ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags astronomy , astrophysics , black holes , cosmology , general relativity , physics

Reply
Old 21st March 2018, 01:47 AM   #41
MikeG
Now. Do it now.
 
MikeG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: UK
Posts: 24,804
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Here is a scientific claim to you.........
You're struggling with the word "science", I see. It doesn't mean "any-old-thing-I-dream-up". You've already explicitly said that you have no science or maths supporting your claims. Therefore, you are in the wrong sub-forum. You don't have any critical thinking skills either, so your ideas aren't a good fit for the forum. I am sure there are plenty of crank sites out there who would welcome your unsupported nonsense. As I said before, you're in the wrong part of the forum. Humour is thataway ------->.
__________________
"The Conservatives want to keep wogs out and march boldly back to the 1950s when Britain still had an Empire and blacks, women, poofs and Irish knew their place." The Don That's what we've sunk to here.

Last edited by MikeG; 21st March 2018 at 02:04 AM.
MikeG is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2018, 01:48 AM   #42
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, I would, but yesterday's post where I tried to explain some physics at an over-simplified level got moved to abandon all hope. I'm sure it broke some rule or another, so I'd rather not anger the mods with more physics

You can still watch Leonard Susskind's lectures on youtube. E.g., the lectures on GR if you want words and drawings of how that curved space works. He's good, really.
Yes, i know how good.

If I put the ball on the rubber membrane, the rubber membrane bends into the mold. when I ask where it is based. They answer, it is based on the fact that space is curved. when I ask how. a person takes the same ball and puts it on the same rubber membrane and tell / finds that this is how space curving. WTF?!?

Is this science, i just asking!!!

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2018, 01:27 PM   #43
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
... really the stars are projecting out of the supermassive object of the galaxy center that pushes them away from the center of the galaxy.
The subject of this thread is not fairy stories about stars, supermassive black holes and Jupiter. You have a 10 year old thread to write those ignorant fantasies.

Ignorant because this is Sagittarius A*
Sagittarius A* has a maximum, size less than that orbit of Mercury with a diameter of 44 million kilometers. The closest star that we have found is S0–102
Quote:
At that point it is 260 astronomical units (36 light hours, 38.9 billion km) from the centre, while the black hole radius is less than one thousandth of that size (11 million km).
N.B. That 11 million km is the radius of a black hole the mass of Sagittarius A*.
Thus "stars are projecting out" is a fantasy ignorant about observsions and black holes.

Only stars close to Sagittarius A* are affected by it. Gravity has an inverse square law. Gravity gets half as strong when the distance from the primary doubles. Take a star orbiting at about 400 AU then gravity decreases by 2^158times at 1 light year. We have found only 7 stars orbiting Sagittarius A*. They all have a semi-major axis of less than a light year.

Now look at the Sun whose gravity holds objects out to the Oort Cloud. The gravity of the Sun is astronomically more powerful than the gravity from Sagittarius A*.

Thus outside of a few light years, nothing is affected by just Sagittarius A*. Not stars. Not the Solar System. Not Jupiter. Not weather (storms) on Jupiter. What really happens is that the orbits of stars are around the ever-changing center of mass of all the moving matter inside their orbits (with a tiny contribution from the moving matter outside their orbits).
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2018, 04:00 PM   #44
steenkh
Philosopher
 
steenkh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denmark
Posts: 5,849
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
Now look at the Sun whose gravity holds objects out to the Oort Cloud. The gravity of the Sun is astronomically more powerful than the gravity from Sagittarius A*.
This doesn't make sense. A body with the mass of millions of suns is obviously the more powerful. You cannot compare the puny Oort cloud with a retinue of seven stars, and in any case Sgr A* probably has its something similar to an Oort cloud of objects that are tiny and dark.
__________________
Steen

--
Jack of all trades - master of none!
steenkh is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2018, 06:24 PM   #45
Reality Check
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 26,898
Originally Posted by steenkh View Post
This doesn't make sense. A body with the mass of millions of suns is obviously the more powerful. You cannot compare the puny Oort cloud with a retinue of seven stars, and in any case Sgr A* probably has its something similar to an Oort cloud of objects that are tiny and dark.
You are right. What I meant was:
The gravity of the Sun is astronomically more powerful than the gravity from Sagittarius A* at its distance of ~26,000 light-years because of the inverse square law. Even the 4 million solar masses of Sagittarius A* does not compensate.
Reality Check is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st March 2018, 10:12 PM   #46
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by Reality Check View Post
You are right. What I meant was:
The gravity of the Sun is astronomically more powerful than the gravity from Sagittarius A* at its distance of ~26,000 light-years because of the inverse square law. Even the 4 million solar masses of Sagittarius A* does not compensate.
Reality Check, you are so funny.

