PDA

View Full Version : Black Holes: Has anyone fallen into 1?



AgentStar1234
2003-Nov-13, 12:57 AM
I have just got an account, so could anyone give me a 4-1-1 of how this neat-o website works? Black holes are kind of weird. NOTHING CAN ESCAPE IT. This post will be kind of short, due to my new user problem. Has anyone ever got sucked into a black hole?

Josh
2003-Nov-13, 01:22 AM
G'day AgentStar and welcome to the Universe Today (UT) forums. Hope you enjoy yourself and find out lots of exciting things.

First point of call is the UT forum rules which can be found here (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=1134&st=0&#entry6674).
After that it's just a matter of looking around the site. Finding out what each of the different forums talk about and getting to know people.
If you're going to ask a question, then consider which forum is most appropriate and if you have an answer to someone else's question or an interesting comment then bring it on.

As for your question about anyone ever being sucked into a black hole ... Even though I've not surveyed everyone on the planet, I'm pretty sure the answer is no. What's more stuff can escape a black hole - x-rays for example. You can do a search for "black Holes" in the search bar and a whole bunch of different topics will pop up that are devoted to in some way or another Black Hole theory right here on UT.

Good luck.

Matthew
2003-Nov-13, 08:45 AM
In 1974, Stephan Hawking discovered that black holes can evaporate. This evaporation occurs because there are objects called virtual particles of which one is a particle and the other is an anti-particle. Normally virtual particles destroy each other, but near a black hole one virtual particle may be sucked into the black hole, while the other goes out into space. Because the gravitational field of the black hole has ‘paid’ the energy for this particle to become real, the black hole loses energy (and so also loses mass). Smaller black holes evaporate faster than larger ones. As the evaporation of a black hole speeds up it begins to glow and eventually explodes with a burst of gamma rays. It would take a stellar mass black hole 10^67 years to evaporate completely.


Also try a search of Universe Today. There is a heap of topics that are about (or refer to) black holes. (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?act=Search)

And if you want a quick guide to the forum try the help section. (http://www.universetoday.com/forum/index.php?act=Help) Or if you want a quick summary of Universe Today click here. (http://www.universetoday.com/html/misc/about.html)

Hope I've helped!

Haglund
2003-Nov-13, 10:51 AM
Could these gamma bursts we've observed be the result of primordial small black holes evaporating?

carlosncarlos
2003-Nov-13, 03:54 PM
[QUOTE=matthew,Nov 13 2003, 08:45 AM]In 1974, Stephan Hawking discovered that black holes can evaporate. This evaporation occurs because there are objects called virtual particles of which one is a particle and the other is an anti-particle. Normally virtual particles destroy each other, but near a black hole one virtual particle may be sucked into the black hole, while the other goes out into space. Because the gravitational field of the black hole has ‘paid’ the energy for this particle to become real, the black hole loses energy (and so also loses mass). Smaller black holes evaporate faster than larger ones. As the evaporation of a black hole speeds up it begins to glow and eventually explodes with a burst of gamma rays. It would take a stellar mass black hole 10^67 years to evaporate completely.


Sigh*

This is something which calls my attention...Lets see...you said that Hawhking says that black holes "evaporate".

Now, I invite you to think and check in scientific and technical terms what the word "evaporation" means: Conversion of a liquid to the vapor state by the addition of latent heat.

My topics have ben locked and closed everytime I invite the readers to think and to analyze, evaluate and have their own conclusions about the topics in these foums.

What is my reward for this task of mine?...just warnings to be banned from here.

But, dear readers, you see that my opportunities to respond questions from others are impeded by the hosts of these forums, and that is not fair...

Lets go back to those black holes which evaporated :lol: :lol: :lol:

So, Hawking said in 1974 that black holes were practically liquids.

I still can't understand who is the promoter of such lunatic, who is making millions of dollars just by spreading such sentences which lack of common sense.

Come on guys, Hawking and Co. are pulling your legs.

First, nobody...listen clearly..nobody can affirm about the existence of black holes as a fact...all those still assumptions.

Second, no observtions at all have been performed about black holes, neither of their evap...jiar, jiar, jiar...evaporat...jiar, jiar, jiar...evaporations... :huh:

Third, lets take this in a good approach, be a good sport and think...black holes are assumed to be in reality black spheres because such was the primeval idea of John Michell in 1783 when he idealized the scenario of a star so massive that its density should prevent light from escaping...by the power of its own gravity. (London 1783).

The name black hole was given by John Wheeler in 1960 and he added that black holes have"no hair" in 1968 because its surface is assumed to be as a soap bubble.

