) FRICTION FORCES case. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
3.4 / 5 (5) Mar 17, 2019
And here we go again. Now you're just repeating yourself over and over without saying anything.

There isn't any underlying reality. There is no special frame. That's the first postulate of SRT.

One frame says the satellite is not experiencing any forces, and therefore feels no gravity; another says the satellite is experiencing the force of gravity and therefore doesn't fly off into space.

Which one is right?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Mar 17, 2019
@Da Schneib.
And here we go again. Now you're just repeating yourself over and over without saying anything.

There isn't any underlying reality. There is no special frame. That's the first postulate of SRT.
That is what I am saying , mate. The EFFECTIVE 'frame' in GR context around black hole for understanding gravitational accelerative effects on photons IS GRT, NOT SRT. :)

And the other thing I am saying is that SRT 'frames are NOT 'real things', as agreed/confirmed by @rpenner long ago; and that the universal dynamics HAPPENS (ie, as in "shite happens") whether or not WE analyse/perceive etc from whatever 'SRT 'frame' we choose for our observation/analysis (yes, we can use math algorithm to CONVERT/TRANSFORM the 'analytical outputs' between that and other 'frames'; HOWEVER, SRT 'frames' being NOT REAL THINGS means that all these 'transformed results' are 'perceived realities', NOT THE UNDERLYING REALITY irrespective of SRT-perspective observers/frames. Ok? :)

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2019
List those "components"...

Subatomic particles such as quarks and leptons, eg.
From Fermilab:
"Empty space, we have discovered, is actually not empty at all. Quantum effects constantly produce particles and antiparticles "out of nothing," only to have them disappear few moments later. And space itself can either be almost flat or curved, depending on the amount of matter it contains."

You only list what exists IN "space", not the constituent components OF "space".
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2019
GRT is not a frame of reference. SRT is not a frame either. It therefore makes no sense to say
The EFFECTIVE 'frame' in GR context around black hole for understanding gravitational accelerative effects on photons IS GRT, NOT SRT.
It's a meaningless statement.

Since there is no preferred frame, there is no underlying reality. There is no preferred place to stand, going a certain speed in a certain direction. And what you see will depend upon where you're standing and how fast you're going and in what direction relative to what you're looking at. That construct, where you're standing and how fast you're going in what direction, is a frame of reference; but since there is no preferred frame, you can only talk about where and how fast and which way about two frames relative to one another. There isn't any underlying reality frame to relate either one to.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2019
So, from the frame of an observer standing on the surface of the Earth, a satellite in Earth orbit is falling because of the force of gravity; but from the satellite, the satellite is not experiencing any forces. Which of these is the underlying reality? Correct answer: neither. There is no underlying reality. There is only reality as seen from this frame or that frame, and a procedure for converting or transforming what you see from this frame into what you see from that one. If your frame is inertial, that is, not in a gravity field and not experiencing acceleration, you can use SRT to make the equations for these transforms; if a frame is accelerated by whatever means, whether that be gravity or some other influence like car tires, then you must use GRT to make the transform equations. You can always tell if you're under acceleration; simply release an object in midair and see if it moves in your frame. If it does, you're under acceleration.
[contd]
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2019
[contd]
So it only makes sense to talk about reality as seen from this frame or that frame; there is no "underlying reality frame" to talk about. It doesn't exist. And GRT and SRT are not frames; they are recipes for making up the particular equations you must use to transform what's seen from this frame, that is, standing over here going this fast in this direction with this acceleration, with what's seen from that frame, that is, standing over there going that fast in that direction with that acceleration. In one frame the satellite is falling; in another, it is motionless. Which frame is reality? Correct answer, both. Each observer in each frame is always correct about what they observe, but it may not agree with what another observer in another frame observes. However, we can transform any frame into any other, that is predict what observers in another frame will have seen based on what we saw.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2019
These are very fine points, @RC; but they are essential. You can't point to some particular frame and say "that one is real" or "that one is right;" at best, you can say "that frame gives this view of what is happening." What you see from a particular frame *is* reality, in that frame. Even without GRT, you still cannot say of two remote events that they happened in some particular order; you can only say, "in this frame, X happened before Y, whereas in that frame Y happened before X." And, of course, you can say the same thing for frames that require GRT to make their transforms as for frames that only need SRT to make the transforms.

Until you get this, you will not understand reality. There isn't any underlying reality; there's reality as you see it, and reality as I see it, and they may be the same or they may be different.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2019
And as for whether frames are real or not, they are as real or unreal as saying "I'm standing over here, going this fast in this direction with this acceleration." Is that real? This is not a correct question if you can't define "real." And you can't. Not in those terms. Where is "over here?" What is "this fast?" What is "this direction?" Only one of these has any meaning anyone would call "real:" "this acceleration." You can always measure acceleration locally; just drop something in midair and see if it moves or just stays there. And even then, you can't say why it moves or stays still; it might be gravity, it might be a rocket engine pushing you along, you might be in a car or train speeding up or slowing down, you might be in space or on the surface of the Earth, all you can know locally is, I am or I am not seeing the action of acceleration.
Da Schneib
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2019
As the simplest, it's easy to note that if I am on a train on the surface of the Earth, and I drop something, I see it fall straight down; if the train's walls are all made of glass, someone standing still on the surface of the Earth sees it fall in a parabola, like all things that are both falling and moving in some other direction do. Which one is right, the straight line or the parabola? This is not a meaningful question. Both are right, from their respective frames. Neither is right, from the other frame.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2019
Is any of this making sense to you, @RC?
kl31415
3.9 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2019
Benni was trying to make a joke about my work, I am a nurse and a radiotherapist
benji is an idiot

I'm curious: RN, BSN or higher?

I am not sure how that works for the nurse part, but I know that most places require a baccalaureate degree or postgraduate for radiation therapy, so I thought I would ask

VA physical therapists only recognize 8 specialising in oncology and I don't see a medical license for the org (Current as of 03/15/2019 13:01)

trying to find accreditation, but nothing so far...

perhaps this is a new specialist academy trying to flex its muscles?

:-)


@Captain Stumpy
Sure :)

Nursing was a high school - a trade school, probably a bit different system then in most of Europe.
Bacc. degree for radiography from this place https://www.zvu.hr/
This course goes through nuclear medicine and radiotherapy, but primary focus is on radiography.
Decided to go for radiotherapy after uni was done as seemed a bit more interesting...
observicist
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2019
@RealityCheck,

And the other thing I am saying is that SRT 'frames are NOT 'real things', as agreed/confirmed by @rpenner long ago; and that the universal dynamics HAPPENS (ie, as in "shite happens") whether or not WE analyse/perceive etc from whatever 'SRT 'frame' we choose for our observation/analysis (yes, we can use math algorithm to CONVERT/TRANSFORM the 'analytical outputs' between that and other 'frames'; HOWEVER, SRT 'frames' being NOT REAL THINGS means that all these 'transformed results' are 'perceived realities', NOT THE UNDERLYING REALITY irrespective of SRT-perspective observers/frames. Ok? :)


There's no difference between "perceived reality" and "reality." Reality is what is perceived. This includes time, as well -- two observers can perceive two events in opposite order from each other; each order is as legitimate as the other.

There is no unique reality.
observicist
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 18, 2019
@Da Schneib,

Sorry, you said it much better and in more detail than I did. You posted yours in between when I read what @RC wrote and my reply. I was just trying to keep it simple -- for what should be obvious reasons.
MrBojangles
5 / 5 (6) Mar 18, 2019
Subatomic particles such as quarks and leptons, eg.

Your friend Benni says that quarks do not exist because they have not been isolated.

From Fermilab:
"Empty space, we have discovered, is actually not empty at all. Quantum effects constantly produce particles and antiparticles "out of nothing," only to have them disappear few moments later. And space itself can either be almost flat or curved, depending on the amount of matter it contains."


As Whyde has pointed out, you're not defining what space is made of.
If I fill a glass of water, the glass is not made of water, nor is it made of air once I've poured the water out. Similarly, defining space as the thing contained within it at a given moment is nonsensical. You cannot define what space is made of anymore than someone can define what time is made of.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@RealityCheck,

And the other thing I am saying is that SRT 'frames are NOT 'real things', as agreed/confirmed by @rpenner long ago; and that the universal dynamics HAPPENS (ie, as in "shite happens") whether or not WE analyse/perceive etc from whatever 'SRT 'frame' we choose for our observation/analysis (yes, we can use math algorithm to CONVERT/TRANSFORM the 'analytical outputs' between that and other 'frames'; HOWEVER, SRT 'frames' being NOT REAL THINGS means..
says RC

There's no difference between "perceived reality" and "reality." Reality is what is perceived. This includes time, as well -- two observers can perceive two events in opposite order from each other; each order is as legitimate as the other.

There is no unique reality.
says observatory

EACH reality is unique ONLY to each observer's perception of reality, according to their own experiences in their mind. That is what makes everyone an individual with unique experiences. Events = time.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
-contd-
Like I said, "EACH reality is unique ONLY to each observer's perception of reality, according to their own experiences and memories in their mind. That is what makes everyone an individual with unique experiences. Events = time."
What is referred to as "time" is the recording by the Mind/Brain of Events/Actions and their passage/duration, where the Mind/Brain makes the split-second decision to measure/record that passage/duration by instrument, memory or both. It is the Mind/Brain that decides the reality of whatever is perceived by the human senses and the memory or instrument that records it.
A shadow in the corner might upset an observer when he or she THINKS that it is a person, animal or thing. Momentarily, it seems real, until he or she decides from past experience or through investigation that it is only a shadow.
Perception isn't always evidence of reality; not until a full investigation is done to prove or disprove.