I say, today physics dont working right. I say, it is wrong.

What you do? You are using today physics when you try to show that i am wrong.

My model say that.

Expanding Sun is pushing expanding planets away from expanding Sun.

And that pushing force from expanding Sun expanding also. So, entropy working with that expanding pushing force particle.

Thats why this expanding pushing force particle interactive more with gasplanets expanding nucleus of atoms. Thats why expanding gasplanets pushing away from expanding Sun faster what expanding rockplanets.

Expanding Earth faster what expanding Venus, expanding Venus faster what expanding Merkurius etc.

So, expanding pushing force particle from galaxy center supermassive concentration expanding also and when this particle pushing inside expanding planets and inside expanding Sun, there is expanding pushing force from expsnding nucleus of atoms.

Thats why this expanding pushing force particle from expanding supermassive concentration start expanding faster and faster.
Thats why they start interactive also with Jupiter center expanding nucleus of atoms strong way.

And thats why Jupiter center matter expanding faster and start pushing that way where is Jupiter great red spot.

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100

Last edited by Pixie of key; 21st March 2018 at 10:16 PM.
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 12:58 AM   #47
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Well... by now I kinda pine for the old days when someone would also tell me why my messages get moved to AAH. I'm sure there's some rule I've broken by trying to explain GR in a thread about black holes in the science forum, so I'm not contesting the decision. I just wish someone would tell me what that rule is, so I can stop doing it...
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 01:26 AM   #48
Pixel42
Schrödinger's cat
 
Pixel42's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Malmesbury, UK
Posts: 12,041
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well... by now I kinda pine for the old days when someone would also tell me why my messages get moved to AAH. I'm sure there's some rule I've broken by trying to explain GR in a thread about black holes in the science forum, so I'm not contesting the decision. I just wish someone would tell me what that rule is, so I can stop doing it...
The thread in AAH starts with a yellow carded post by Pixie of key so my guess is responses to it were AAH'd as well, which is SOP.

ETA: this is the reason given for the yellow card

Quote:
Breach of Rule 11: You will not deliberately attempt to derail threads or start threads in the wrong section.
__________________
"If you trust in yourself ... and believe in your dreams ... and follow your star ... you'll still get beaten by people who spent their time working hard and learning things" - Terry Pratchett

Last edited by Pixel42; 22nd March 2018 at 01:27 AM.
Pixel42 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 03:02 AM   #49
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
"And hence, as long as in your model there is such a thing as acceleration, you haven't really got rid of curved space. I can still do the same coordinate transform. It doesn't matter if the acceleration is due to pushing, pulling, "black light", the storm on Jupiter, or pixies flapping their wings really fast. If you have an accelerating thing anywhere in the universe, you get curved space when you do the coordinate transform.

If it helps you be more at ease with it, just think of it as a curved coordinate system, rather than curved space. If you're ok with polar coordinates like latitude, longitude and height, you're already ok with curvy coordinates. And if you're ok with those, why would you have a problem with yet another set of curvy coordinates?

Thank you. With that kind of "curving space" i dont have problem.

But how many science people think about that way?

And why nobody explain curving thing that way.

I mean, when space is nothing and dont do anything, you have to explain everything with something which moving in space.

And thats what i do.

There is expanding light which moving near expanding Sun and then there is billions years old expanding light which moving that way where Sun is. So entropy already worked with that billions years old expanding light and thats why there is pushing force which can pushing expanding photons that way where Sun is.

And all that with out space which do something.

You can forget space which do something!!!

Space dont do anything!!!

