Euler
Bluelighter
That's you're, genius boy.David said:
-
P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat
intellectual fads
- Thread starter bleedingheartcommie
- Start date
Euler
Bluelighter
Ah, I see - you thought the inverted triangle in my eqn1 was the gradient operator? It's actually a covariant derivative - but of course you knew that.David said:
David, why have you highlighted "transcendental"? When I said that, I was referring to posts of yours which argued "You cannot define Pi" and various other complaints about irrational numbers. You highlight "transcendental", then start talking about your Energy equations ![:\](https://bluelight.org/xf/BL_Images/Orig_Emoji/wrygrin.gif "wry grin :\")
No matter, your energy equation can be linear, non-linear, a function of 1 variable or 50, if you do not get your units correct, you are building an inconcistency directly into your theory. You can only raise SI units to integer constant unit-free powers, otherwise you get non-sensical results like "root seconds" or "metres to the kilogram". You've raised density to either a variable (with units itself) or a non-integer, which is wrong. If you don't think its wrong, please explain how the units match up in your Energy equation.
I think its pretty clear to everyone now that you're views on Relativity hold about as much weight as a wet bit of toilet paper. You've ignored questions, even those not asking for your full paper (incase we steal it), which are elementary to anyone familiar with Relativity, or even highschool physics in some cases.
Even telling us what you think is wrong with Relativity you've avoided. Saying that isn't going to give Zorn the information he needs to knock out a PhD based on reshaping Relativity, and I couldn't write a PhD at the moment anyway. You say you think everything goes wrong at the beginning of Relativity, what exactly? Giving us a hint isn't going to result in us stealing your idea is it? Or is your paranoia approaching "Meth fueled"?
No matter, your energy equation can be linear, non-linear, a function of 1 variable or 50, if you do not get your units correct, you are building an inconcistency directly into your theory. You can only raise SI units to integer constant unit-free powers, otherwise you get non-sensical results like "root seconds" or "metres to the kilogram". You've raised density to either a variable (with units itself) or a non-integer, which is wrong. If you don't think its wrong, please explain how the units match up in your Energy equation.
I think its pretty clear to everyone now that you're views on Relativity hold about as much weight as a wet bit of toilet paper. You've ignored questions, even those not asking for your full paper (incase we steal it
), which are elementary to anyone familiar with Relativity, or even highschool physics in some cases. Even telling us what you think is wrong with Relativity you've avoided. Saying that isn't going to give Zorn the information he needs to knock out a PhD based on reshaping Relativity, and I couldn't write a PhD at the moment anyway. You say you think everything goes wrong at the beginning of Relativity, what exactly? Giving us a hint isn't going to result in us stealing your idea is it? Or is your paranoia approaching "Meth fueled"?
David
Ex-Bluelighter
^^No paranoia, just sheer laziness, and unwillingness to think about it, I've been burned on it twice already. I made it highlighted, because you spellt it wrong. As I did with your apparently.
PM sent.
PM sent.
I never claimed to be amazing at spelling, and the fact I missed out an "s" is irrelevant of the point I was making, don't you think?David said:
You still give the impression you're avoiding giving any serious reply, instead nit-picking at unrelated things.
A simple quick paragraph about where you feel the errors in the basis of Relativity is would be nice. If you can type a 15 line reply in here, you can type a 10 line explaination which will at least see if there's method "to your madness", but will be sufficently vague not to let anyone steal your ideas.
I'm also wondering if you can do all those Pure Mathematics courses I mentioned. After all, maths is just shapes right? A simple yes or no, even a lazy person can manage that. Can you do Combinatorics, Galois Theory, Representation Theory and Geometry of Group Actions?
/checks inbox for the 7th time
David
Ex-Bluelighter
^^You know I'll never give any serious replies on here, the very site I've made some pretty outlandish declarations against some people here. I'm sure that person is enjoying this thread. I know he's watching it.
Once again, why should I worry what you think? Do I actually have anything to do with you? DO I know you? Have you been a friend to me here? I have only met three people on this board I can invariably say I like, and you are not one of them. AlphaNumeric is.
Once again, why should I worry what you think? Do I actually have anything to do with you? DO I know you? Have you been a friend to me here? I have only met three people on this board I can invariably say I like, and you are not one of them. AlphaNumeric is.
Euler
Bluelighter
I think the point was, as I'm sure you realise - that he didn't know that.compact said:
this has nothing to do with "liking" each other. if i knew you, i wouldn't have to ask you what your education was cuz i'd likely know already. i'm just curious. no need to get all defensive about it. geez, no wonder people on this board don't like you.David said:
Achaemenian
Bluelighter
- Joined
- May 2, 2002
- Messages
- 314
What is wrong is that citizen David makes preposterous claims which he doesn't intend to substantiate and, at the same time claims that he's not simply ignorant and unintelligent, but that it's an intentional act. Truly awe inspiring!
As I understand it, if GR can be called "wrong" it is because it predicts that regions of very high density can collapse to a single point of infinite density (ie a black hole) and create two entirely separate regions of the universe - two regions that cannot affect each other in any way, since not even light can escape from inside the region surrounding the black hole. If light can't escape then it's impossible for us to "see" anything inside that region, so we can't know anything about it, and General Relativity doesn't "work" when we deal with infinite densities, so we can't even use the maths to predict what happens inside that region - it is completely unknown to us.protovack said:
This is why you get sci-fi series which come up with fantastical ideas for what black holes can do - time travel, parallel universes etc. Science can't say that those ideas are wrong because we literally know nothing about the volume of space surrounding a black hole. It's truly the stuff of science fiction.