-contd-
observicist
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@SEU,

You're still confusing humanity's definitions of various units of time with time, itself. The first are mind-created; time exists independently, and is very much a real dimension. If time isn't real, then when do events happen? Perception of reality is reality. There is no unique, privileged point of view. The fact that two observers can detect (however they do so) two events in opposite orders means that it is possible to move around in time -- one can definitely move "sideways" in time relative to someone else; it happens all the time (pun intended). Plot a progression of events against the amount of time measured between identical events by individual observers, and you will get a branching tree. That indicates "sideways" movement in time.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
-contd-
@Whyde
Regarding the composition of SPACE - it is full of sub-quantum particles from the smallest up to atomic and molecular structures. We breathe those sub-quantum particles into our lungs, along with the usual Oxygen and Nitrogen and smaller amounts of other gases. It is unknown how small is the smallest particle.
SPACE is a tangible and real substance that can curve, straighten and bend.
Time, OTOH is imaginary and without substance and has no properties. It is made-up in the Mind/Brain of an observer for the purpose of recording the passage/duration of Events/Actions and preserving it to memory.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
@SEU,

You're still confusing humanity's definitions of various units of time with time, itself. The first are mind-created; time exists independently, and is very much a real dimension. If time isn't real, then when do events happen? Perception of reality is reality. There is no unique, privileged point of view...
says observatory

There is no confusing various units of time with nonexistent time. The UNITS of time is by the clock/timepiece increments or by observation and/or measuring of the passage of Events/Actions.
Your insistence that time, like SPACE, is real, is foolish. It is your MIND/BRAIN that has been motivated by your biases to believe that the concept of 'time' is a real thing.
Events/Actions/occurrences/happenings ALL happen in SPACE - that SPACE that surrounds everything in the Universe. Your perception of 'time' as a dimension is impossible. How would you describe this 'time'? Is it perpendicular to Space? What is it made of? You can't even know.
MrBojangles
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
Regarding the composition of SPACE - it is full of sub-quantum particles...

You're still not defining the substrate. Consider again your quote from Fermilab:
"...space... is actually not empty at all. Quantum effects constantly produce particles and antiparticles....And space itself" The last three words of the quote indicate there is a difference between the particles that occupy space and space itself. You're describing the former rather than the latter, which does not answer the question Whyde and others have posed.

SPACE is a tangible and real substance

When have you ever held space in your hands?

Time, OTOH is imaginary... It is made-up... for the purpose of recording the passage/duration of Events/Actions and preserving it to memory.


As I've pointed out to you before, you're relying on the existence of time (passage/duration of events) to describe how time doesn't exist. That makes no sense whatsoever.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
List those "components"...

Subatomic particles such as quarks and leptons, eg.
From Fermilab:
"Empty space, we have discovered, is actually not empty at all. Quantum effects constantly produce particles and antiparticles "out of nothing," only to have them disappear few moments later. And space itself can either be almost flat or curved, depending on the amount of matter it contains."

You only list what exists IN "space", not the constituent components OF "space".
says Whyde

The constituent components OF Space IS Space. That is ALL that Space actually IS. Nothing magical about Space. You seem to think that Space has to be something completely different from its components, which is what Space is made of. There is NO difference between Space and what it is made of. Without those components of quantum and sub-quantum particles, there is no Space. To put it another way - SPACE IS PARTICLES - a very substantive and practical commodity.
observicist
5 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@SEU,

How many times have your conceptions of time and space changed over the course of your life, and why? There is a serious purpose to this question.
MrBojangles
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
The constituent components OF Space IS Space. That is ALL that Space actually IS. There is NO difference between Space and what it is made of...SPACE IS PARTICLES


You're such a twat... you're ignoring the very quote you used from Fermilab because it doesn't agree with your misunderstandings.

From Fermilab:
"Empty space, we have discovered, is actually not empty at all. Quantum effects constantly produce particles and antiparticles "out of nothing," only to have them disappear few moments later. ******And space itself can either be almost flat or curved, depending on the amount of matter it contains*****"

Quit giving your opinion as if it's fact, especially since you don't even understand what you're saying.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
says jingles

Time, OTOH is imaginary... It is made-up... for the purpose of recording the passage/duration of Events/Actions and preserving it to memory.
says I

As I've pointed out to you before, you're relying on the existence of time (passage/duration of events) to describe how time doesn't exist. That makes no sense whatsoever.


No. I am NOT relying on nonexistent 'time' for anything since 'time' is only an abstract word/term/concept dreamed up by the human Mind/Brain to be used as a REFERENCE for the passage/duration of Events/Actions/occurrences, etc. It is merely a "reference point" of RECALL to bring to the Mind/Brain the memory of some Event/Action, etc.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
The constituent components OF Space IS Space. That is ALL that Space actually IS. There is NO difference between Space and what it is made of...SPACE IS PARTICLES


You're such a twat... you're ignoring the very quote you used from Fermilab because it doesn't agree with your misunderstandings.

From Fermilab:
"Empty space, we have discovered, is actually not empty at all. Quantum effects constantly produce particles and antiparticles "out of nothing," only to have them disappear few moments later. ******And space itself can either be almost flat or curved, depending on the amount of matter it contains*****"

Quit giving your opinion as if it's fact, especially since you don't even understand what you're saying.
says jingles

My "opinion" is in full agreement with the quote from Fermilab. Read the full quote again since you don't seem to have absorbed its full implications.
I see that you have now resorted to silly and childish playground name-calling. LOL
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.
GRT is not a frame of reference. SRT is not a frame either. It therefore makes no sense to say
The EFFECTIVE 'frame' in GR context around black hole for understanding gravitational accelerative effects on photons IS GRT, NOT SRT.
It's a meaningless statement......Since there is no preferred frame, there is no underlying reality. There is no preferred place to stand,....
Please read more carefully what I wrote, CS; ie:
The EFFECTIVE 'frame' in GR context around black hole for understanding gravitational accelerative effects on photons IS GRT, NOT SRT. :)
I stressed GRT over SRT CONTEXT. And the ONLY objectively applicable 'frame' IN UNDERLYING REALITY in GRT CONTEXT is the centre-of-mass of the massive feature (BH) which is generating the GRAVITATIONAL FIELD....all other 'frames' in such context would be merely RELATIVE PERCEIVED REALITY SRT-context 'frames'.

Get this subtle but crucial point first please, DS. :)

As for the rest...

cont...
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@Da Schneib....cont...

As for the rest...
Is any of this making sense to you, @RC?
...following your 'textbook spiel' re SRT, it is all abstract methodologies for describing/calculating RELATIVE PERCEPTION REALITIES and NOT REAL UNDERLYING OVERALL REALITIES. Can you get that subtle but crucial distinction, DS? It underlines all MY posts to @Benni and you so far in this thread. Without that distinction in your mind, you will continue 'reading me' based on your own misunderstanding on what I am actually saying in the context I made my comments in.

And regarding the SRT textbook spiel' you gave, it doesn't advance the mainstream ToE, does it?...else the mainstream ToE would already BE complete, wouldn't it? See the drawbacks of just sticking with abstract/relative 'perceived reality' treatments (as per SRT frames etc) while IGNORING the underlying reality which GRT-context analyses actually provide IF we ditch the SRT-context 'treatments' which get us NO FURTHER now? :)
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@observicist.
...I am saying is that SRT 'frames are NOT 'real things', as agreed/confirmed by @rpenner long ago; and that the universal dynamics HAPPENS (ie, as in "shite happens") whether or not WE analyse/perceive etc from whatever 'SRT 'frame' we choose for our observation/analysis (yes, we can use math algorithm to CONVERT/TRANSFORM the 'analytical outputs' between that and other 'frames'; HOWEVER, SRT 'frames' being NOT REAL THINGS means that all these 'transformed results' are 'perceived realities', NOT THE UNDERLYING REALITY irrespective of SRT-perspective observers/frames. Ok? :)
There's no difference between "perceived reality" and "reality." Reality is what is perceived....
Please note the context/thrust as just stressed to @Da Schneib just now. Re your above assertion, it is patently in error; as SRT is NOT about REALITY at all, but about methodologies for analysing RELATIVE 'perceived realities' as 'perceived/calculated' from different 'frames'. Ok? :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
Please read more carefully what I wrote, CS; ie:
The EFFECTIVE 'frame' in GR context
There is no context for frames that is somehow special in either SRT or GRT. A frame of reference *is* the context. Without choosing one, you can't say where something is or how fast it's going or in what direction. They're the same frames of reference that have been being used since Newton and Galileo. Frames of reference are a requirement for any system of mechanics; if you're going to talk about motion, you have to have them. Otherwise there's nothing to talk about. The frames of reference used in SRT are the same as are used in Newtonian mechanics, you know, the Three Laws of Motion and like that.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
I stressed GRT over SRT CONTEXT.
I don't even know what that means. SRT is simply GRT when the acceleration is zero.
And the ONLY objectively applicable 'frame' IN UNDERLYING REALITY in GRT CONTEXT is the centre-of-mass of the massive feature (BH) which is generating the GRAVITATIONAL FIELD....all other 'frames' in such context would be merely RELATIVE PERCEIVED REALITY SRT-context 'frames'.
This is technobabble handwaving. Since you yourself don't appear to understand what you're saying, I can't see how I can even try to figure out how you got it wrong. You're just stringing a bunch of words whose meanings you don't understand together and then sticking "black holes" in there. And you are using "context" in a way that makes it even more incomprehensible. Perhaps if you were to learn some actual physics, you might be able to write things about it that make more sense than this.

Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
This just isn't getting across, is it?

Look, here's how it is:

If you're going to say where something is, you have to say its position. The way we sense position is by putting ourselves at the origin of a coordinate system, and saying "this is 0,0,0, where I am, and the x, y, and z axes point these ways." We then use rulers to measure how far away in x, y, and z something is. You might say something like, "That thing is 10 meters away from me in x, 5 meters away in y, and 12 meters away in z." This gives a distance, which we calculate using the Pythagorean theorem, and a direction, which we calculate using trigonometry. This is the simplest most basic frame of reference, and it was discovered in the fourth or fifth century BC; that is, some 2,500 years ago. It has stood the test of time and is taught in schools today. It is used by engineers today.

Until you get this, whatever you write is going to be confused and impossible to figure out.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
Using my figures above, the distance is

d² = x² + y² +z²
= 10² + 5² + 12²
= 100 + 25 + 144
= 269
Therefore,
d = √269
≅ 16.4012

So the object is 16 meters away.

This isn't even high school math; I learned this in gradeschool when I was 10 years old.

What's the matter with you?
MrBojangles
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
No. I am NOT relying on nonexistent 'time' for anything since 'time' is only an abstract... to be used as a REFERENCE for the passage/duration of Events/Actions/occurrences, etc


Duration: the time during which something continues.
Note the word time in the definition of the word you're using to describe how time doesn't exist.

My "opinion" is in full agreement with the quote from Fermilab.


No it isn't. You don't understand the concept of space, you're now going against all common knowledge to say that it isn't the surface upon which matter exists, but is now matter itself.

Reread the quote with your logic (changing the word space to matter)
"And matter itself can either be almost flat or curved, depending on the amount of matter it contains."

Considering your capacity, I understand why you can't grasp this.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2019
Now if you want to talk about the direction, there is trigonometry for that; but first you'll have to define what type of coordinates you want to use. If it's Descartian x,y,z coordinates, I've already specified it; if you want to use polar coordinates or something else using angles, then tell me what and I'll do the trig for you.