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100

Last edited by Pixie of key; 22nd March 2018 at 03:04 AM.
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 04:33 AM   #50
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Well, that coordinate transform IS how you calculate how things move in space.

Like, if I jump from a plane, and film myself with my cell phone, I'm not moving relative to the cell phone. My face is always right in the middle. In that frame of reference, my speed and acceleration is zero. But if you look at me from the ground, I'm clearly going fast and accelerating.

Calculating the coordinate transform between the frame of reference of my camera and yours, is basically one way to calculate my movement. So you calculate how my X, Y, Z, T curve when you draw them in your frame of reference, and you get my movement.

It's unnecessarily complicated for a non-relativistic case like me jumping from a plane, since you could get the same with just Newton. But you could do it by calculating some curved coordinate system too.

And that's basically what there is to it. Nothing happened to the space. It's just some coordinate system hocus pocus.


And now to explain to you the "mass curves space" bit:

If the planet attracting me were lighter, e.g., if I were jumping on Mars, I'd accelerate a lot less. Because there's less gravity "pushing" me towards the planet. The coordinates you end up drawing would be less curved.

On the other hand, if I were to jump on Jupiter, which is a lot heavier, I'd fall faster. There's more gravity "pushing" me towards a very heavy planet like Jupiter. So the coordinates you end up drawing would be more curved.

Basically the more mass in that gravity equation, the more curved the coordinates you end up when you do the transform. No mass causing me to accelerate, no curvature. More mass, more curvature. Hence, mass curves the space of those coordinates you end up drawing if you do the maths.

That's really the short and skinny of it, explained with things that move in space.


And yeah, empty space doesn't really do anything in GR. (It might in quantum mechanics, though.) It's mass that does the good stuff. Space just lies there and does nothing, the lazy bum And you can draw various coordinate systems through it, to calculate how stuff moves in space.


As for why physicists don't explain it this way... well, they kinda do. Except it's the version by physics nerds FOR physics nerds. It's easier to think and visualize it in a certain way, once you get the hang of it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 22nd March 2018 at 04:41 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 06:07 AM   #51
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, that coordinate transform IS how you calculate how things move in space.

Like, if I jump from a plane, and film myself with my cell phone, I'm not moving relative to the cell phone. My face is always right in the middle. In that frame of reference, my speed and acceleration is zero. But if you look at me from the ground, I'm clearly going fast and accelerating.

Calculating the coordinate transform between the frame of reference of my camera and yours, is basically one way to calculate my movement. So you calculate how my X, Y, Z, T curve when you draw them in your frame of reference, and you get my movement.

It's unnecessarily complicated for a non-relativistic case like me jumping from a plane, since you could get the same with just Newton. But you could do it by calculating some curved coordinate system too.

And that's basically what there is to it. Nothing happened to the space. It's just some coordinate system hocus pocus.


And now to explain to you the "mass curves space" bit:

If the planet attracting me were lighter, e.g., if I were jumping on Mars, I'd accelerate a lot less. Because there's less gravity "pushing" me towards the planet. The coordinates you end up drawing would be less curved.

On the other hand, if I were to jump on Jupiter, which is a lot heavier, I'd fall faster. There's more gravity "pushing" me towards a very heavy planet like Jupiter. So the coordinates you end up drawing would be more curved.

Basically the more mass in that gravity equation, the more curved the coordinates you end up when you do the transform. No mass causing me to accelerate, no curvature. More mass, more curvature. Hence, mass curves the space of those coordinates you end up drawing if you do the maths.

That's really the short and skinny of it, explained with things that move in space.


And yeah, empty space doesn't really do anything in GR. (It might in quantum mechanics, though.) It's mass that does the good stuff. Space just lies there and does nothing, the lazy bum And you can draw various coordinate systems through it, to calculate how stuff moves in space.


As for why physicists don't explain it this way... well, they kinda do. Except it's the version by physics nerds FOR physics nerds. It's easier to think and visualize it in a certain way, once you get the hang of it.
"And yeah, empty space doesn't really do anything in GR."

This is good. 👍🍾😀

But i think, you dont have a explanation why planets moving like they moving etc.

