Black Holes part 2

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Black Holes part 2
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · Next

AuthorMessage
John D Anthony

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 15
Posts: 177
Credit: 1,303,001
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1730948 - Posted: 2 Oct 2015, 2:07:36 UTC - in response to Message 1730725.  

don't think so...probably would figure it out within a week!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=danYFxGnFxQ
;)

You might be right - he was pretty smart - but Einstein contradicted a lot of what Newton held true about absolutes and the fundamental nature of reality. That's a hell of a paradigm shift for someone who still believed in alchemy, metaphysics and mysticism.

Do you have any examples of Einstein contradicting Newton?

I know that in Newton's universe light did not bend and time was not relative. I'm not a physicist, but from what I've read Newton would have had as much trouble fitting space-time into his description of the universe as Einstein did with quantum mechanics, and Einstein didn't have Newton's burden of superstition to overcome.
ID: 1730948 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1731023 - Posted: 2 Oct 2015, 6:59:02 UTC - in response to Message 1730716.  

don't think so...probably would figure it out within a week!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=danYFxGnFxQ
;)

You might be right - he was pretty smart - but Einstein contradicted a lot of what Newton held true about absolutes and the fundamental nature of reality. That's a hell of a paradigm shift for someone who still believed in alchemy, metaphysics and mysticism.


Newton was a Rosicrucian, like so many more great scientists.
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1731023 · Report as offensive
KLiK
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 31 Mar 14
Posts: 1304
Credit: 22,994,597
RAC: 60
Croatia
Message 1731106 - Posted: 2 Oct 2015, 12:19:17 UTC - in response to Message 1730716.  

don't think so...probably would figure it out within a week!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=danYFxGnFxQ
;)

You might be right - he was pretty smart - but Einstein contradicted a lot of what Newton held true about absolutes and the fundamental nature of reality. That's a hell of a paradigm shift for someone who still believed in alchemy, metaphysics and mysticism.

imagine what would a Newton do today to a science? ;)


non-profit org. Play4Life in Zagreb, Croatia, EU
ID: 1731106 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8797
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 1731129 - Posted: 2 Oct 2015, 13:47:36 UTC

Newton's laws are still used today by NASA.The rest is nothing but talk.
Tullio
ID: 1731129 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1731155 - Posted: 2 Oct 2015, 14:51:52 UTC - in response to Message 1731023.  
Last modified: 2 Oct 2015, 14:55:12 UTC

Newton was a Rosicrucian, like so many more great scientists.

The following famous scientists, philosophers and monarchs were also part of the early historical Rosicrucians:)

Francis Bacon
Jakob Böhme
Gottfried Leibniz
Queen Kristina
Johan Bureus
King Gustav III
King Karl XIII

The founder's name was according to legend, Christian Rosenkreuz (Rose Cross).
Today there are several societies that consider themselves heirs to the Rosicrucians. In Sweden there are two versions: the operational lodges which mainly draws inspiration from Rosenkreuzisk alchemy, mysticism and magic, as well as the emblematic mainly gather around the Rosicrucian manifestos and other philosophical doctrines.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=sv&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fsv.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FRosenkreuzarna%23K.C3.A4nda_rosenkreuzare&edit-text=
ID: 1731155 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1731162 - Posted: 2 Oct 2015, 14:59:15 UTC - in response to Message 1731129.  

Newton's laws are still used today by NASA.The rest is nothing but talk.
Tullio

Newton made laws.
Einstein made theories.
ID: 1731162 · Report as offensive
John D Anthony

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 15
Posts: 177
Credit: 1,303,001
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1731239 - Posted: 2 Oct 2015, 19:50:01 UTC - in response to Message 1731162.  

Newton's laws are still used today by NASA.The rest is nothing but talk.
Tullio

Newton made laws.
Einstein made theories.