Engineers use trig; so do the captains of ships to figure out where they are. This goes back many hundreds of years, and may go back thousands.

None of this is new; all of it's been known for very long periods of time and is taught today in gradeschools and high school, before college. An astrolabe (an early form of sextant, essential in celestial navigation for measuring the positions of the Sun, Moon, and stars) believed to have belonged to Vasco da Gama and used to navigate to India from Portugal and dating to the fourteenth century, has recently been discovered, you might have read about this if you are paying attention.
Castrogiovanni
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
Using my figures above, the distance is

d² = x² + y² +z²
= 10² + 5² + 12²
= 100 + 25 + 144
= 269
Therefore,
d = �š269
≅ 16.4012

So the object is 16 meters away.

This isn't even high school math; I learned this in gradeschool when I was 10 years old.

What's the matter with you?


Hey, DS, how do you format for [sup] and [sub] on here?
observicist
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
@RealityCheck,

@observicist ...I am saying is that SRT 'frames are NOT 'real things', as agreed/confirmed by @rpenner long ago; and that the universal dynamics Re your above assertion, it is patently in error; as SRT is NOT about REALITY at all, but about methodologies for analysing RELATIVE 'perceived realities' as 'perceived/calculated' from different 'frames'. Ok? :)


Not OK.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
Hey, DS, how do you format for [sup] and [sub] on here?
I search out the symbols I want on Wikipedia's list of unicode characters: https://en.wikipe...aracters

Search on superscript; you'll find them all, but be aware that second and third powers are in the Latin-1 supplement, not the subscripts and superscripts supplement. As for the radicals and things like the "approximately equals" sign I used, you'll find them in the mathematical symbols supplement. After you've used this a while you'll get to know where things are. Simply cut-n-paste.

About any symbol you want is in there, though not always easy to find. If you can't find one you need, ask me.

The hardest one is the trademark symbol; you have to actually go to the Wikipedia article about it to get a usable unicode.

Oh, and the "quote" feature on this site often munges them, so be prepared to hunt out the correct symbol and substitute it for the trash munge.
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2019
I can barely remember being young enough not to be able to do trig, much less simple Descartian math.

That's innumeracy. I have been numerate since I was six, and good at math since I was ten. That was when my parents bought my first calculator; I'd been using a slipstick since I was nine and they decided that a calculator wouldn't impede my learning after that.

If you don't know math you don't know shit.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.

Mate, you're still stuck at the abstract relative methodologies for calculating relative effects depending on SRT 'frame' YOU are observing/analysing from. The point I was trying to get through to you/others is that THAT SRT abstract construct/calculation methodology is FINE for what it was designed FOR; BUT it's NOT FINE for trying to GO BEYOND these abstract representations; to try to understand the underlying reality OVERALL regardless of YOUR relative-frame calculations/descriptions. Get it? SRT frames are for calculating/transforming etc the RELATIVE 'reality' perceived FROM different frames. When GR came along, it was a SPECIFIC CONSTRUCT from which we can analyse ACTUAL EFFECTIVE DYNAMICS REALITY going on from the point of view of the FRAME 'centered' around the MASS (ie, BH in this case) WHICH GENERATES A SPECIFIC GRAVITATIONAL FIELD in which the dynamics is occurring (irrespective of what SRT 'frames' YOU may want to 'calculate' from). GRT is KING. :)
valeriy_polulyakh
1 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2019
In search of black holes and dark matter astrophysicists are relying on indirect observations. It would seem that the measurement of the event horizon of a black hole directly would be a direct evidence. However, by the nature of a horizon, any real measurement of the event horizon will be indirect. The Event Horizon Telescope will get picture of the silhouette of the Sgr A* which is due to optical effects of spacetime outside of the event horizon. The result will be determined by the simple quality of the resulting image that does not depend on the properties of the spacetime within the image. So, it will be also indirect and an existence of BH is a hypothesis.
https://www.acade...ilky_Way
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
These aren't "relativistic effects." They're simple mechanics.

I grow bored with teaching gradeschool math to trolls.

Can you even fucking add a column of figures without using your fingers and toes, @RC?

If you don't know math you don't know shit.

Get math, @RC. Otherwise you're just another one of the stupids.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@observicist.
I am saying is that SRT 'frames are NOT 'real things', as agreed/confirmed by @rpenner long ago; and that the universal dynamics Re your above assertion, it is patently in error; as SRT is NOT about REALITY at all, but about methodologies for analysing RELATIVE 'perceived realities' as 'perceived/calculated' from different 'frames'. Ok? :)
Not OK.
Then your understanding of the purpose/limitation of the SRT construct is lacking/erroneous, mate. Please read my posts to @Da Schneib re SRT versus GRT contexts; and realise that GRT was formulated PRECISELY BECAUSE SRT was NOT the whole story/methodology for dealing with the reality per se (only for LIMITED APPLICABILITY/VALIDITY calculation/transformation of RELATIVE DATA/EFFECTS between SRT frames/perspectives). If you still miss the subtle but crucial effective distinctions I am pointing out for you, then I suggest you stop regurgitating 'textbook spiels' and start actually try to understand it. :)
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
No. I am NOT relying on nonexistent 'time' for anything since 'time' is only an abstract... to be used as a REFERENCE for the passage/duration of Events/Actions/occurrences, etc


Duration: the time during which something continues.
Note the word time in the definition of the word you're using to describe how time doesn't exist.

My "opinion" is in full agreement with the quote from Fermilab.


No it isn't. You don't understand the concept of space, you're now going against all common knowledge to say that it isn't the surface upon which matter exists, but is now matter itself.

Reread the quote with your logic (changing the word space to matter)
"And matter itself can either be almost flat or curved, depending on the amount of matter it contains."
says jingles

Space contains Matter/Energy, and it is the quantum and sub quantum particles that Space is made of - therefore, Space IS Matter/Energy - including the CMB
Get used to the changes.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
More technobabble. What babble generator do you use to come up with this horseshit, @RC? Or is it the one in your mind?

I'm done with you; 1s for all posts on this thread and you on ignore again.

Or maybe I'll leave you off ignore so it's easy to downrate your posts. :D
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
Meanwhile, here's another 5 threads in which you lied to chew on:

Thread where @106LiarRC claims the #EUdiot #physicsdeniers have made scientific predictions: https://phys.org/...ven.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims time is somehow motion: https://phys.org/...mic.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims yet again that currents can exist without sources and sinks: https://phys.org/...web.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims DM and DE are the same thing, and that there is no evidence for either (bonus, two lies in one): https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @106LiarRC claims redshifts are "highly unreliable:" https://phys.org/...ies.html
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.
These aren't "relativistic effects."
And there, right there, is an egregious example of how YOU MISREAD things, DS; and hence miss the actual points made while confusing the discussion with your own tangents/irrelevancies based on your own misunderstood 'reading' of what is being said. I SAID: RELATIVE DATA/EFFECTS to @observicist....NOT "relativISTIC effects"! Please stop knee-jerk-reading from your own 'preconceptions' of what is being said; actually read what is actually BEING SAID. Ok? :)
I grow bored...If you don't know math you don't know shit. Get math, @RC. Otherwise you're just another one of the stupids.
You '"grow bored" because you misread/misunderstand what is being said; knee-jerk to tangents/irrelevancies which just go round and round while missing the actual point being explained to you; and you keep extolling 'maths' while missing the point that 'maths' has NOT COMPLETED the mainstream ToE....REALITY UNDERSTANDING COMES FIRST. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
Oh and BTW you are now @107LiarRC since I get to add this thread to the list.

I'll go back now and see how many threads you lied on while I was ignoring you, rate all your lies 1s, and add the threads to my list. That should be about 500 1s and 50 threads, I estimate.

It never pays to try to bullshit me, @107LiarRC. It always costs you cred.

Thanks. I'll enjoy this.

If you don't know math you don't know shit.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.

See? This is an example of how you miss what is being said to you and then knee-jerk to insults and spamming tactics, thus:
Oh and BTW you are now @107LiarRC since I get to add this thread to the list.

I'll go back now and see how many threads you lied on while I was ignoring you, rate all your lies 1s, and add the threads to my list. That should be about 500 1s and 50 threads, I estimate.

It never pays to try to bullshit me, @107LiarRC. It always costs you cred.

Thanks. I'll enjoy this.
Can you not ever engage in rational conversation without going all silly when you are the one missing the points, DS? Try harder to drop that nasty habit, mate. Just agree to disagree if you must; but try to resist the bad habit of defaulting to unhelpful spamming/evasions/insults and irrelevancies. Thanks. :)

ps: Did you see my previous post highlighting how YOU misunderstood what I wrote, DS. Have a look; and see what I have been putting up with from you. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
There wasn't anything to miss. You are typing technobabble using terminology you do not understand. Have another 1. There is no rational conversation with someone who types meaningless shit for arrogant self-aggrandizement.

Have you no pride, sir? Have you no shame?
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
What I'm listening to while reading this idiot's technobabble:

https://www.youtu...9RTPbvxM

"No Self Control" describes trolls perfectly.
MrBojangles
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2019
Space contains Matter/Energy,

Yes, good job.

and it is the quantum and sub quantum particles that Space is made of - therefore, Space IS Matter/Energy - including the CMB

Oooh, no, sorry. Try again.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.
There wasn't anything to miss. You are typing technobabble using terminology you do not understand.
I pointed out where you misunderstood what was written validly in context. Just because you misread/misunderstand doesn't mean it's my fault, DS. The "relative data/effects" term was clear in context, BUT, as usual, you mixed it up with "relatiVISTIC effects" which your 'reading' overlaid on what I actually said. A clear example of your failings, not mine, DS. I suppose you have already determined to start yet another 'face saving campaign' to try and divert from your failings all over the place due to 'reading' according to your own preconceptions instead of actually taking the time/trouble to understand properly in context what is being said.
There is no rational conversation with someone who types meaningless shit for arrogant self-aggrandizement. Have you no pride, sir? Have you no shame?
And there it is, the 'face-saving campaign' PROJECTION begins.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019

Duration: the time during which something continues.
Note the word time in the definition of the word you're using to describe how time doesn't exist.

says jingles

The word "time" is only a representation of what does not exist, and has been ingrained into my memory, so that I occasionally use it. Less and less.
Duration is what occurs between Point A and Point B. The occurrence itself is not "time", but the Event/Action whose duration is being observed and/or measured.
The representative word/term "time" for duration has been inculcated into the human psyche for millennia. I suppose I will err in its use until I am rid of it and find a more fitting term.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2019
Thread where @107LiarRC lies about astrophysicists' knowledge of the galactic magnetic field: https://phys.org/...ays.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims the polar outflows from a planetary nebula are a Z-pinch (standard EUdiot drivel, despite its claims it's not an EUdiot): https://phys.org/...ula.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims the Big Bang never happened then tries to equate it to the BICEP2 situation, which it never justifies: https://phys.org/...ate.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims the Big Bang is a religious belief: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @107LiarRC makes more unsupported claims about BICEP2 and again claims Steinhardt denies the Big Bang: https://phys.org/...big.html
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@Forum.