All those ideas still mere assumptions which are the delight for our imaginations...even so..we cannot trust our imaginations but be certain in facts...otherwise the forums here should be about philosophy, fantasies, myths, religion,etc...in where imagination prevails over facts.

Think now...You are idealizing the existence of black holes but you never saw one, you idealized the beginning and the end of black hole but you have never observed at all neither the process..neither the consequences or effects...

The passing by of gamma rays close to Earth still several times of unknown source or origin, but it should be nuts to affirm that those come from black holes when black holes still assumptions.

It appears that today, any idea about science is approved only when the idea inherits the false doctrines of the current theories...it is the obstinated and vin intention to prove those lunatic theories correct at all cost...and that is wrong...completely wrong...

Think, and laugh if you want to my dear Fraser, be a good sport in this...think about such ridiculous idea that black holes evaporate...Hawking must be banned from the scientific community for saying such stupidities...

Lets see guys, do you think that black holes are liquids? :(

Haglund
2003-Nov-13, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by carlosncarlos@Nov 13 2003, 03:54 PM
Sigh*

This is something which calls my attention...Lets see...you said that Hawhking says that black holes "evaporate".

Now, I invite you to think and check in scientific and technical terms what the word "evaporation" means: Conversion of a liquid to the vapor state by the addition of latent heat.


It's a perfectly good word to use. Everyone who knows what a black hole is (and I think Hawking is far beyond you or me or any of us in that respect) are able to use that word without being confused like some people obviously are.




My topics have ben locked and closed everytime I invite the readers to think and to analyze, evaluate and have their own conclusions about the topics in these foums.

What is my reward for this task of mine?...just warnings to be banned from here.


Ah. So it wasn't because you insulted everyone, including those who didn't believe your theories, and Einstein and Hawkings?




But, dear readers, you see that my opportunities to respond questions from others are impeded by the hosts of these forums, and that is not fair...

Lets go back to those black holes which evaporated :lol: :lol: :lol:

So, Hawking said in 1974 that black holes were practically liquids.


Could you please quote Hawking so that we can see for ourselves? You know that Hawking understands black holes better than most people on this planet, you know that he therefor would not say that a black hole would be liquids, and you know that the word evaporate is not used in that sense. So, why do you insist that this is the case?



I still can't understand who is the promoter of such lunatic, who is making millions of dollars just by spreading such sentences which lack of common sense.

Come on guys, Hawking and Co. are pulling your legs.

First, nobody...listen clearly..nobody can affirm about the existence of black holes as a fact...all those still assumptions.



First of all, no one would say that Hawking said such a thing, and you know it. Still, this is what you do. Why?

And yes, black holes do exist.




Second, no observtions at all have been performed about black holes, neither of their evap...jiar, jiar, jiar...evaporat...jiar, jiar, jiar...evaporations... :huh:


Yes, observations have been made.
And no, Hawking radiation has not been observed.




Third, lets take this in a good approach, be a good sport and think...black holes are assumed to be in reality black spheres because such was the primeval idea of John Michell in 1783 when he idealized the scenario of a star so massive that its density should prevent light from escaping...by the power of its own gravity. (London 1783).

The name black hole was given by John Wheeler in 1960 and he added that black holes have"no hair" in 1968 because its surface is assumed to be as a soap bubble.

All those ideas still mere assumptions which are the delight for our imaginations...even so..we cannot trust our imaginations but be certain in facts...otherwise the forums here should be about philosophy, fantasies, myths, religion,etc...in where imagination prevails over facts.

Think now...You are idealizing the existence of black holes but you never saw one, you idealized the beginning and the end of black hole but you have never observed at all neither the process..neither the consequences or effects...

The passing by of gamma rays close to Earth still several times of unknown source or origin, but it should be nuts to affirm that those come from black holes when black holes still assumptions.


We have observed the indirect effect that black holes would have on its surrounding, and there is quite good evidence that there are black holes. If that is wrong, then show us how.



It appears that today, any idea about science is approved only when the idea inherits the false doctrines of the current theories...it is the obstinated and vin intention to prove those lunatic theories correct at all cost...and that is wrong...completely wrong...

Think, and laugh if you want to my dear Fraser, be a good sport in this...think about such ridiculous idea that black holes evaporate...Hawking must be banned from the scientific community for saying such stupidities...



Instead of insulting every brilliant mind on this planet, perhaps you would care to show us how the scientific community is wrong?



Lets see guys, do you think that black holes are liquids? :(
I have to congratulate you, this is one of the largest strawmen I have ever seen!