You just have a mathematics which tell how planets moving, not why planets moves like they moves.

And explanation is that. Nucleus of atoms expanding in space to the outside space and expanding nucleus of atoms recycling expanding pushing force together.

Do you get any idea WHY WE DONT FEEL that we are pushing faster and faster away from expanding Sun?

Again same with other words.

why do not we feel that we are moving away from the sun at an accelerating pace in the same proportion as the Sun and we are expanding?


And faster and faster and faster away from galaxy centre supermassive concentration?

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100

Last edited by Pixie of key; 22nd March 2018 at 06:16 AM.
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 09:54 AM   #52
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Well... I don't agree with all your interpretations, but at least the sooner you learn the proper language of physics, the sooner you can have a more sane conversation with the rest of the world. And, who knows, if you're right, you'll be more able to explain your ideas.

So let's get on with it, and here's to hoping the mods don't mind me talking more physics in a science forum.


1. Actually it's very easy to not feel an acceleration, if your frame of reference is moving with you.

Think of the astronauts in orbit on the ISS. They're subject to gravity, and are moving on a definitely accelerating orbit. Accelerating towards the Earth, so it goes in a circle instead of a straight line, that is. But they don't feel that acceleration, do they? In fact, they just float happily around.

Why? Because their whole frame of reference is moving with them. The space station is moving in the same orbit as they are, so relative to the station, they're not accelerating.

The thing is, you're not built to feel acceleration. You feel the acceleration in a car or in an elevator, because the car or elevator pushes against you. And the parts of your body that aren't in contact with the car or elevator have inertia, so essentially the bits in contact gets squashed a bit. That's what you feel.

But if someone were to cut the elevator cables, so both you and the elevator fall at the same acceleration (9.8m/s), you wouldn't feel it pushing you in any direction. You'd just float inside the elevator and feel no acceleration.

This isn't just theory, it's what they actually do with the "Vomit Comet" airplane to train astronauts. If the plane flies in the right parabolic trajectory towards the ground, the guys and gals in it can just float around and not feel any acceleration.

The same happens with the Earth. It is moving in a circle (well, ALMOST circle) around the sun, but we don't feel it, because we're moving together with it.

And the same would happen with forces from the dark energy (or "black light" or whatever you want to call it) pushing everything apart. Sure. we're accelerating away from the galaxy MACS0647-JD very quickly, BUT everything around us accelerates just the same, so we don't see any acceleration in our frame of reference.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 10:03 AM   #53
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
2. Actually, as far as anyone can tell, we're NOT moving away from the Sun. And I'll explain to you why.

Short version: we're a BOUND system.

Long version: Sure, the space expansion (dark energy, "black light", whatever you like to call it) pushes us away from the sun. That part you got right. BUT gravity pushes us back towards the sun harder, so we're not going anywhere.

Let's do a thought experiment.

Let's model the whole dark energy and space expansion thing with two treadmills. We'll put them front to front, so the band you run on runs in opposite directions. If you look at it from the middle, everything to the left goes left, everything to the right, goes right. That's universe expansion right there.

Now I put a flashlight representing the Sun on one of them, and a school globe representing the Earth on the other. Turn the treadmills on, and sure enough they move away from each other. The treadmills (a.k.a., dark energy) are pushing them in opposite directions.

Now let's do it differently: let's tie them with a piece of rubber band, representing gravity.

Turn on the treadmills again, and this time they're not getting away from each other. Why? Because the rubber band (gravity) is pulling them together harder than the treadmills (dark energy) is pushing them apart.

Essentially that is why solar systems don't get pulled apart. They're pushed together by gravity harder than the force trying to push them apart.

And the same goes for atoms. At those distances, electrostatic force is insanely strong, while the force trying to push them apart is insanely weak. It's nowhere NEAR strong enough to push an atom apart.

It's TRYING to, don't get me wrong. But it's like an ant trying to push a mountain. It's not doing anything to it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 22nd March 2018 at 10:15 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 10:48 AM   #54
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
HansMustermann

"Think of the astronauts in orbit on the ISS. They're subject to gravity, and are moving on a definitely accelerating orbit. Accelerating towards the Earth, so it goes in a circle instead of a straight line, that is. But they don't feel that acceleration, do they? In fact, they just float happily around."