Note how @Da Schneib has just downvoted his interlocutor (me in this instance); whilst I NEVER downvote my interlocutors because that would be a sign that the downvoted tacitly admits they are more interested in personal rivalry and winning at all costs, rather than polite and rational discussion irrespective of agreement/disagreement. I also for do not downvote anyone at all, irrespective; because I say what I want to say in open forum and make my opinions known likewise instead of 'sneaking' around to the rating system pages and waging a DOWN-bot-voting campaign like some here seem to think is somehow 'winning'. It's a sad internet 'world', hey folks, if these are the 'standards' by which some 'play'?

ps: Oh dear, there goes @DS again with his spamming/lying 'face saving campaign' based on his own misunderstanding; which tactic has only served to ruin his credibility in the past. Will he never learn? It's being going on for years now; so apparently not. Sad.
Da Schneib
5 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2019
Given your "explanations" of formal reference frames, not to mention SRT never mind GRT, are technobabble lies, @107LiarRC, and mine are, by your own admission, "textbook," I don't know what else to say.

Maybe you should read the textbooks.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
Space contains Matter/Energy,

Yes, good job.

and it is the quantum and sub quantum particles that Space is made of - therefore, Space IS Matter/Energy - including the CMB

Oooh, no, sorry. Try again.
says jingles

Space is not a separate substance however much you would prefer it to be. If there was no such thing as Matter/Energy, Space could not exist as it would not have the ability to bend, curve, dilate, contract, lengthen and all that good stuff it is capable of doing. Therefore, Space IS a constituent of Matter/Energy, as well as Matter/Energy being a constituent of Space. And, if Space did not exist, then Matter/Energy could not exist either.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Given your "explanations" of formal reference frames, not to mention SRT never mind GRT, are technobabble lies, @107LiarRC, and mine are, by your own admission, "textbook," I don't know what else to say.

Maybe you should read the textbooks.
You still don't get it, do you DS? It's your misunderstandings of what I actually have been doing/saying that is the problem. You do not read/understand properly in context; nor do you ever move beyond your own 'imagined' context' to actually understand what I have been pointing out to you about the applicability/limitations and remedies re maths, SRT/GRT.

You are obviously INDOCTRINATED in these unreal/abstract constructs.....but you fail to see the limitations/problems of/with same.....which serious physicists ACKNOWLEDGE readily...even admitting they have no idea how to proceed BEYOND such abstract constructs in order to complete the mainstream ToE. So, DS, you and those who '5' you are DENIERS in this.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
@Forum.

Note how @Da Schneib has just downvoted his interlocutor (me in this instance); whilst I NEVER downvote my interlocutors because that would be a sign that the downvoted tacitly admits they are more interested in personal rivalry and winning at all costs, rather than polite and rational discussion irrespective of agreement/disagreement. I also for do not downvote anyone at all, irrespective; because I say what I want to say in open forum and make my opinions known likewise instead of 'sneaking' around to the rating system pages and waging a DOWN-bot-voting campaign like some here seem to think is somehow 'winning'. It's a sad internet 'world', hey folks, if these are the 'standards' by which some 'play'?

ps: Oh dear, there goes @DS again with his spamming/lying..
says RC

Have you never thought of hitting the REPORT button to report abusive, inappropriate, and scamming posts? Try it sometime, RC. It would be well deserved.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
@107LiarRC, if you're lying about textbooks you're lying. And you already admitted you are.

Just that simple.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
Thread where @107LiarRC claims all magnetic fields are due to plasma: https://phys.org/...lts.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims the long-debunked "tired light" hypothesis of the Babble-thumpers is still viable: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims universal expansion is supported by a circular argument: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims dark matter is electrical (the EUdiot "theory" it pretends to dismiss): https://phys.org/...-ia.html
Thread where @107LiarRC advertises its supposed "Theory of Everything" (ToE) which it has never provided even an explanation of, then tells the Steinhardt lie again: https://phys.org/...ark.html
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@S_E_U.
@Forum.

Note how @Da Schneib has just downvoted his interlocutor (me in this instance); whilst I NEVER downvote my interlocutors because that would be a sign that the downvoted tacitly admits they are more interested in personal rivalry and winning at all costs, rather than polite and rational discussion irrespective of agreement/disagreement. I also for do not downvote anyone at all, irrespective; because I say what I want to say in open forum and make my opinions known likewise instead of 'sneaking' around to the rating system pages and waging a DOWN-bot-voting campaign like some here seem to think is somehow 'winning'. It's a sad internet 'world', hey folks, if these are the 'standards' by which some 'play'?
Have you never thought of hitting the REPORT button...?
I, RealityCheck, as an impartial/objective observer/commenter, do not downvote/report anyone, as it risks eroding/compromising my impartiality/objectivity. It's a 'slippery slope' I avoid. :)
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
Unfortunately, however, @107LiarRC, you lie about textbooks.
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
@Forum.

This latest diversionary one-liner from DS:
Unfortunately, however, @107LiarRC, you lie about textbooks.
Looks like we're in for another DS face-saving campaign of projection, lying, misrepresentation and just plain silly juvenile spamming while avoiding the points as raised and denying the problem lay with the spammer in this sad case. Pity.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
You're the one who lied about textbooks. @107LiarRC.

That probably wasn't very smart.

There's nothing happening here but you lying when your technobabble doesn't work and you have to try to deny what textbooks say.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
Thread where @107LiarRC claims there are "humongous amounts of stuff" in empty space: https://phys.org/...ack.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims scientists are engaged in a giant conspiracy to hide the fact that the Big Bang isn't real: https://phys.org/...ion.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims inflation is "blown" by one astrophysicist denying it: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims matter turns into gravity and vice versa: https://phys.org/...ard.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims LIGO gravitational wave detections are due to coincidences: https://phys.org/...les.html
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (1) Mar 18, 2019
I don't know, Da Schneib.
I think Wishnevsky said it best:
"My mouth opens.
The beer flows in
& the shit flows out!"

The only possible way I can see of to gain an almost accurate measurement of the dimensions of an Event Horizon?
Would be, at a reasonably safe distance, to englobe the phenomena with measuring devices.
That are sufficiently coordinated to almost simultaneously exchanging signals.
Even then there will be a decided uncertainty factor of unpredictable irrational sigma.

On a similar theme. I have been reconsidering my use of the word "edge".
Specifically speaking of the outside edge of an Event Horizon.
where random Newtonian events can send quanta in towards the singularity or outwards to become Hawking's Radiation?

But now I think "edge" is the wrong word to use. Instead,
I am considering "perimeter" to describe where the Universe of EM & other forces Matter & Energy, separates from the Gravitron dominated Singularity.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@Forum.

As you can see for yourselves, the DS face-saving campaign continues with an obsessive-compulsive fervour which has only served to ruin his credibility over the many years he has been trying this juvenile tactic necessitated by his (by now well and self-demonstrated) failure to actually read/understand properly in context what is being said. The proof of this failure is again on display just above, where I highlighted the latest instance of DS'd propensity to misunderstand/misrepresent. Will this sad DS-saga never end? What does it take for DS to wake up to himself and his obvious problem as demonstrated? Where is his oft-mentioned 'wife' to take him in charge and get him to grow up and start being reasonable instead of ego-tripping troll on the net? Calling DS's wife! Help your husband in his hour of need. Good luck.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
Thread where @107LiarRC reveals its Young Earth Cretinist credentials: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Wasn't it claiming the Big Bang is a religion somewhere on here? Looks like it's the real religionist.
Thread where @107LiarRC claims universal expansion in GRT is an "a priori assumption" despite the fact it is empirically observed: https://phys.org/...ant.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims math is philosophy: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims universal expansion is "the same everywhere" ignoring the fact that it obviously isn't the same between the Milky Way and M31: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Thread where @107LiarRC claims there's enough baryonic matter to explain dark matter: https://phys.org/...ies.html

You lie, @107LiarRC. Any time it suits you.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
@107LiarRC, you already said I'm presenting the textbook view. And that means you've already admitted you lie.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@rrwillsj.
I don't know, Da Schneib.
I think Wishnevsky said it best:
"My mouth opens.
The beer flows in
& the shit flows out!".
Please don't 'enable' the troll, mate. He obviously missed the point that the textbook/maths has NOT completed the mainstream ToE. Hence why just regurgitating old textbook spiels will no longer advance the mainstream ToE effort. Mainstream physicists themselves readily admit that we will have to move beyond 'regurgitation of abstract textbook spiels' in order to actually advance towards a truly reality-based physical complete ToE. Anyone who misses/denies this fact which most serious physicists already acknowledge, is just being contrary either for the sake of ego or for the reason of not understanding what is NOW going on in ToE efforts around the globe, mainstream or otherwise. So please, @rrwillsj, be amusing/disruptive if you must, but please try NOT to further 'enable' the self-destructive behaviour of that patently sad case. Ta.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
Thread where @107LiarRC repeats the BICEP2 lie yet again: https://phys.org/...oon.html
Thread where @107LiarRC repeats the Steinhardt lie yet again: https://phys.org/...ics.html
Thread where @107LiarRC lies about the possibility of the Sun having an electric charge: https://phys.org/...ets.html
Thread where @107LiarRC lies about the ISW effect and insults an actual scientist posting on this forum: https://phys.org/...eor.html
Thread where @107LiarRC lies again about the Big Bang and supports LaViolett, a known crank: https://phys.org/...tar.html
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
@Da Schneib.
@107LiarRC, you already said I'm presenting the textbook view. And that means you've already admitted you lie.
Apparently the obvious point (which all serious mainstream physicists have long readily acknowledged) that we need to advance beyond existing textbooks/maths 'spiels' is lost on you, mate. Try to stop and think before again kneeejerking to your own 'misunderstood claims'. Good luck.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
@Whyde
Regarding the composition of SPACE - it is full of sub-quantum particles from the smallest up to atomic and molecular structures. We breathe those sub-quantum particles into our lungs, along with the usual Oxygen and Nitrogen and smaller amounts of other gases. It is unknown how small is the smallest particle.