Menikmati
2003-Nov-13, 06:30 PM
Parker very well done and thank you for being polite because I was gonna make a similar post but I don't think it would have been as polite.


Come on guys, Hawking and Co. are pulling your legs.

I would like to know who the CO. is and secondly I take much offense to that quote. How could you be so disrespectful to such a great men. I don't think such men would have devoted their life to science and math just so they could be " pulling our legs"! I will stop there with the comments because I can feel my blood pressure rising.

But back to the topic of this post..Welcome agentstar1234 and good to see another member. I have only been a member for a few weeks and I must say I have been learing much, also sign up for the newsletter, you can find the link in frasers signiture. And to your question, I am sure noone from this planet has fallen into a black hole.

carlosncarlos
2003-Nov-13, 09:29 PM
Parker, lets see the posting from Matthew:


Originally posted by Matthew+ Nov 13 2003, 08:45 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Matthew &#064; Nov 13 2003, 08:45 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>In 1974, Stephan Hawking discovered that black holes can evaporate. This evaporation occurs because there are objects called virtual particles of which one is a particle and the other is an anti-particle. Normally virtual particles destroy each other, but near a black hole one virtual particle may be sucked into the black hole, while the other goes out into space. Because the gravitational field of the black hole has ‘paid’ the energy for this particle to become real, the black hole loses energy (and so also loses mass). Smaller black holes evaporate faster than larger ones. As the evaporation of a black hole speeds up it begins to glow and eventually explodes with a burst of gamma rays. It would take a stellar mass black hole 10^67 years to evaporate completely.
[/b]

Lets see now your reply:


Originally posted by Parker@Nov 13 2003, 10:51 AM


Could these gamma bursts we&#39;ve observed be the result of primordial small black holes evaporating?

Lets see now my reply:


Originally posted by carlosncarlos@ Nov 13 2003, 03:54 PM


Sigh*

This is something which calls my attention...Lets see...you said that Hawhking says that black holes "evaporate".

Now, I invite you to think and check in scientific and technical terms what the word "evaporation" means: Conversion of a liquid to the vapor state by the addition of latent heat.

Parker, the readers can check the topics created by me and no insults have been made from my part to the participants but only disagreements with them which is something very common between participants here and everywhere.

I joke a lot about Einstein&#39;s ideas because his ideas are lunacies, because reality has deleted his ideas long ago, but for some reason Eintein&#39;s stupidities still around as scientific theories. Of course, that is not an insult against you and you should not be affected by such. Now, if you make new rules in where no one here can make jokes of former ideas and individuals...well, let me tell you...lots of guys should have to laugh seriuosly :huh: when they remember for some reason that centuries ago people used to think that planet Earth was flat and so and so...

Something which is absurd, because people laugh about former beliefs, that is something natural and common everywhere.

But, lets ask you a question, because in science you just cannot explain phenomenas with analogies unless you put in clear that your words are such, you can make comparisons with other phenomna but you must say so...you just can&#39;t say that water desintegrates when is heated...you must use the proper words when those are available...in case you don&#39;t have available words to explain the phenomenon, you can create new words or use analogies or similar. Lets see:

<!--QuoteBegin-parker Nov 13 30003@ 04:17PM
]

Could you please quote Hawking so that we can see for ourselves? You know that Hawking understands black holes better than most people on this planet, you know that he therefor would not say that a black hole would be liquids, and you know that the word evaporate is not used in that sense. So, why do you insist that this is the case? [/quote]


You should ask that question to Matthew in the first place, because he is the one who came here with such idea and quotation. But, you agreed with him, and I will provide you such lunacy of Hawking...read the comic book called The Universe in a Nutshell, open the page 192...I won&#39;t post the stupidities of that part of the book because such idiotic ideas have Copyrights. But, you will read that in his infantile imagination, Hawking confuses himself when he thinks that losing energy in a black hole means that the black hole evaporates and shrink in its size, etc, etc...

Do you call Hawking&#39;s lunacies as that he understand black holes better than others? Parker, are you serious or you are just playing around with us the readers and participants?

Now, as you agreed with Matthew about such evaporation as well...In what sense you imply such evaporation?...What a black hole is for you and what is the definition of "evaporation" for you?

Evaporation is a phenomenon catalogued for liquids only, so, if...listen Parker...if...if you are seriously talking about science here, you just cannot use the word evaporation in the assumed even that black holes exist and that those for some reason lose their energy...unless you assume that black holes are in liquid state. We are here talking straight science and I will ask you to respect the intelligence of everybody who read this topic. Tell us about your evaporation of black holes...better than that...explain why black holes can&#39;t sublime :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Haglund
2003-Nov-13, 10:47 PM
Originally posted by carlosncarlos@Nov 13 2003, 09:29 PM


Parker, the readers can check the topics created by me and no insults have been made from my part to the participants but only disagreements with them which is something very common between participants here and everywhere.