I'm not trying to make light of his genius or his contribution - we wouldn't be doing science today without him - but he did share some of the irrational beliefs about the world that were popular in his time. Rosicrucianism was not a minor pastime of the day. It was the 17th century's version of Dianetics - a pseudo-scientific philosophy that attempts to draw an intuitive picture of reality but invariably leads back to itself for validation.
My original comment was that you can't simply take his reasoning ability by itself, you have to include his core beliefs about religion and metaphysics and I don't think it's reasonable to expect he would be able to dump all that simply because relativity is so elegant.
ID: 1731239 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1731246 - Posted: 2 Oct 2015, 20:14:19 UTC - in response to Message 1731239.  

Newton's laws are still used today by NASA.The rest is nothing but talk.
Tullio

Newton made laws.
Einstein made theories.

I'm not trying to make light of his genius or his contribution - we wouldn't be doing science today without him - but he did share some of the irrational beliefs about the world that were popular in his time. Rosicrucianism was not a minor pastime of the day. It was the 17th century's version of Dianetics - a pseudo-scientific philosophy that attempts to draw an intuitive picture of reality but invariably leads back to itself for validation.
My original comment was that you can't simply take his reasoning ability by itself, you have to include his core beliefs about religion and metaphysics and I don't think it's reasonable to expect he would be able to dump all that simply because relativity is so elegant.

Dianetics a system developed by the founder of the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, that aims to relieve psychosomatic disorder by cleansing the mind of harmful mental images.
LOL
Newton was not a Dianetic:)
ID: 1731246 · Report as offensive
John D Anthony

Send message
Joined: 4 Sep 15
Posts: 177
Credit: 1,303,001
RAC: 1
United States
Message 1731275 - Posted: 2 Oct 2015, 22:02:51 UTC - in response to Message 1731246.  

Dianetics a system developed by the founder of the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, that aims to relieve psychosomatic disorder by cleansing the mind of harmful mental images.
LOL
Newton was not a Dianetic:)

Did you honestly think I was saying that Newton was a Scientologist?
ID: 1731275 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1731292 - Posted: 2 Oct 2015, 22:45:07 UTC - in response to Message 1731129.  
Last modified: 2 Oct 2015, 22:48:28 UTC

It is still easier to adhere to the laws of gravity as stated or given by Newton, because these laws more or less are explaining the laws of gravity.

Einstein's Special Law of Relativity is dealing with the notion of time and not gravity itself.

Gravity is a force which is related to matter. You are not able to see gravity directly by means of the equation E=mc2.

This equation does not solve the notion of time either.

For now we are having Newton's three laws of gravity trying to explain most of these things.

For some reason, scientists knew that there was a discrepancy and in the end this showed up by means of stars and planets not being at the expected place when being observed directly by means of a total solar eclipse.

Also the fact that the position of the planet Mercury was found to be some 43 arc seconds off its computed position.

This was proof that gravity is bending not only space, but also time.

These equations tells us about possible properties when it comes to space itself, not necessarily whether or not these equations are either correct, or consists of variables rather than constants.

The universe is three-dimensional. Time is supposedly the fourth dimension and there is speculation that there could be some 11 dimensions in all.

One way of trying to solve this puzzle is by means of mathematical equations as well as the discovery of new elementary particles.

Another way is perhaps trying to view this by means of a spiritual angle. There are several ways of doing such a thing, but for now there are no direct mathematical proof regarding these things.

For now we rely on the General Relativity in order to explain both electrons and quarks, as well as Black Holes.

The latter, which is the subject of this thread, relies on the basic principles of gravity. Again, the only notion about Black Holes is that time supposedly is getting to a standstill inside the Event Horizon towards the singularity making the core of the Black Hole.

Gravity is the fundamental force being related to Black Holes. Possibly there must still be made a separation between gravity itself and the objects that are being created by means of this force.

Gravity is best being explained by means of the laws of Newton, but are only being found to be exact or precise when using the General Law of Relativity.