Again, you describe what is IN it, not what it is...
SPACE is a tangible and real substance that can curve, straighten and bend.

what's IN it is tangible and can bend or curve.
Time, OTOH is imaginary and without substance and has no properties.

It has the property of duration.
It is made-up in the Mind/Brain of an observer for the purpose of recording the passage/duration of Events/Actions and preserving it to memory.
Funny how events happen for a duration, even without an Observer...
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
If the textbooks lie, @109LiarRC, then you have nothing. If they don't then you lie.

Thread where @109LiarRC reveals its Young Earth Cretinist credentials: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Wasn't it claiming the Big Bang is a religion somewhere on here? Looks like it's the real religionist.
Thread where @109LiarRC claims universal expansion in GRT is an "a priori assumption" despite the fact it is empirically observed: https://phys.org/...ant.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims math is philosophy: https://phys.org/...rse.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims universal expansion is "the same everywhere" ignoring the fact that it obviously isn't the same between the Milky Way and M31: https://phys.org/...rgy.html
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
Had to put one lie on another post:

Thread where @109LiarRC claims there's enough baryonic matter to explain dark matter: https://phys.org/...ies.html
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
@Da Schneib....cont...

As for the rest...
Is any of this making sense to you, @RC?
...following your 'textbook spiel' re SRT, it is all abstract methodologies for describing/calculating RELATIVE PERCEPTION REALITIES and NOT REAL UNDERLYING OVERALL REALITIES. Can you get that subtle but crucial distinction, DS? It underlines all MY posts to @Benni and you so far in this thread. Without that distinction in your mind, you will continue 'reading me' based on your own misunderstanding on what I am actually saying in the context I made my comments in.


Actually, I would call them RELATIVE 'OBSERVATION' REALITIES...
I think you're perceiving a reality that is, in reality, a sequential series of frames and attempting to call that a single frame.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
The problem, @Whyde, is @109LiarRC doesn't get that you can't change from one frame to another without a transform, and transforms are scary multiple simultaneous equations. So you gotta do math, and @109LiarRC thinks math isn't "real." Despite such simple things as "You have one apple and I give you another one, and now you have two apples."

Stupid.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
@Whyde
Regarding the composition of SPACE - it is full of sub-quantum particles from the smallest up to atomic and molecular structures. We breathe those sub-quantum particles into our lungs, along with the usual Oxygen and Nitrogen and smaller amounts of other gases. It is unknown how small is the smallest particle.

Again, you describe what is IN it, not what it is...
SPACE is a tangible and real substance that can curve, straighten and bend.

what's IN it is tangible and can bend or curve.
Time, OTOH is imaginary and without substance and has no properties.

It has the property of duration.
It is made-up in the Mind/Brain of an observer for the purpose of recording the passage/duration of Events/Actions and preserving it to memory.
Funny how events happen for a duration, even without an Observer...


No. Time has NO properties as it's only a CONCEPT that is derived from the human Mind/Brain and nothing more. Duration is also a concept
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 18, 2019
Thread where @109LiarRC repeats the BICEP2 lie yet again: https://phys.org/...oon.html
Thread where @109LiarRC repeats the Steinhardt lie yet again: https://phys.org/...ics.html
Thread where @109LiarRC lies about the possibility of the Sun having an electric charge: https://phys.org/...ets.html
Thread where @109LiarRC lies about the ISW effect and insults an actual scientist posting on this forum: https://phys.org/...eor.html
Thread where @109LiarRC lies again about the Big Bang and supports LaViolett, a known crank: https://phys.org/...tar.html
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
@Whyde.
'textbook spiel' re SRT,...all abstract methodologies for describing/calculating RELATIVE PERCEPTION REALITIES and NOT REAL UNDERLYING OVERALL REALITIES. Can you get that subtle but crucial distinction, DS? It underlines all MY posts to @Benni and you so far in this thread. Without that distinction in your mind, you will continue 'reading me' based on your own misunderstanding on what I am actually saying in the context I made my comments in.
Actually, I would call them RELATIVE 'OBSERVATION' REALITIES...
I think you at least seem to be 'getting it', mate. :) Anyhow, the main point I tried to get though DS's 'filters' was: SRT-frames-dependent RELATIVE EFFECTS/DATA analytical/calculation outputs are just that, RELATIVE to other perspectives; not THE underlying REALITY which all events happen in. Hence why GR-related context is better suited for expanding beyond SR-related RELATIVE FRAMES views which are FINE for the LIMITED purpose they were invented FOR.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
@Whyde
Suppose you were right and Space is not the same as its constituents (Matter/Energy) on a subquantum scale. Then what could Space possibly be and made of? As the term/word "time" is still ONLY a concept derived from an observer's thoughts, then perhaps Space is also a concept. In that case, what is that "thing" that Matter/Energy floats around in? Do YOU have the answer?
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
The stupids can't do math. They're innumerate.

Cranks can't count.

If you don't know math you don't know shit.
RealityCheck
2.6 / 5 (5) Mar 18, 2019
Oh dear. Repeating irrelevant nonsense/spam and DOWN-bot-voting his perceived 'enemies' is DS's concept of 'rational discussion'. Pity.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
@S_E_U.
@Forum.

Note how @Da Schneib has just downvoted his interlocutor (me in this instance); whilst I NEVER downvote my interlocutors because that would be a sign that the downvoted tacitly admits they are more interested in personal rivalry and winning at all costs, rather than polite and rational discussion.. I also do not downvote anyone at all, irrespective; because I say what I want to say in open forum and make my opinions known likewise instead of 'sneaking' around to the rating system pages and waging a DOWN-bot-voting campaign like some here seem to think is somehow 'winning'.
Have you never thought of hitting the REPORT button...?
I, RealityCheck, as an impartial/objective observer/commenter, do not downvote/report anyone, as it risks eroding/compromising my impartiality/objectivity. It's a 'slippery slope' I avoid. :)
says RC

You sound like a priest. In that case, you need to stop complaining about it. It makes YOU look like a loser/whiner
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (4) Mar 18, 2019
@S_E_U.
Have you never thought of hitting the REPORT button...?
I, RealityCheck, as an impartial/objective observer/commenter, do not downvote/report anyone, as it risks eroding/compromising my impartiality/objectivity. It's a 'slippery slope' I avoid. :)
You sound like a priest. In that case, you need to stop complaining about it.....
Not 'priest'; engaged atheist. :) I DID say I made my comments honestly in open forum rather than go 'sneaking' to ratings page to downvote my interlocutors (like DS did to me). And I explained that maintaining my impartiality/objectivity also prevented me from reporting people left right and centre just because they disagreed with/didn't like me. So, I don't downvote or report because I want to maintain my impartiality/objectivity. So what's left? To honestly comment/opine in open forum, as indicated on the science (and the actions of others which go against objectivity/fair play). So not whining, just doing RC duty. :)
Da Schneib
3 / 5 (2) Mar 18, 2019
Of course you're whining, @109LiarRC. You're addressing posts to "Forum."
observicist
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2019
@SEU,

... 'time' is only an abstract word/term/concept dreamed up by the human Mind/Brain to be used as a REFERENCE for the

passage/duration

of Events/Actions/occurrences, etc. It is merely a "reference point" of RECALL to bring to the Mind/Brain the memory of some Event/Action, etc.


(The reformatting was mine.)

If time does not exist, then in what coordinate system does "passage" or "duration" take place? If time does not exist, what differentiates among the various coordinates of a "duration" (specifically, the two most extreme coordinates of a duration of an event, commonly called its "beginning" and its "end")?

You are contradicting yourself.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2019
@SEU,

... 'time' is only an abstract word/term/concept dreamed up by the human Mind/Brain to be used as a REFERENCE for the

passage/duration

of Events/Actions/occurrences, etc. It is merely a "reference point" of RECALL to bring to the Mind/Brain the memory of some Event/Action, etc.


(The reformatting was mine.)

If time does not exist, then in what coordinate system does "passage" or "duration" take place? If time does not exist, what differentiates among the various coordinates of a "duration" (specifically, the two most extreme coordinates of a duration of an event, commonly called its "beginning" and its "end")?

You are contradicting yourself.
says observatory

Not at all. There is no contradiction. The term "duration" is a measurement of an Event/Acttion/Occurrence/Happening that are qualified by the passage thereof. Such Events/Actions, etc may be standalone and not need to be measured by clocks, speedometers, measuring tape, etc.
-contd-
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2019
-contd-
@obs
The measurement of an Event/Action, etc. is done usually out of necessity - but not always. The measuring of the "passage" (beginning to end) of an Event/Action, etc. and its "duration" is done as a production of the Mind/Brain.
In outer Space, there is no one to measure distance, or duration of Events/Actions such as the distance of one planet to another or to a Star. It is only the sentient Mind/Brain that deems these measurements of great importance. Animals don't know about distance and duration, but they know when they're hungry or thirsty. A human will look at his watch and see that it is almost time for supper. An Event. The watch is the measurement of the duration until the Event (supper). Everything is an Event/Action, and the passage of the duration that is leading up to that Event OR it is the passage of the duration itself DURING that Event/Action as it is happening.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2019
-contd-
@observ
If "time" were to exist as a dimension, then it would need to have height, width and length just the same as the other 3 dimensions, which are observable. You can build structures with those 3 dimensions. What can you build with "time"? A clock is not built with "time" since a clock is only a mechanical object that provides measurements of the duration of the passage of Events/Actions in increments of hours, minutes, seconds and micro/pico. The mechanism operates in Space that surrounds it. The hours, minutes and seconds of a clock are arguable. On a different planet where the day/night cycle might be 46 hours, the clock would have to be adjusted/changed over to reflect that difference.
observicist
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2019
@SEU,

I can't tell whether you're deliberately trolling or if you are honestly incapable of understanding. Your statements fit both interpretations.
antialias_physorg
4.6 / 5 (10) Mar 19, 2019
'time' is only an abstract word/term/concept dreamed up by the human Mind/Brain to be used as a REFERENCE for the

passage/duration

It's spacetime. Not "space and time". Until you understand the difference you're barking up the wrong tree.
Da Schneib
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2019
For its next trick, @Satan_Egg_Unit will deny truth, beauty, and intelligence. In its encore it will gargle peanut butter.
hat1208
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2019
For its next trick, @Satan_Egg_Unit will deny truth, beauty, and intelligence. In its encore it will gargle peanut butter.


Oh I gotta see this.
Castrogiovanni
3.3 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2019
Hey, DS, how do you format for [sup] and [sub] on here?
I search out the symbols I want on Wikipedia's list of unicode characters: https://en.wikipe...aracters

Search on superscript; you'll find them all, but be aware that second and third powers are in the Latin-1 supplement, not the subscripts and superscripts supplement.