I joke a lot about Einstein&#39;s ideas because his ideas are lunacies, because reality has deleted his ideas long ago, but for some reason Eintein&#39;s stupidities still around as scientific theories. Of course, that is not an insult against you and you should not be affected by such. Now, if you make new rules in where no one here can make jokes of former ideas and individuals...well, let me tell you...lots of guys should have to laugh seriuosly :huh: when they remember for some reason that centuries ago people used to think that planet Earth was flat and so and so...

Something which is absurd, because people laugh about former beliefs, that is something natural and common everywhere.


You keep telling us that relativity is stupidities and lunacies, but you haven&#39;t told us why this is. Why can&#39;t you tell us where his theories are "lunacies" and "stupidities"?




But, lets ask you a question, because in science you just cannot explain phenomenas with analogies unless you put in clear that your words are such, you can make comparisons with other phenomna but you must say so...you just can&#39;t say that water desintegrates when is heated...you must use the proper words when those are available...in case you don&#39;t have available words to explain the phenomenon, you can create new words or use analogies or similar. Lets see:


So when you read that Hawking said that black holes can evaporate, you know so little about black holes that you honestly think that Hawking knows just as little as you do? Are you aware that he explained what he meant by this evaporation, and that it is you who never bothered to look it up? Well, now you know.



You should ask that question to Matthew in the first place, because he is the one who came here with such idea and quotation. But, you agreed with him, and I will provide you such lunacy of Hawking...read the comic book called The Universe in a Nutshell, open the page 192...

If you don&#39;t know what he meant by evaporation regarding black holes, then why can&#39;t you just look it up instead of making false assumptions? Indeed it seems like you&#39;re actually trying to misunderstand as much as possible.



I won&#39;t post the stupidities of that part of the book because such idiotic ideas have Copyrights. But, you will read that in his infantile imagination, Hawking confuses himself when he thinks that losing energy in a black hole means that the black hole evaporates and shrink in its size, etc, etc...

Ridiculous. You can quote other people&#39;s works, at least by most countrie&#39;s copyright laws. You just don&#39;t want to do it, or you can&#39;t be bothered doing it, instead you are putting forward the best argument you&#39;ve come up with so far; "it&#39;s stupid, but I wont tell you why". If Hawking is right, and if the black hole can lose energy in this way, then it will lose mass. Your main argument seem to be based on the same old "I don&#39;t get it, so it&#39;s stupid," or, "I don&#39;t want it to be true, so it&#39;s stupid".



Do you call Hawking&#39;s lunacies as that he understand black holes better than others? Parker, are you serious or you are just playing around with us the readers and participants?

Surely you are aware of your own actions to such a degree that you know that I&#39;m not the one playing around with other participants and telling jokes? Surely you know that if someone here can never ever be serious, it&#39;s not me? I mean, I am almost sure that you&#39;re doing this as an act to stir around in this forum for no reason.




Now, as you agreed with Matthew about such evaporation as well...In what sense you imply such evaporation?...What a black hole is for you and what is the definition of "evaporation" for you?

A black hole is a star that has collapsed under its own gravity and become a singularity. There is spherical "border" around it ("event horizon"), defined by the distance from the singularity when light cannot escape the black hole. As I understand Hawking radiation, it&#39;s due to the possibility of virtual particle pairs to appear just on the "edge" of the event horizon. It&#39;s possible that one of them falls in and the other can escape from the horizon. As it escapes, it becomes "real" (it would normally annihilate with its twin anti-particle), and moves away from the black hole, doing so by borrowing energy from the gravitational field around the black hole while the virtual particle that falls into the black hole gets a negative energy which the black hole sucks up and so the black hole lose energy. This is how I remember it, I&#39;d be glad to be corrected by someone who knows about this better than I do...




Evaporation is a phenomenon catalogued for liquids only, so, if...listen Parker...if...if you are seriously talking about science here, you just cannot use the word evaporation in the assumed even that black holes exist and that those for some reason lose their energy...unless you assume that black holes are in liquid state. We are here talking straight science and I will ask you to respect the intelligence of everybody who read this topic. Tell us about your evaporation of black holes...better than that...explain why black holes can&#39;t sublime :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

I have already explained to you that words can have more than one meaning. I thought about explaining it, to you, again, but I realise that such an endeavour is futile. You believe that if I have a trash bin in my operating system, it&#39;s an actual, real trash bin. Inside my operating system. That is what you&#39;re saying.

kashi
2003-Nov-14, 02:22 AM
carlosncarlos,

For the record, if you look up the word "evaporate" in the Oxford Dictionary, one of the definitions is simply "to disappear". Stop being immature. If anyone needs to learn how to use the English language properly (i.e. without offending people), it is you.