For now we are not able to relate Black Holes to the subject of Quantum Mechanics. If I happen to be wrong, please tell me where I should go.
ID: 1731292 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1731294 - Posted: 2 Oct 2015, 22:49:03 UTC - in response to Message 1731275.  
Last modified: 2 Oct 2015, 22:50:54 UTC

Dianetics a system developed by the founder of the Church of Scientology, L. Ron Hubbard, that aims to relieve psychosomatic disorder by cleansing the mind of harmful mental images.
LOL
Newton was not a Dianetic:)

Did you honestly think I was saying that Newton was a Scientologist?

Of course not:)
Scientologism is not science!
ID: 1731294 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1731331 - Posted: 3 Oct 2015, 1:11:45 UTC - in response to Message 1731294.  
Last modified: 3 Oct 2015, 1:15:23 UTC

Again, Janne.

Please read the thread title before posting.

I did not read it all, but I know what it is all about.

Do you know what it is all about?

Posting in a thread possibly is easier than starting a new one, because both the relevant as well as nonsense stuff soon vanishes in the crowd or heap of stacks.

It is supposed to be qualitative science, but often it gets watered out and ending up in nothing instead.

If a subject possibly could be finished up with a "problem solved" sentence or statement, that would be better. Then we at least could be able to know that something was being accomplished.
ID: 1731331 · Report as offensive
Profile betreger Project Donor
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 29 Jun 99
Posts: 11360
Credit: 29,581,041
RAC: 66
United States
Message 1731339 - Posted: 3 Oct 2015, 1:26:19 UTC - in response to Message 1731292.  

Another way is perhaps trying to view this by means of a spiritual angle.

Please elaborate.
ID: 1731339 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1731359 - Posted: 3 Oct 2015, 2:28:51 UTC
Last modified: 3 Oct 2015, 3:25:15 UTC

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

Found this link using the Wikipedia.

No more difficult than that.

In order to become a doctor of sorts, at least when it comes to education and knowledge, you need to pass this exam when studying at a university.

Some studies at university may last from 3 to 5 years, possibly making you old in the meantime.

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

More important perhaps is this article.

Read its contents and you might be getting an insight into one of the great mysteries of nature, namely Black Holes.

Definitely you are able to define the Schwarzschild radius and next deduce the presence of the singularity.

Why not start discussing what could be in between these two places.

Are we for now left with the concept of General Relativity also here, or does even this concept or theory not make it inside this radius?

Again, I am assuming that this means the Event Horizon. For this I need go back checking.
ID: 1731359 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1731366 - Posted: 3 Oct 2015, 3:21:55 UTC
Last modified: 3 Oct 2015, 3:23:04 UTC

The problem is that when you say "Please elaborate", we are back to the question of what science is all about and where it belongs.

Religion is being used when science fells short when it comes to giving answers and explanations to certain things.

It does not necessarily give all answers when it comes to law and justice, but at least it is able to make a difference between right and wrong.

In the same way, scientists think that they may be able to understand nature by means of observing its properties, possibly without making any thoughts about what they in fact are studying.

To scientists, space, meaning the universe is a well-known place that could well be hiding secrets.

We happen to know quite a lot about how things are supposed to be working.

In fact, the fusion which is taking place in the cores of stars have nothing to do with the subject of Relativity.

We only take it for granted that the pressure becomes so high that elements which otherwise could be gaseous are fusing together in a state where everything is metallic.

Do you possibly assume the presence of electricity in such a place? Probably no.

What else is needed in order for this to happen?

We know from early tests of nuclear fusion bombs (hydrogen bombs) that the result of this is tremendous amounts of heat.

Witnesses of such explosions, most likely some 80-100 km away or more tell about a lasting heat by means of radiation which never appeared to go away.

The same thing is happening in the core of the sun and it is a process that is fine tuned.

Similar processes, even more complex, are also happening in stars that are heavier than the sun.

So, if for some reason the day has ended and everything has become finished, what is then left?

The answer is neutron stars and Black Holes.

They become a product of a three-dimensional, empty space where nothing seems to exist or being present.

You are supposed to be coming up with equations when it comes to Black Holes, not emptiness, even though this emptiness might be having dimensions on its own.