Well, i think that you have to think other way that.

Because there is expanding pushing force particle from expanding Earth which pushing astronauts and ISS expanding nucleus of atoms away from expanding Earth all a time.

So, if you moving with car faster and faster, car seat pushing your hole body like one element.

But because there is pushing force which pushing your body every expanding nucleus of atom like one body, then you dont feel that your body moving faster and faster away from expanding Sun and also faster and faster away from galaxy center supermassive concentration.

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 10:58 AM   #55
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
"And the same goes for atoms. At those distances, electrostatic force is insanely strong, while the force trying to push them apart is insanely weak. It's nowhere NEAR strong enough to push an atom apart."

Well, you should think other way.

Have you heard phycics white lie?

"You may have heard that a proton is made from three quarks. Indeed here are several pages that say so. This is a lie — a white lie, but a big one. In fact there are zillions of gluons, antiquarks, and quarks in a proton. The standard shorthand, “the proton is made from two up quarks and one down quark”, is really a statement that the proton has two more up quarks than up antiquarks, and one more down quark than down antiquarks. To make the glib shorthand correct you need to add the phrase “plus zillions of gluons and zillions of quark-antiquark pairs.” Without this phrase, one’s view of the proton is so simplistic that it is not possible to understand the LHC at all."

https://profmattstrassler.com/articl...proton-anyway/

So, i think every proton and neutron is like small star which exploding all a time like supernova star.

Well, supernova dont expanding billions years, but nucleus of atoms expanding and recycling expanding pushing force billions and billions years.

It is not problem for space, because space is infinity.

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 11:19 AM   #56
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Universe is infinity 3 D

http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 01:50 PM   #57
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
1. Pretty much, yea, you feel the force in an accelerating car because you're not a point. It pushes your back, but the rest of your body is resisting the acceleration, so it's pushing back. It's that kind of non-uniform distribution of force that you're feeling.

But if it pushed every single atom in your body equally, you wouldn't notice any acceleration, because no parts of you get squished.

It doesn't matter if you call it gravitons and dark energy, like the rest of us, or recyled pushing force, or whatever other cause you might think it has. If it affects every particle in your body, instead of pushing only at your back like a car chair, then nothing in you gets gets compressed and nothing gets stretched. So the neurons that detect that kind of compression, well, they have nothing to detect. Your back isn't getting squished against a chair.


2. As for the proton, sure, it's a whole sea of quarks and gluons and anti-quarks. And yea, it IS a part of the reason they smashed them together in the LHC to try to create a Higgs boson.

I don't think I'd call it a "white lie" or a secret, though. It's one of the things that everyone knows, if they have any interest in quantum mechanics. I mean, it's even on Wikipedia, for pete's sake. It's not a very well kept secret if it's right at the top of the page about protons on Wikipedia, is all I'm saying

Or you can watch Susskind's lecture on the Higgs boson. He tells you that thing about protons straight up.


3. That doesn't mean they're exploding, though.

Well, they MIGHT decay into smaller particles (see, "proton decay"), such as a pion and a positron, BUT we haven't found a single example of that actually happening since it was theoretically predicted in 1967. We had literally 50 years to look for that happening, and haven't managed to spot one that's bursting like that.

So at the very least it's a very rare event. There may (or may not) be a few bursting here and there, but they're too few to exert any major force or energy on the universe.

Whatever cause that recycled force in your model has, it has to rely on something else too, not just on protons bursting. 'Cause just the protons are not nearly enough for that.


4. Sure, the space may well be infinite. Of course, nobody measured all the way to infinity, so we don't know for sure.

The limit you hear about the universe is the OBSERVABLE universe. I.e., how far can we observe anything in it. We know that the whole universe is AT LEAST three times bigger than the observable part, but we don't know how much bigger. It may well be infinite.

None of the GR maths breaks down if the universe is infinite, really.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 22nd March 2018 at 01:53 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 02:39 PM   #58
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Reality Check write

"A post repeating delusions (gravity pushing) and lies (space "Not curving", "Not expanding ") so not worth addressing.

a lie of space not curving when the tests of GR pass with curving spacetime.