Nobody has a problem with you expressing your opinion, however if you continue to do it in a patronising way that insults other people, I will personally make sure that you are banned from this forum.

This is your last chance. Be nice, or find another forum.

Kashi

DippyHippy
2003-Nov-14, 03:40 AM
For the record, I&#39;m backing Kashi up on this.

I haven&#39;t responded to your posts (mostly because I can&#39;t understand a word you&#39;re saying) but I&#39;ve been following along and to be blunt, I don&#39;t like the way you&#39;ve been responding to other people&#39;s remarks.

Also, it&#39;s been noted that you only seem to be here for the purpose of promoting your theories and that you&#39;ve got no interest in joining in on any of the other discussions here. This is a community and as such we&#39;re all here to have fun and learn from one another, but even you have to admit that you&#39;ve been more than a little one-sided.

I think we&#39;ve been more than patient with you but our tolerance isn&#39;t going to last very much longer if you continue to post in this manner.

Matthew
2003-Nov-14, 06:07 AM
You should ask that question to Matthew in the first place, because he is the one who came here with such idea and quotation. But, you agreed with him, and I will provide you such lunacy of Hawking...read the comic book called The Universe in a Nutshell, open the page 192...I won&#39;t post the stupidities of that part of the book because such idiotic ideas have Copyrights. But, you will read that in his infantile imagination, Hawking confuses himself when he thinks that losing energy in a black hole means that the black hole evaporates and shrink in its size, etc, etc...

Your argument is flawed carlosncarlos, Einstein&#39;s famous equation (E=MC^2) signifies that energy and mass are related. So by removing energy from a black hole you remove mass.

Though you won&#39;t believe that.


I joke a lot about Einstein&#39;s ideas because his ideas are lunacies, because reality has deleted his ideas long ago, but for some reason Eintein&#39;s stupidities still around as scientific theories. Of course, that is not an insult against you and you should not be affected by such. Now, if you make new rules in where no one here can make jokes of former ideas and individuals...well, let me tell you...lots of guys should have to laugh seriuosly when they remember for some reason that centuries ago people used to think that planet Earth was flat and so and so...

Where do you get all of your information from. Current physics accepts and uses what Einstien discovered, so by defying Einstien you are defying physics. Which is not a thing to do lightly.

Haglund
2003-Nov-14, 06:20 AM
I would like to point out that Hawking radiation has not been observed yet, but as far as I understand it follows from quantum physics? Also, black holes can&#39;t really be observed directly, they have to look at how the surrounding matter behaves.

Matthew
2003-Nov-14, 07:05 AM
I would like to point out that Hawking radiation has not been observed yet, but as far as I understand it follows from quantum physics? Also, black holes can&#39;t really be observed directly, they have to look at how the surrounding matter behaves.

It follows quantum physics. Black holes can also be observed by the efvfect it has on light, gravitation lensing.

carlosncarlos
2003-Nov-14, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by Parker


You keep telling us that relativity is stupidities and lunacies, but you haven&#39;t told us why this is. Why can&#39;t you tell us where his theories are "lunacies" and "stupidities"?


Parker,

1)-Time is not a physical dimension, time is just the reference obtained by the comparison of the motion of physical means. You can&#39;t perceive the passage of time...the only event you and machines can perceive is the motion of physical means. Time is not an illusion...the perception of time is an illusion.

2)- Clocks can&#39;t measure the passage of such imaginary dimension of time. You can visit the factories of clocks, you can visit the place in where atomic clocks are made and you will find out that those clocks are manufactered to work in a calibrated functional work only. The only data received from those devices is a calibrated data which is not connected directly or indirectly to an imaginary dimension of time.

3)- Light is just a consequence or effect after the behavior of matter in determinated circumstances, and light is subjected to the laws of nature as to slow its speed with distance, to be absorbed in its way by the matter, etc, etc... Its speed as constant is not possible by any means...not in the physical universe.

4)-The standart c is nothing but a reference measurement created by humans but is not any real standart speed for light, actually there are lights faster than c in labs. For example, the superluminal light passing through Cesium gas can travel faster than light traveling through vacuum...and this lead to the conclusion that the fomer ideas of Einstein as c as his go go dancer attraction is now just an old retired woman. By the way, how light passing through such Caesium gas (which creates opposition) can travel faster than light through vacuum (without opposition) is the best mockery that reality is making against Einstein&#39;s ideas.