Cheers.
rrwillsj
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2019
Well, there are historical precedents.
One of the most violent conflicts between buddhist sects occurred in Japan.
As they debated the meaning of "Beauty".
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2019
'time' is only an abstract word/term/concept dreamed up by the human Mind/Brain to be used as a REFERENCE for the

passage/duration

It's spacetime. Not "space and time". Until you understand the difference you're barking up the wrong tree.
says anti truth_physorg

You are free to believe as you wish, of course. The concept of "time" as a dimension (as has been instilled in the minds of such as yourself and millions of others) is FALSE. Space is a totally separate, but REAL substance as its EFFECTS are readily observed.
As I have repeated often, there is no such thing as a "time dimension". Perhaps you haven't read any of my previous talks on how "time" is merely a concept that was/is derived from the human mind/brain and nothing more. Do try to follow the line of true reasoning if you are able.
Cheers
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2019
@SEU,

I can't tell whether you're deliberately trolling or if you are honestly incapable of understanding. Your statements fit both interpretations.
says observatory

I have wondered the same about YOU. Are YOU deliberately trolling me, or perhaps you are honestly INCAPABLE of understanding what I have previously said on the topic of "time". As I don't wish to believe that you are trolling me deliberately as your friends, Da Schniebo and Captain Beelzebub have been doing, I will opt for the second option, that you are incapable of understanding what I have attempted to teach you wrt the complete falsehood of "time" as a dimension. So far, you and others have not been able - or refused to -tell me what is "time" made of. For that gross omission, I can only surmise that your collective brains are too mired in the muck of pseudoscience to be accepting of the truth. IOW, you reject new science without the wonderment of asking, "could it be true?". You are stuck in the mire
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2019
For its next trick, @Satan_Egg_Unit will deny truth, beauty, and intelligence. In its encore it will gargle peanut butter.
says Da Schnitzophrenic

It is your master, Captain Stumpy alias Beelzebub who harbours Satan/Lucifer within himself. I/We have been tracking his activities for millennia and he is now on the internet, in this very website. This is good that we know where it is that he collects his army of Souls to help him in the coming war. Atheists such as Da Schniebo/hat1208 and many others all "sing the praises" of Satan/Lucifer of which they profess disbelief in him otherwise. Thee shalt share in his fate, I assure you.
MrBojangles
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2019
I/We have been tracking his activities for millennia


No you haven't, time doesn't exist.

Also, you/you all should lay off the drugs.
Whydening Gyre
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 19, 2019

what I have previously said on the topic of "time". ..., I will opt for the second option, that you are incapable of understanding what I have attempted to teach you wrt the complete falsehood of "time" as a dimension.
You're not teaching. you're philosophizing.
So far, you and others have not been able - or refused to -tell me what is "time" made of.

You've been told often it is the sum of the 1st three. Which provides DURATION.
For that gross omission, ... you reject new science without the wonderment of asking, "could it be true?".

As you've said before, you are not a "scientist". Ergo, we are only rejecting YOUR "Science".
Where's your wonderment at " It IS true"...?
MrBojangles
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2019
As you've said before, you are not a "scientist". Ergo, we are only rejecting YOUR "Science".
Where's your wonderment at " It IS true"...?


It's as I've pointed out in other articles, when a man becomes isolated due to being rejected by society, he has a tendency to become conspiratorial and adversarial. I've witnessed it first hand through family members. They'll latch onto a person like Alex Jones and eat up everything he says. Eventually, they get even wackier and believe stuff like flat Earth, despite so much evidence to the contrary. It warps the good mentality of "question everything" which science loves into something gross and harmful. A deliberate rejection of plain truths. There is a difference between being wrong for the right reason, and being right for the wrong reason, and they fail to identify this. E.g. applying the rigors of the scientific method, and discovering something in earnest, only to be later proved wrong.
MrBojangles
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2019
-ctd-

This is an example of being wrong for the right reason, and there's nothing bad about that. This is diametrically opposed to EU theory for example. Some bits of EU theory may prove to be correct in the future (admittedly I don't know much about plasma physics), however, it would be right for the wrong reason. As it stands, it doesn't hold up to the rigors of science, which is why it is so easily dismissed by the scientific community. The zealots who follow up may point to a correct prediction though and use this to further their agenda or viewpoint.

It is better to be wrong and have gone about things the right way than to be right and having arrived there incorrectly. Of course, this is a very broad statement, and discounts things like discovering the cure for cancer by accidentally introducing an unintended variable to an experiment. Generally speaking though, I believe the sentiment applies well to a few trolls that like to frequent Physorg.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2019
@MrBojangles
This is diametrically opposed to EU theory for example. Some bits of EU theory may prove to be correct
may I just interject to point out that there is no such thing as an eu theory

just to add some points: (note - don't capitalise the eu to help alleviate confusion due to the initials being the same as the European Union, which should be caps)

- there are a series of web-pages dedicated to [x] version of the eu dogma as best noted by cd's continual reference to the thunderdolts site, however, there is no official hypothesis in any way, shape or form. This means, by definition, that they can't have a scientific Theory

- prediction - no official hypothesis means no ability to predict, test, etc

- then there is the fact that they deny repeatedly validated plasma physics like magnetic reconnection (and more)

RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
Of course you're whining, @109LiarRC. You're addressing posts to "Forum."
Informing the @Forum of what is transpiring from your end is a duty and service to PO community here, DS. Especially whenever you lie/whine about me while you insults/troll, misread/misunderstand, and kneejerk to spam/errors/irrelevancies at the drop of a hat, DS. I'm just doing reality checks as my username indicates is the main reason for observing/commenting here. Now stop trolling while lying/whining, mate; and try again to engage in polite, on-science discussion without ending every exchange with a dissenting poster by repeatedly defaulting to your longstanding diversion tactic of personal/ego-tripping nastiness. Thanks.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2019
If you didn't lie there wouldn't be 109 threads with your lies on them. And you wouldn't piss me off.

What is particularly irritating is your habit of lying and then spouting arrogant insulting comments along with it. That's never going to fly, and you always crash and burn.

Meanwhile, weren't you last seen admitting my explanations are the same as the ones in the textbook?

Of course I troll you. You trolled me first. Knock it off and you'll find I won't post more of your lies on this thread. Keep it up and I'll just move right along to the next five lies, and the next five, and the next five.

Don't lie. Don't troll. It will hurt every time, and I got the two-by-four to whack the mule in the head with right over here.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2019
Thread where @109LiarRC claims a "cloud" of ions is not a plasma: https://phys.org/...gas.html
Thread where @109LiarRC makes numerous erroneous claims including that the EM force can change the path of light and the Sun is held from collapsing by e-e degeneracy: https://phys.org/...lar.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims that galaxy dynamics can be explained without dark matter, and claims "the latest research: shows it: https://phys.org/...ole.html
When pressed to provide this research of course it can't.
Thread where @109LiarRC makes the same claim about galaxy dynamics and "the latest research" and still can't produce any of this "latest research:" https://phys.org/...ght.html

Just to show, yes, I still have the two-by-four.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2019
The fifth one, which wouldn't fit in the character limit:

Thread where @109LiarRC claimes magnetism makes radiation by some unspecified means: https://phys.org/...e-galaxy
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 19, 2019
@Da Schneib.
If you didn't lie there wouldn't be 109 threads with your lies on them. And you wouldn't piss me off.
That's a big IF, mate! Your now-well-documented penchant for misreading/misunderstanding is 'legendary', DS; as is your faux pas accusations of lying etc while you are in the wrong and I am in the right all along (as many threads attest to).
What is particularly irritating is your habit of lying and then spouting arrogant insulting comments along with it. That's never going to fly, and you always crash and burn.
Your 'irritation' is born of your own demonstrated faux pas against me, DS. The intelligent and objective PO readers will readily ascertain that you're not only 'in denial', but also into 'projecting'; save-facing campaigns which have failed you many times in the past (don't you EVER learn, DS?).
Meanwhile, weren't you last seen admitting my explanations are the same as the ones in the
You CONTRADICTED mainstream inn this instance. Learn.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2019
You CONTRADICTED mainstream inn this instance. Learn.
And you lied again.

How, precisely, quote of me, and link and quote of a scientific paper by a reputable scientist.

You know what comes next.

Learn or be burned. Again.
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 19, 2019
Thread where @109LiarRC claims unspecified "recent research" shows there's no need for DM but when challenged can't produce any of the "recent research:" https://phys.org/...pse.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims that GRT is "only a theory" despite extensive experimental evidence: https://phys.org/...ory.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims yet again that there's no need for DM due to "discoveries over the last few years:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @109LiarRC lies about its supposed ToE again: https://phys.org/...ght.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims science can be done by non-scientists, ignoring all the training real scientists receive: https://phys.org/...per.html
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2019
5 hundred!
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2019
Whatever you say, DS :)...[smiling and nodding and backing away slowly].

ps: What are those holes in your foot, DS? Been shooting yourself in the foot again, have you, DS?

pps: Anyway...Go you beauty! Thanks, DS. :)
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2019
Whatcha backin' away from? Is it blowin' up in your face? Lies have a tendency to do that.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2019
I/We have been tracking his activities for millennia


No you haven't, time doesn't exist.

Also, you/you all should lay off the drugs.
says jungles

I said "millennia" wrt to the 24 hour sunrise to sunrise cycle - extended for a period of millennia. YOU should continue using the thorazine and/or illegal drugs since you have already chosen to mire yourself in pseudoscience wrt your belief in the existence of "time". More and more scientists are coming on board from the realisation that time is only a concept, produced in the mind/brain and nothing more.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (6) Mar 19, 2019
Whatever you say, DS. :) Oh no!...you're 'booby-trapped', DS?....[an extra reason to keep smiling and nodding and backing away slowly so as not to 'set off' the 'trapped booby'].
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 19, 2019
And ass usual you have nothing to offer but more trolling and lies.

Stubborn is stupid, especially after you already been pwnt. Typical troll.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
I/We have been tracking his activities for millennia


No you haven't, time doesn't exist.

says jungles

I said "millennia" wrt to the 24 hour sunrise to sunrise cycle - extended for a period of millennia. YOU should continue using the thorazine and/or illegal drugs since you have already chosen to mire yourself in pseudoscience wrt your belief in the existence of "time". More and more scientists are coming on board from the realisation that time is only a concept, produced in the mind/brain and nothing more.

No, they are not.
What's Space made of, SEU? Particles, you say, but - what about the space between them...?
observicist
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2019
@SEU,

I keep asking, and you keep not answering: if time doesn't exist, why can't I go to yesterday? Why can't I go to tomorrow? If time doesn't exist, there's nothing separating me from past and future events.