No curvature of spacetime in GR = no gravity in GR !"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...124956&page=95

So, what way it is?

You say that way

"And yeah, empty space doesn't really do anything in GR"

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 02:47 PM   #59
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Does any thing prevent any case in the protons and the neutrons from spreading out to an existing space?

So that a thing in a single proton would be in the same big area of space as the galaxies of the visible universe are currently?

Of course, also photons, ie light, should expand in the same proportion.

even so that the momentum of the expanding light would accelerate in the same proportions as the light rate would be constant for us.

So that the visible universe would still be the same size for us?

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 04:17 PM   #60
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Reality Check write

"A post repeating delusions (gravity pushing) and lies (space "Not curving", "Not expanding ") so not worth addressing.

a lie of space not curving when the tests of GR pass with curving spacetime.

No curvature of spacetime in GR = no gravity in GR !"

http://www.internationalskeptics.com...124956&page=95

So, what way it is?

You say that way

"And yeah, empty space doesn't really do anything in GR"

.
Both are true, actually. It's just that "space" means different things, and in maths it means something very different than the "empty space" or "outer space" of the cosmos: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_(mathematics)

In his post, "space" it's easier to understand there as the space of those coordinates. It's not that the empty space does anything. It's that your coordinate system describes a curved mathematical space.

And he's correct too, for that meaning. If in that coordinate transform you ended up with flat (non-curved) space, then nothing would be accelerated there. You'd have no gravity.

Incidentally, the same applies for your "flow of dark", "black light", "recycled push force", or whatever you want to call it. If it pushes things, it makes them accelerate, hence you end up with a curved mathematical space.

And it's all relative to what frame of reference you're using, really. That's why it's called relativity. The same outer space can be mapped to different curved coordinates for different observers.

And I'm right too, I think. I hope someone smarter corrects me if not. The empty outer space itself doesn't actually DO anything. It's the conditions that give you the curvature of the mathematical space, i.e., of that coordinate system, that make things move.

Essentially it's still MASS that does the cool stuff, not the empty outer space.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 22nd March 2018 at 04:48 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 04:41 PM   #61
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Does any thing prevent any case in the protons and the neutrons from spreading out to an existing space?

So that a thing in a single proton would be in the same big area of space as the galaxies of the visible universe are currently?
Well, the fact that it doesn't actually have any dimensions? It's just a point.

The water in a glass has a certain volume because the electron shells of the atoms in it repel each other. Negative pushes away other negative. The closer they are, the harder they push each other apart. Hence why you can't compress water. Or rather, a tiny amount of compression takes a LOT of pressure, because those atoms REALLY don't like to be too close to each other. So for a given temperature and pressure, on the average they can only be so close to each other.

It's not that the particles have a volume, it's that there's a lot of empty space between them. Because if they get too close, they push each other away real hard.

So a proton can't really be any size. It can't be big, it can't be small, it just is a point.


Well, not REALLY. What's really happening is that it's actually a fuzzy thing. Until you catch one and know exactly where it is, it has a probability distribution of where it might be. It's kind of like a little cloud of uncertainty.

But that tends to be very small too. Or rather, the farther away you get, the incredibly less likely is to find the particle there. Generally if you look for quantum effects at macroscopic scales, much less galaxy scales, you're probably looking in the wrong place.


Be that as it may, though, it's still just one proton, and it has incredibly little mass. It may have gazillions of quarks and antiquarks and gluons in it, but those are very very very lightweight.

Think Avogadro's number. You need about 6×1023 hydrogen atoms for 1 kg of hydrogen, and the vast majority of that mass are the protons. So basically one proton is about 1.6x10-21 grams.

Even if you could inflate one to the size of a galaxy, it's still going to be 1.6x10-21 grams. It won't fill that galaxy very well, to say the least.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Of course, also photons, ie light, should expand in the same proportion.
Well the same I wrote above applies to photons, except they don't push each other away.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
So that the visible universe would still be the same size for us?
The size of the visible universe has to do with how hard the dark energy (or "black light", or "recycled pushing force", or whatever you want to call it) has been pushing things apart over time.