Rather you are taking such things for granted.

You know, little green men could well be found by means of sending Seth Shostak a private message through their Intercom.

Or there might be some people around thinking that they are here because they are thought of or assumed to be showing up.

Are we supposed to be making any science of this, or are we rather left to the subject of belief versus non-belief?

Most likely the answer to this question has yet to be found.
ID: 1731366 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8797
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 1731371 - Posted: 3 Oct 2015, 3:33:22 UTC

I've read that "Sette brevi lezioni di fisica" by Carlo Rovelli has been translated in 24 languages. He is a leader of the quantum loop gravity theory and works in Marseille. Probably there is an English edition, and certainly a French edition. I listened to him on Radio Svizzera Italiana via Internet.
Tullio
ID: 1731371 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1731388 - Posted: 3 Oct 2015, 4:20:48 UTC - in response to Message 1731331.  

Again, Janne.

Please read the thread title before posting.

I did not read it all, but I know what it is all about.

Do you know what it is all about?

Posting in a thread possibly is easier than starting a new one, because both the relevant as well as nonsense stuff soon vanishes in the crowd or heap of stacks.

It is supposed to be qualitative science, but often it gets watered out and ending up in nothing instead.

If a subject possibly could be finished up with a "problem solved" sentence or statement, that would be better. Then we at least could be able to know that something was being accomplished.

?????????????????
ID: 1731388 · Report as offensive
Profile janneseti
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 14 Oct 09
Posts: 14106
Credit: 655,366
RAC: 0
Sweden
Message 1731391 - Posted: 3 Oct 2015, 4:27:13 UTC - in response to Message 1731371.  

I've read that "Sette brevi lezioni di fisica" by Carlo Rovelli has been translated in 24 languages. He is a leader of the quantum loop gravity theory and works in Marseille. Probably there is an English edition, and certainly a French edition. I listened to him on Radio Svizzera Italiana via Internet.
Tullio

Here is an other:)
Professor Schumacher is the author of numerous scientific papers and two books, including Physics in Spacetime: An Introduction to Special Relativity. As one of the founders of quantum information theory, he introduced the term qubit, invented quantum data compression (also known as Schumacher compression), and established several fundamental results about the information capacity of quantum systems.
http://www.thegreatcourses.com/courses/quantum-mechanics-the-physics-of-the-microscopic-world.html
ID: 1731391 · Report as offensive
bluestar

Send message
Joined: 5 Sep 12
Posts: 6995
Credit: 2,084,789
RAC: 3
Message 1731656 - Posted: 3 Oct 2015, 23:31:53 UTC
Last modified: 3 Oct 2015, 23:33:48 UTC

Here is an analogy.

If I happened to be a chemist, I would know that acid should be poured into water and not the opposite way around.

But in order to do such a thing, I do not necessarily have to be dealing with numbers or rely on them all the time.

Rather I would be concentrating on what I am doing.

Is it possible to say such a thing when it comes to physics as well.

Are our knowledge of elementary particles and the equations being used to visualize them only a representation of the real world?

We are not able to observe such particles directly. Therefore their properties may only be observed by means of measurement, possibly directly.

But then we are back at the well known fact that an observation is supposed to be affecting a particle, also when it comes to its position or location.

In which way are scientists able to explain the exact properties or behaviors of such particles when you are considering such facts?
ID: 1731656 · Report as offensive
Profile tullio
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 04
Posts: 8797
Credit: 2,930,782
RAC: 1
Italy
Message 1731735 - Posted: 4 Oct 2015, 7:12:54 UTC - in response to Message 1731656.  

According to Heisenberg, the more accurate is the measurement of position the leass accurate is the measurement of the momentum of a particle, and viceversa. They are conjugate variables. Others are energy and time.
Tullio
ID: 1731735 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 29 · 30 · 31 · 32 · 33 · 34 · 35 · Next

Message boards : Science (non-SETI) : Black Holes part 2


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.