5)- Einstein&#39;s points of view about ligh and motion are just misunderstandings of reality by the effects of illusions. For example, his famous "light clocks" never worked, every attempt to make those clocks has been a total failure, so, the followers of Einstein decided to use atomic clocks in order to impress the people because those atomic clocks are extraordinarily accurate. But, accurate or not, those atomic clocks are not...listen Parker, those atomic clocks are not the light clocks suggested by Einstein, plus, those atomic clocks are not connected directly or indirectly to such imaginary dimension of time...so, any variation in data between clocks when are located in different enviroments is due to malfunctions in those devices because their matter (those clocks are made of matter) is affected when is exposed to different enviroments.

6)-The famous evidence which back up Einstein&#39;s predictions are all lies, hoaxs, and incorrect interpretations of reality. For example, you see the Sun early in the morning up in the sky. It is big and red. In reality, the Sun is located -from our point of observation- under the horizon line, but its reflection in our atmosphera allow us to see it before the Sun rises over the horizon line. Tell me Parker, where do you see in this simple phenomena of reflection and refraction of light, the famous distortion of spacetime? Light is just bent becuse is passing through a different enviroment, that&#39;s all...Besides, the Sun&#39;s hot atmosphera is the reason why such stars can be seen as we see the Sun&#39; image early in the morning or late in the afternoon evenw hen the Sun is under our horizon line. Then, there is not such gravitational lenses but there are atmospherical lenses...check with the eclipse of the Moon if you can see any star located under the horizon line of the Moon from our point of observation. Just stand behind a guy who uses prescribed glasses and check that objects around and far away from the glasses frames focus from your point of view, those objects are reflected in such glasses and you can see them as well. Where is the distortion of spacetime in that simple phenomenon?

As this topic is about black holes, I might stop here and use the above points to ask you...if...because the existence of black holes still a mere assumption, if black holes exist, their collapsing shall be just due to dust extinguishing the residuals of fire caused by the nuclear chain reactions and you just see a death star playing as a giant planet. There is not such thing of strong gravities able to stop the escape of light...such thing is irrelevant...period.

If particles/radiation can escape from the assumed black hole as told by Hawking, light shall be easily going out as well without problems. To assume different is lunacy. A different scenario is for such star is to have a black/dark atmosphera which absorbes light...otherwise...those thories are just lunacies.

Think about it...Use your imagination in base of reality...Hawking&#39;s ideas are telling you that today is possible for humans to breath in deep water through our pores and that we don&#39;t need lungs anymore...come on...

Besides, Kashi, the word "evaporation" in a figurative way can be "dissapear".
Read the example given in your dictionary, in mine the example says:"My despair evaporated"... Are you implying now that Hawking is writing poetry instead of science?

Look, all this idea about black holes started just as imaginary events in base of possible consequences by mathematical calulations, now, for some reason, some guys are trying to make such idea as a real phenomenon at all cost...

Kashi, prove The Last Theorem of Fermat using grains of rice, in mathematical calculations such theorem z^n=x^n+y^n having n greater than 2, is possible because it has been finally solved just few years ago.

But, I am asking you to solve such theorem using grains of rice...

When you check about that nobody in this world can solve such theorem using real physical means as grains of rice or sand, then, I can guarantee you that all this fuss about black holes as impeding the escape of light just by strong gravities is absurd in reality but possible in a piece of paper.

Hawkings ideas are just lunacies inherited by another lunatic called Einstein.

Parker, Fraser, Kashi, Josh, etc...you just can&#39;t stop truth by locking topics, banning participants or similar, truth will prevail anyway...the best for you is just to analize your position and measure it against reality...Einstein did it...he found his science measured against reality as primitive and childlike...that is what you are fighting for...

I am providing here a law which when is measured against reality is found to be in accord with reality...When I posted it here, rather than proving yourself correct you decided to stop the information about this law becuse this law destroys all the current theories based in mere imaginations, I will encourage you to medidate about your actions...our children don&#39;t deserve to inherit the lunacies of others... Think about it and accept reality.

Menikmati
2003-Nov-14, 03:14 PM
ok, lets pretend that your right and Einstein and Hawking are lunatics. You really expect everyone on this forum to throw away what they have been studying for years and take hands with you? :lol: I would like links to others that feel the same way you do and possible books. Thanks

Haglund
2003-Nov-14, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by carlosncarlos
Hawking&#39;s ideas are telling you that today is possible for humans to breath in deep water through our pores and that we don&#39;t need lungs anymore...come on...