If time doesn't exist, why does it take one year for a photon to travel just a tiny bit over 9.46 × 10^15 m? It's going to travel that far regardless of what units we define that distance to be. And it's going to take that amount of time to go that far regardless of whether we call it one year, 365 days, 8760 hours, or 31536000 seconds. And it's going to do that whether you believe it or not.

So what if I can't tell you what time is "made of"? Just because I don't know what an electron is made of, does that mean it doesn't exist? The fact that no one knows what time is "made of" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. My subjective reality doesn't disappear when I go to sleep. although sometimes I wish it did. My dreams are far more interesting than real life.
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
I/We have been tracking his activities for millennia


No you haven't, time doesn't exist.

says jungles

I said "millennia" wrt to the 24 hour sunrise to sunrise cycle - extended for a period of millennia. YOU should continue using the thorazine and/or illegal drugs since you have already chosen to mire yourself in pseudoscience wrt your belief in the existence of "time". More and more scientists are coming on board from the realisation that time is only a concept, produced in the mind/brain and nothing more.

No, they are not.
What's Space made of, SEU? Particles, you say, but - what about the space between them...?


YES THEY ARE!!
Not all scientists have drunk the "kool-Aid" of pseudoscience mysticism.
Are you stupid or are you just stupid? LOL
The Space between Particles is Space, dummy. What did you think the space between Particles contains? Sand? Cotton? How about the space between your ears? Empty lately?
Surveillance_Egg_Unit
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2019
@SEU,

I keep asking, and you keep not answering: if time doesn't exist, why can't I go to yesterday? Why can't I go to tomorrow? If time doesn't exist, there's nothing separating me from past and future events.

If time doesn't exist, why does it take one year for a photon to travel just a tiny bit over 9.46 × 10^15 m? It's going to travel that far regardless of what units we define that distance to be. hours, or 31536000 seconds. And it's going to do that whether you believe it or not.

So what if I can't tell you what time is "made of"? Just because I don't know what an electron is made of, does that mean it doesn't exist? The fact that no one knows what time is "made of" doesn't mean it doesn't exist. My subjective reality doesn't disappear when I go to sleep. although sometimes I wish it did. My dreams are far more interesting than real life.


I already answered the queries in your first paragraph which you obviously didn't bother to read, or have forgotten.

Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019

No, they are not.
What's Space made of, SEU? Particles, you say, but - what about the space between them...?


YES THEY ARE!!
Not all scientists have drunk the "kool-Aid" of pseudoscience mysticism.
Are you stupid or are you just stupid? LOL
The Space between Particles is Space, dummy. What did you think the space between Particles contains? ...

And.... what's THAT space made of?
granville583762
3 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2019
SPACE

What is Space made Of
Space is used to describe this Vacuum
as in, going into space to visit the space station
space is this vacuum
this vacuum, is devoid of all energy and matter
in other words empty space
So what is Space – it is Vacuum
now to this Nitty-Gritty
thateth confuseths everyeth oneth
thiseth subethstanceth weith calleth spaceth
iseth a vacuuseth vacuumith thateth containeth noeth worldlyeth mattereth
ineth othereth wordereths – A VACUUM
so
What are these effects we see if space is vacuum?
is
simply
This Matter That Occupies This Vacuum
Benni
1.6 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2019


So you have a picture?

Not a single BH has been OBSERVED by photography & failure of the Event Horizon Radio Telescope has proven a picture will never be obtained.


Just today I was at the VLA, took few pictures, and forwarded them to a friend who's the director of a major observatory. He replied, and I quote, "Anticipate a major announcement made by another interferometer (bigger than [VLA]) next month..."

So, we wait.
......did you get any pics of BHs while you were at the VLA? Probably didn't think of it did you?
kl31415
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2019


So you have a picture?

Not a single BH has been OBSERVED by photography & failure of the Event Horizon Radio Telescope has proven a picture will never be obtained.


Just today I was at the VLA, took few pictures, and forwarded them to a friend who's the director of a major observatory. He replied, and I quote, "Anticipate a major announcement made by another interferometer (bigger than [VLA]) next month..."

So, we wait.
......did you get any pics of BHs while you were at the VLA? Probably didn't think of it did you?


Ah the delusional differential equasionist is here :)

Hey @Benni

Can you provide any photos of electrons, protons or neutrons ?

Maybe a photo of free neutrons decaying at exactly 14.7 mins ?

How about a photo of photons in the radio frequencies ?

A link would be fine :)

MrBojangles
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2019
Space IS Matter/Energy
Also,
The Space between Particles is Space, dummy. What did you think the space between Particles contains?


"Space is matter," and particles are obviously matter, so let me translate your second sentence for you:

"The matter between matter is matter, dummy. What did you think the matter between matter contains?"

Hahahaha. That's rich.
kl31415
4.5 / 5 (8) Mar 20, 2019
Space IS Matter/Energy
Also,
The Space between Particles is Space, dummy. What did you think the space between Particles contains?


"Space is matter," and particles are obviously matter, so let me translate your second sentence for you:

"The matter between matter is matter, dummy. What did you think the matter between matter contains?"

Hahahaha. That's rich.


They bury themselves so hard, it's hilarious ! LMAO
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2019
SPACE

What is Space made Of
Space is used to describe this Vacuum
as in, going into space to visit the space station
space is this vacuum
this vacuum, is devoid of all energy and matter
in other words empty space
So what is Space – it is Vacuum
now to this Nitty-Gritty
thateth confuseths everyeth oneth
thiseth subethstanceth weith calleth spaceth
iseth a vacuuseth vacuumith thateth containeth noeth worldlyeth mattereth
ineth othereth wordereths – A VACUUM
so
What are these effects we see if space is vacuum?
is
simply
This Matter That Occupies This Vacuum

Thank you, G'ville.
Matter occupies it (both sparsely and vacuously), but is not IT.
observicist
4.4 / 5 (7) Mar 20, 2019
@SEU,

I already answered the queries in your first paragraph which you obviously didn't bother to read, or have forgotten.


It was an answer without any meaning.
Da Schneib
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2019
Scientists have "drunk the koolaid" apparently of believing space is, you know, space. And stuff.

Classic.

What an idiot.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@Forum.

Note yet again the juvenile-in-denial 'projection' used by DS to divert from his own trolling and errors etc:
And ass usual you have nothing to offer but more trolling and lies. Stubborn is stupid, especially after you already been pwnt. Typical troll.
Sad isn't it?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@observicist.
If time doesn't exist, there's nothing separating me from past and future
That is just another meaningless 'variation' of:
Time prevents everything from happening all at once.
Note "prevents"; which improperly attributes causative/effectiveness property/action to abstract-math/analysis 'time' concept/tool that it obviously doesn'tt possess in reality. Beware slipshod 'off-the-cuff' glib responses to serious questions re 'time', as they are worse than useless to understanding.
If time doesn't exist, why does it take one year for a photon to travel just a tiny bit over 9.46 × 10^15 m?
You again depend on ABSTRACT math/analysis of REAL energy-space dimensions/motions/changes to support your "time exists" opinion.
So what if I can't tell you what time is "made of"? Just because I don't know what an electron is made of, does that mean it doesn't exist?
Not valid comparison: Time 'exists in' abstract maths; Electron EXISTS IN physical reality.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@Forum.

Note yet again the juvenile-in-denial 'projection' used by DS to divert from his own trolling and errors etc:
And ass usual you have nothing to offer but more trolling and lies. Stubborn is stupid, especially after you already been pwnt. Typical troll.
Sad isn't it?
Thought you were "nodding and backing away"...
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.
@Forum.

Note yet again the juvenile-in-denial 'projection' used by DS to divert from his own trolling and errors etc:
And ass usual you have nothing to offer but more trolling and lies. Stubborn is stupid, especially after you already been pwnt. Typical troll.
Sad isn't it?
Thought you were "nodding and backing away"...
Still doing that, Whyde; while also highlighting for @Forum what is still happening with that unfortunate individual.

ps: Did you see, and get the full import of, all that I just pointed out for @observicist regarding his flawed responses/claims to _S_E_U re 'time'? :)
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
...
Not valid comparison: Time 'exists in' abstract maths; Electron EXISTS IN physical reality

No. Time is, simply, an emergent property of linear dimension (best applied with 3 of them...).

The "abstract maths" you refer to, is simply an extension of the math required to manipulate those linear dimensions. It's still geometry at it's heart.
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2019
Thread where @109LiarRC claims both DM and the BB are denied by unspecified "recent discoveries" again, and again without any evidence of these "recent discoveries:" https://phys.org/...ark.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims the Big Bang is "pretend:" https://phys.org/...les.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims LISA GW detections are "noise" despite the fact they are thousands of miles apart and the ringdown sequence is predicted by GRT: https://phys.org/...ime.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims peer review is contaminated because the reviewers use math: https://phys.org/...big.html
Thread where @109LiarRC claims there are no lab experiments in magnetic reconnection before 2016, despite the PPPL experiments: https://phys.org/...its.html
Da Schneib
3.7 / 5 (3) Mar 20, 2019
When someone will lie just for their own false pride, there's no point in arguing. Point out they lied and move on.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.
Not valid comparison: Time 'exists in' abstract maths; Electron EXISTS IN physical reality.
No. Time is, simply, an emergent property of linear dimension (best applied with 3 of them...).
Please dispel that "property" misunderstanding, mate. Time abstraction has NO 'properties' other than abstract ones defined/given it WITHIN/BY the maths construct per se USED (as analysis tool) to COMPARE time/timing between two/more OBJECTS/PROCESSES which DO have REAL PROPERTIES (including states of motion/and rates of change) within the relevant REAL OBSERVABLE energy-space context(s) under particular abstract analysis.
The "abstract maths" you refer to, is simply an extension of the math required to manipulate those linear dimensions. It's still geometry at it's heart.
NO REAL PHYSICAL 'manipulation' is done IN REALITY by our abstract maths/geom analysis constructs. The only 'physical manipulation' is BY US whenever we place/measure instruments/motions etc. :)
Whydening Gyre
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2019
Thought you were "nodding and backing away"...
Still doing that, Whyde; while also highlighting for @Forum what is still happening with that unfortunate individual.

Was an unnecessary goad. His "misfortunes" are not your concern.
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.
Thought you were "nodding and backing away"..
Still doing that, Whyde; while also highlighting for @Forum what is still happening with that unfortunate individual.
Was an unnecessary goad.
What "goad"? I did NOT address the unfortunate individual concerned DIRECTLY, I addressed the @Forum, for the reason stated.