String theory attempts to rectify this by claiming that the black hole doesn't collapse to infinite density - since particles are actually loops of string, they have a definite size and they can't get any smaller than that - it's impossible for all the matter to collapse to a point.
As I said, I only have a layman's understanding of GR and especially of string theory at the moment, so I welcome corrections!
The "outside universe" can effect the black hole's interior, since light can fall in to it.Cex said:
Information can slowly leak outwards. As I'm sure David will say if I don't, recently Hawking went back on his 1970's idea that information falls into a black hole and stays there. Radiation would be emited, but the information was lost. He now admits he was wrong and information that fell into a black hole will be radiated back out. How you'd possible "collect" this I have no idea.
Obviously the interior and the rest of the universe aren't in "smooth" communication, its all messed up, but there is a back and forth crossing of information and energy.
Relativity is about gravity being thought of as the warping of space and time, and that space and time are not seperate but interwoven with one another. You effect your passage through one, you alter your passage through the other, hence why fast moving clocks tick slower (time dilation). If you've familiar with high school mechanics, you should know about vectors, and x,y,z coordinates. In relativity you've x,y,z,t and they are inter-related. The notion of universal time is gone, and everything you see depends upon how you are moving, its all relativeprotovack said:
Relativity falls over at the centre of a black hole because it says "The density is infinite". Thats not a good answer to get in physics, so as Cex points out, other theories which hopefully prevent things going to infinity are being developed. String Theory has a "minimal size", which allows for the removal of singularities. Black holes still suck in light, but hopefully you don't get non-sensical answers for things.
Outside of that most extreme of situations, Relativity has been experimentally backed up millions of times over the last 80 years in a multitude of ways, often to an accuracy of 1 part in millions or even billions! Its incredibly accurate, and for all practical purposes we currently have, it suffices for our needs. However, physicists don't want to just sit on their hands, they want to correct problems with it hence why String Theory is being worked on so much
compact
Bluelighter
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2003
- Messages
- 508
Work on the "fuzz" surrounding black holes in string theory is very recent - it isn't one of the motivating factors for string theory, and black hole weirdness isn't understood to be a problem in GR.
String theory was formulated in an attempt to create a theory which has enough symmetries to quantize a force of gravity, something which is not possible in ordinary QFT.
String theory was formulated in an attempt to create a theory which has enough symmetries to quantize a force of gravity, something which is not possible in ordinary QFT.
How true. Very silly of meAlphaNumeric said:
I don't see how information could possibly be radiated back out. If you take "information" to be photons in some sequence which we know the ordering of (this may be a completely wacky definition, I don't know, but bear with me!) then as I understand it, they would be lost forever. When black holes radiate, don't they do so by quantum fluctuations resulting in the creation of particle-antiparticle pairs just on the limit of the event horizon, with one particle entering the event horizon and the other entering the "outside universe". If this is the case, then the information encoded in the ordering of the photons that went into the black hole would be lost because the photons that are radiated would have no relation to the photons that went in. What am I missing?
I can see that there's a back and forth crossing of energy, but I don't see how information can come back from a singularity. Although I have taken courses where energy has been equated with information - in particular looking at energy transport in waves - this seems to be something different.
Its from quantum entanglement. The matter/antimatter pairs created split into one going into the black hole and one being flung out. The one that falls into the singularity becomes entangled with the mass of information in the singularity. Then, when you measure the particle which is spat out, you have a particle which is entangled with its anti-particle which is in turn entangled with the singularity. Thus, you can pull information back across the event horizon.
This means the event horizon is no longer a firm line which says "This side you can see, this side you can't", its (as Compact says) a kind of fuzzy blurred edge, no longer definate.
There were articles on this in New Scientist and Scientific American I think I've got lying around my room somewhere.
This means the event horizon is no longer a firm line which says "This side you can see, this side you can't", its (as Compact says) a kind of fuzzy blurred edge, no longer definate.
There were articles on this in New Scientist and Scientific American I think I've got lying around my room somewhere.
David
Ex-Bluelighter
It's a sea of pre-atomic particles with radiation being at the early stages of gravitational levels. Yes, that's part of my theory.
Yes, I know something, but refuse to play silly games with obvious asses that try to make it seem that way. Yes, I only made it to the third year, but I fail to see why that matters. My thought is that everyone built upon a falsehood. So I refuse to accept the modern thoughts on relativity. Time is distinctly a human factor, because our main sensory data comes from it.
Perception you idiots. That's your flaw.
I care not for what anyone says. It all comes down to one thing in the end, will you guys be able to obtain a permenant tenure, or just judge those, that go against the flow.
No I will not answer your silly questions, and not because I don't know the answers either, It's because it's all wrong.
AN We all make mistakes, mine was actually thinking you'd listen, and were open to my idea. Second was messaging you after I got high. Actually that should be third, getting high should be the second.
Yes, I know something, but refuse to play silly games with obvious asses that try to make it seem that way. Yes, I only made it to the third year, but I fail to see why that matters. My thought is that everyone built upon a falsehood. So I refuse to accept the modern thoughts on relativity. Time is distinctly a human factor, because our main sensory data comes from it.
Perception you idiots. That's your flaw.
I care not for what anyone says. It all comes down to one thing in the end, will you guys be able to obtain a permenant tenure, or just judge those, that go against the flow.
No I will not answer your silly questions, and not because I don't know the answers either, It's because it's all wrong.
AN We all make mistakes, mine was actually thinking you'd listen, and were open to my idea. Second was messaging you after I got high. Actually that should be third, getting high should be the second.