Of course if this is what you believe Hawking said, then it&#39;s no wonder you think it&#39;s lunacies.

carlosncarlos
2003-Nov-14, 09:11 PM
Originally posted by Menikmati@Nov 14 2003, 03:14 PM
ok, lets pretend that your right and Einstein and Hawking are lunatics. You really expect everyone on this forum to throw away what they have been studying for years and take hands with you? :lol: I would like links to others that feel the same way you do and possible books. Thanks
Actually Menikmati, what it should be good for you is to review those theories and find out their roots.

You will find for example that Einstein inherited the myth that time was a dimension and that clocks measure the passage of such maginary dimension.

So, he created his theories in base of those assumptions which were accepted as correct in those years. Then, a great campaing started to back up such theories at all cost, and today you see the web sites of science filled up with those ideas which are nothing but pure imaginations...nothing real.

My postings won&#39;t change your mind, the intention of these postings is to present the side of reality and put those theories measured against reality.

Tell me Menikmati, give me the definition of time and prove its existence. Prove that time -not so the physical objects- is affected when speed is applied to those objects.

For example, you know about the idea that muons exposed to high speeds dilate time. Lets see so far the explanation given by this individual who was in charge of the Israel-Techno years ago, Mr Silver. He assumes that these particles have something similar to an internal coin thrower. :blink: So, he is trying hard to flirt with Quantum Mechanics and God playing dice. :rolleyes:

Lets continue, according to him, the coin thrower will work at different rates of throw, he says about such coin: "Heads desingtegrate, tails, I live a little longer" :blink: Then, the muon is alive in accord to his explanation.

He affirms now -because he won&#39;t assume anymore- that the thrower knows when to throw because he has a clock :blink: :blink: :blink:

But, please don&#39;t laugh yet, wait for the best...Mr Brian L. Silver says that temperature and pressure won&#39;t affect the muon, and of course, he never provided a chart proving his points, he just assume such thing because our instruments are not capable to detect such variations...so, he just want to set in his story..oops..excuse me...his explanation, that only speed can affect time with the high motion of the muons. Well, he gave some results of the observaton of muons which appear to last longer after being exposed to high velocities, and so, and so...

Listen now his explanation analysis:

1)- Coin thrower? :lol: :lol: :lol:

2)- Internal clock? :lol: :lol: :lol:

Is that the scientific explanation of why muons appear to last longer when those are exposed to high speeds?

:lol: Such kind of explanation is nothing but a desperated intention to back up the ridiculous theories of relativity at all cost...take notice that he input in his ridiculous explanation the presence of a clock inside the muon. He is trying to mix muons with spaceships with clocks inside...brainwashing, brainwashing, brainwashing...

The more laughable situation is when this silly explanation of his is actully under a subtitle named :"Fact Not Fiction" in his book The Ascent of Science :lol: :lol: :lol:

All these ideas of dilatation of time are surrounded of stupid explanations which are offensive to reality... Black holes which evaporate, time traveling, etc, etc...

What is wrong with those guys? They sure need help...

Menikmati, from tens, or hundreds, or thousands of explanations about a single phenomenon...select the one which explains the phenomenon with simple steps and with credible evidence. Throwed coins and internal clocks as an explanation are a lunacy to he square.

The truth is that muons are just residuals from the collision between cosmic rays and our atmosphera, and as cosmic rays, their duration is greater traveling to high speeds. After the collision, the cosmic rays decay into mesons, muons, electrons... You speed up muons and those will last -it is not a physics expression to say "live" for muons- a little more because high speeds was part of their former natural status. But, as you see, those muons never ever go back into cosmic rays, they just decay back into electrons.

Now, as a curiosity, 5 million of high solar neutrinos pass through every square centimenter of your body every second...I just read that...man&#33;...that is not amazing...that is just crazy&#33;&#33;&#33; ;) ...our physical universe is so great...

carlosncarlos
2003-Nov-14, 09:39 PM
Originally posted by Parker+Nov 14 2003, 03:27 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Parker &#064; Nov 14 2003, 03:27 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-carlosncarlos
Hawking&#39;s ideas are telling you that today is possible for humans to breath in deep water through our pores and that we don&#39;t need lungs anymore...come on...

Of course if this is what you believe Hawking said, then it&#39;s no wonder you think it&#39;s lunacies.[/b][/quote]
Parker, I don&#39;t know if Hawking is a relative of yours, your idol or something else, but, in science...I mean real science...an individual cannot just be telling whatever appears in his imagination and for the others to accept those as true events or phenomena.