Re:
His "misfortunes" are not your concern.
Trolling and disruption by gangs of disturbed individuals/gangs of trolls is EVERYONE'S concern, mate; that is what COMMUNITY is all about. If we just ignore it in the hope that the problem will 'go away', we only EMBOLDEN/ENABLE such anti-social/anti-science juvenile nastiness. History teaches that crazies and bullies should be CONFRONTED by all good members of the community; hence the saying:
For evil to flourish it suffices that good people stay silent and do nothing.
Not confronting/highlighting bad/crazy behaviour led to child sexual abuse/domestic violence flourishing in silence.
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.Please dispel that "property" misunderstanding, mate. Time abstraction has NO 'properties'

NO abstraction in the Earth moving from point A to point B, unless it did it without all the point A decimal points of demarcation.
other than abstract ones defined/given it WITHIN/BY the maths construct per se USED (as analysis tool) to COMPARE time/timing between two/more OBJECTS/PROCESSES which DO have REAL PROPERTIES (including states of motion/and rates of change) within the relevant REAL OBSERVABLE energy-space context(s) under particular abstract analysis.
NO REAL PHYSICAL 'manipulation' is done IN REALITY by our abstract maths/geom analysis constructs. The only 'physical manipulation' is BY US whenever we place/measure instruments/motions etc. :)

What are those "abstract maths" describing, then?
I think you have a problem with the accepted definition of time, not Time...
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.
Time abstraction has NO 'properties'
NO abstraction in the Earth moving from point A to point B,
Huh? The REAL things/properties are energy-space/motion etc; NOT maths/analysis constructs. There is the EFFECTIVE distinction.
other than abstract ones defined/given it WITHIN/BY the maths construct per se USED (as analysis tool) to COMPARE time/timing between two/more OBJECTS/PROCESSES which DO have REAL PROPERTIES (including states of motion/and rates of change) within the relevant REAL OBSERVABLE energy-space context(s)..
What are those "abstract maths" describing, then You just answered your own question, @Whyde! They abstractly 'describe'; BUT NOT physically 'affect' energy-space dynamics which occur irrespective of whether or not WE are there to observe/describe.
I think you have a problem with the accepted definition of time, not Time
Neither. It's your/others misunderstanding/reification of 'time' that is the problem. Read Einstein. :)
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.
Time abstraction has NO 'properties'
NO abstraction in the Earth moving from point A to point B
Huh? The REAL things/properties are energy-space/motion etc; NOT maths/analysis constructs. There is the EFFECTIVE distinction.
other than abstract ones defined/given it WITHIN/BY the maths construct per se USED (as analysis tool) to COMPARE time/timing between two/more OBJECTS/PROCESSES which DO have REAL PROPERTIES (including states of motion/and rates of change) within the relevant REAL OBSERVABLE energy-space context(s)
What are those "abstract maths" describing, then
You just answered your own question, @Whyde! They abstractly 'describe'; BUT NOT physically 'affect' energy-space dynamics occurring irrespective of whether or not WE are there to observe/describe.
I think you have a problem with the accepted definition of time, not Time
Neither. It's your/others misunderstanding/reification of 'time' that's the problem. Read Einstein on "time"
Da Schneib
4 / 5 (4) Mar 20, 2019
We are golden
We are stardust
We are billion year old carbon
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.
Was an unnecessary goad.
What "goad"? I did NOT address the unfortunate individual concerned DIRECTLY, I addressed the @Forum, for the reason stated.

But it WAS obvious...
Re:
His "misfortunes" are not your concern.
Trolling and disruption by gangs of disturbed individuals/gangs of trolls is EVERYONE'S concern, mate; that is what COMMUNITY is all about. If we just ignore it in the hope that the problem will 'go away'. We only EMBOLDEN/ENABLE such anti-social/anti-science juvenile nastiness. History teaches that crazies and bullies should be CONFRONTED by all good members of the community...
Not confronting/highlighting bad/crazy behaviour led to child sexual abuse/domestic violence flourishing in silence.

Much to your dismay, it's not a bunch of thugs or social criminals, here.
"anti-social/anti-science juvenile nastiness" is a property of our propensity to not look at a bigger picture.
observicist
4.3 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@RealityCheck,

If time did not exist, there would be no difference in the amount of time passing in one frame than in another. This difference is real; it is not an artifact of measurement.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2019
We are golden
We are stardust
We are billion year old carbon

Time to get back to that Garden... :-)
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.Huh? The REAL things/properties are energy-space/motion etc; NOT maths/analysis constructs. There is the EFFECTIVE distinction.

You're making math a player, not an observer. Wrong.
What are those "abstract maths" describing, then
You just answered your own question, @Whyde! They abstractly 'describe'; BUT NOT physically 'affect' energy-space dynamics occurring irrespective of whether or not WE are there to observe/describe.

No one says they do - except you, for some reason...
You seem to want to overthink and complicate something simple. Does that make you feel smarter, somehow?
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.
unnecessary goad.
What "goad"? I did NOT address the unfortunate individual concerned DIRECTLY, I addressed the @Forum,
But it WAS obvious..
That is the whole point of "highlighting" something.
His "misfortunes" are not your concern
Trolling and disruption by gangs of disturbed individuals/gangs of trolls is EVERYONE'S concern, mate; that is what COMMUNITY is all about. If we just ignore it in the hope that the problem will 'go away'. We only EMBOLDEN/ENABLE such anti-social/anti-science juvenile nastiness. History teaches that crazies and bullies should be CONFRONTED by all good members of the community...Not confronting/highlighting bad/crazy behaviour led to child sexual abuse/domestic violence flourishing in silence.
it's not a bunch of thugs or social criminals, here.
That's denial/apologist claptrap, @Whyde; like the kind some tried on when child sexual abuse etc was first being EXPOSED. Start SEEING the bot-voters/trolls, mate.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.
]it's not a bunch of thugs or social criminals, here.
That's denial/apologist claptrap, @Whyde; like the kind some tried on when child sexual abuse etc was first being EXPOSED.

Disengenuous claptrap.
Start SEEING the bot-voters/trolls.

I do... And I see WHO they are...
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.
Huh? The REAL things/properties are energy-space/motion etc; NOT maths/analysis constructs. There is the EFFECTIVE distinction.
You're making math a player, not an observer.
Again: Huh? I just got through TELLING YOU the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you just said I did, @Whyde! Have you had your coffee fix yet?...sounds like you need it badly, mate. :)
What are those "abstract maths" describing, then
You just answered your own question, @Whyde! They abstractly 'describe'; BUT NOT physically 'affect' energy-space dynamics occurring irrespective of whether or not WE are there to observe/describe.
No one says they do - except you,..
You sound confused, mate. Did you miss where all those posters kept claiming that time somehow effects/allows etc events in energy-space, @Whyde? Go have your coffee fix asap; then try again without getting everything back-to-front re what I and others have said. See ya later, when you're properly caffeined-up, @Whyde.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.
it's not a bunch of thugs or social criminals, here.
That's denial/apologist claptrap, @Whyde; like the kind some tried on when child sexual abuse etc was first being EXPOSED.
Disengenuous claptrap.
The child sexual abuse and domestic violence EXPOSURE put paid to the kind of denial/apologist excuses you just tried, mate. That you still attempt to dismiss the reality by calling my highlighting of same 'disingenuous claptrap' is not what I expected from the enlightened and objective/fair person I always took you to be, @Whyde. Please rethinkit, mate. :)
Start SEEING the bot-voters/trolls.
I do... And I see WHO they are...
Do you see Uncle Ira, Captain Stumpy, Da Schneib et al; who have for YEARS been gang-bot-downvoting me even when correct on science/behaviour? Or is it that you 'excuse' them while not excusing likewise those others that now do the same to them? And do you SEE, @Whyde, that I DO NOT VOTE on or REPORT anyone at all? :)
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.
You're making math a player, not an observer.
Again: Huh? I just got through TELLING YOU the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you just said I did,

YOu believe that others think "abstract maths" are more than descriptors.
No one says they do - except you,..
You sound confused, mate. Did you miss where all those posters kept claiming that time somehow effects/allows etc events in energy-space,

Did you miss the point where "time" is a word used to collate descriptions of sequential events of... anything? (Which does happen - always)

RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
@observicist.
If time did not exist, there would be no difference in the amount of time passing in one frame than in another. This difference is real; it is not an artifact of measurement
What is the EFFECTIVE 'thing' being measured is the MOTION SLOWING with increased speed in energy-space EFFECTIVE dimensional 'fabric'. Get it? The ;time' aspect is merely the abstract representation of COMPARISON of slowing/increasing MOTION/INFO etc between frame views. Ie the clocks differ in their tick rates and so measure their respective 'seconds' etc as shorter/longer INTERVAL between ticks. That's all that is happening. At no stage is time a real player; merely a derived value from comparison between frames/motions etc. Ok? :)

Anyhow, you need to stop reiterating glib/old 'memes'; and start thinking it all out for yourself, re what the reality is. I already explained at length that time 'exists' ONLY as a defined/derived ABSTRACT analytical tool/value, ...

[continued next post...]
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Mar 20, 2019
[continued from previous post...]

...NOT as a real, physically causative/effective thing such as energy-space is. So any 'time dimension' is abstract INEFFECTIVE dimension in analytical representation; and NOT PART of the REAL energy-space EFFECTIVE dimensional 'fabric' which the universe is fundamentally; and which was previously (unfortunately) called 'spacetime' after abstraction by Einstein et al from the real 'energy-space' itself. I have explained all this now. There is no further excuse for anyone to pretend that abstract time dimension is real as the causative/effective energy-space dimensions are. :)

Cheers.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Mar 20, 2019
@Whyde.
it's not a bunch of thugs or social criminals, here.
That's denial/apologist claptrap, @Whyde; like the kind some tried on when child sexual abuse etc was first being EXPOSED.
Disengenuous claptrap.

The child sexual abuse and domestic violence EXPOSURE put paid to the kind of denial/apologist excuses you just tried, mate.

Downvoting = child sexual abuse - sycophantically disingenuous...
That you still attempt to dismiss the reality by calling my highlighting of same 'disingenuous claptrap' is not what I expected from the enlightened and objective/fair person I always took you to be, :)

Your context use of child sexual abuse is disgenuous.
Your DS inference was just claptrap...
Do you see Uncle Ira, Captain Stumpy, Da Schneib et al; who have for YEARS been gang-bot-downvoting me?

Guarantee there is no bot involved. They're choosing and clicking each and every vote. They're critiquing your "presentation" methodology.
RealityCheck