If you love science, you must research what you learn...that is your duty as well is mine and everybody&#39;s...

The sad situation here and in lots of places is that guys accept the lunacies of some individuals without asking questions. That is a big problem...

I can see lots of guys accepting Christ in their lives without knowing if Christ is a name, a title, or whatever...they just accept something new because is very attractive...not because it is true. I can compare to the current scientific theories which imply time as a dimension with SimOne, the character of a movie which is not real but a computer simulation but people believe that she is actually a person. (SimOne- the movie)

Again, the existence of black holes was just a methematical assumption which is possible as paper calculations but not possible to happen in the physical universe.

If Hawking has expend great part of his life studying such hipothetical phenomenon, well, he is the one who decided to waste his life doing so..we don&#39;t need to follow his ideas just because he waste his life..that is his problem...

Hawking ideas and calculations based in imaginary events make him as a champion in chess, a champion in chess is very good playing that game...but...in case of war...nobody call to such champion for to be in charge of attack and defense of real armies because one thing is hipothetical situations and a different thing is a real war.

So, in these forum lots of guys just play "scientifical chess games" with lots of numbers and calculations (time traveling, wormholes, etc)..and have great times doing so...but, please. when you leave your computer...come back to reality and don&#39;t try to spread out that your game can become physically a real event with planets, stars, etc...

Learn to recognize the difference.

kashi
2003-Nov-14, 09:57 PM
Carlosncarlos,

I&#39;ve done some googling and noticed that you have been bombarding other phyiscs/astronomy forums with simular material. You seem to be uninterested in engaging with other peoples&#39; ideas, and only concerned with promoting your own. I (and other users who have complained to me), find your language quite patronising, and frankly insulting. When newcomers start using this forum and ask questions such as the one in this thread, we should be welcoming them not turning them away.

I&#39;m closing this topic.

Kashi

Planetwatcher
2003-Nov-15, 01:19 PM
Mr. Carlos, can I be like you when I grow up?

Einstein would turn over in his grave at the things you dare put into print, and if I were Hawkings I would sue you for libel.

By the time I got to your 3rd posting in this string I realized I need not read any more because you are only repeating yourself and using a lot of words without saying anything. How about putting your money where your mouth is and start backing up your opinions.


Time is not an illusion...the perception of time is an illusion.
Prove it.


Clocks can&#39;t measure the passage of such imaginary dimension of time. How nice. So then I can drive to work at 95 MPH and if I get a ticket for speeding I can use that line in court of time being imaginary. More likely I will be placed in the looney.


Light is just a consequence or effect after the behavior of matter in determinated circumstances, and light is subjected to the laws of nature as to slow its speed with distance, to be absorbed in its way by the matter,
I was reading Steven Hawkings Universe just yesterday, and I vividly recall in the chapter Gallieo&#39;s Eyes, claiming Einstien said the speed of light is consistant, and NEVER changes speed under ANY circumstances. But he must have forgotton to consult you because you and Rush are the only people in the world who are right.


The standart c is nothing but a reference measurement created by humans but is not any real standart speed for light,
If light didn&#39;t really exist as you seem to imply, and time is imaginary, then there is no standard by which to measure what doesn&#39;t exist, which would give you no arguement, because you would have no awareness of these things by which to argue. But just the fact that you are arguing assumes you acknowedge their existence which makes your arguement void. Again you are doing a lot of talking but not saying anything.


The famous evidence which back up Einstein&#39;s predictions are all lies, hoaxs, and incorrect interpretations of reality.
Really; Would that by chance include his predictions of how a nuclear fission reaction can be made into a reliable power source, and or weapons of mass distruction?
But that is imaginary too isn&#39;t it? Tell that to the survivors of the Hiroshama detenation in August 1945. Please be sure to look them in the eyes and tell them it didn&#39;t happen. I dare you.

Of coarse all the nuclear power plants and nuclear powered sea vessels are also a figment, or an undigested piece of roast beef. Bah humbug.
I suppose the first thing you were taught when you attended the university of crazy ideas was when you are backed in a corner, claim the overwhelming evidence which says otherwise are hoaxes and lies.


There is not such thing of strong gravities able to stop the escape of light...such thing is irrelevant...period.
Again, prove it. I suppose there is also no gravity because the Earth sucks.
You don&#39;t really know that there is no such a thing as an event horizon, because no human including you has ever been to one.
But I suppose you used astro projection and have already been there, and that is how you can bodly make such statements.

If all you say was true, then we as a sociaity would indeed still believe the world is flat, and we would be worshiping you. Should we now address you as Apophetes?