Past a distance, things are moving away from us faster than light. And relative to them, we are moving away from them faster than light. Any photons coming from them would never catch us, because we're faster. So we can't see farther than that limit, because no photons can reach us from farther away.

That is all that there is to the size of the observable universe. That's how far we can observe anything.

So whatever your model of the universe is, as long as the speed of light is the same and the universe expansion is the same, we'd have the same size of the observable universe. It doesn't matter WHAT is making the universe expand. As long as things are still moving away proportional to the distance, we're still going to stop being able to observe things beyond a certain distance.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd March 2018, 10:37 PM   #62
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
HansMustermann

I just wonder do you get my point.

When i say, Earth expanding, it really expanding, but ofcourse for us it is same size because we expanding same way.

Expanding Earth skin pushing us all a time away from expanding Earth centre.

Later expanding Earth is same "size" what expanding Sun is now.

Later Expanding Earth is same "size" what expanding visible universe is now.

Later one expanding proton is same "size" what expanding visible universe is now.

And still, expanding universe is same size for us what now.

This is real relativity!

Everything else expanding in visible universe, exept space which is infinity place which is nothing.

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100

Last edited by Pixie of key; 22nd March 2018 at 10:40 PM.
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 02:42 AM   #63
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Well, you'll have to do some maths and make that model work. Then I'll look at it.

And, as I was saying, it would help if you at least spoke the language of physics, in English. And knew what those concepts mean. I mean, you could have had a more sane conversation with everyone here all these years, if you could use the normal English names of things and the normal physics concepts, instead of using some own names that sound crazy to everyone else.


THAT said, if you're struggling to describe a model where stuff expands from one point... Well, let's think this through. If hypothetically a galaxy can "grow" from a point in the centre -- sort of like a mini-big bang, I guess -- then how about a cluster of galaxies? How about a supercluster? Can they grow from one point? I mean some of those too have a "supermassive object" in the middle.

E.g., there's this thing called the Great Attractor at the centre of our super-cluster of galaxies. Whatever is there, it's incredibly massive. It's definitely a heck of a lot more massive than what's in the centre of our galaxy. I mean, the one in the centre of our galaxy keeps stuff together over a distance of 50,000 light years or so, while the Great Attractor moves stuff over 100,000,000 light years, so whatever it is, it's one heck of a super-massive thing. Given that gravity is inversely proportional to the square of distance, yeah, that thing is truly massive.

If one galaxy can grow that way in your model, why not a super-cluster? Makes sense, doesn't it? If one supermassive thing can make a bunch of stars, then something a million times more supermassive could make a bunch of galaxies, right?

Well, at that point, why not a whole universe? You just need something even more massive from which it all comes, right?

And at that point you just got the normal Big Bang. So why not just roll with that?

I mean, sure, you don't seem to like space expanding, but then just think of it as just everything moving away from everything.


Plus, what you wrote above sounds exactly like your own version of space expanding, so what's the problem? I mean, not as in empty outer space, but the space of your coordinate system is expanding in what you just wrote above. Some distance may be the size of a basketball at one point, and the size of a galaxy after enough time. And apparently all distances grow like that, in what you're proposing. That is exactly space expanding. The mathematical space of your coordinate system is expanding. That's what you're proposing. So it seems to me like you should be ok with the concept of space expanding, if your own model proposes it too.


That said, if you want something that expands from a super-massive object, you might want to forget about black holes, and check out something called a white hole. It's exactly the opposite of a black hole, and yeah, stuff flows out from it. We haven't actually found one in our universe so far, but hypothetically the big-bang might have been one.

Also something called a gravastar. If the model is right, it might actually create a pocket universe, flowing out from one point. Again, basically a big bang.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 23rd March 2018 at 02:58 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 03:56 AM   #64
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
I think that expanding visible universe dont have centre where everything pushing away.

That point, where everything in visible universe pushing away, is really faraway outside visible universe.

And hole expanding visible universe moving very very fast away from that point. And yes, outside that point is extremely density expanding pushing force. And there is that very density pushing force a lot. Very very much. That much thst there is pushing away all a time pushing force which have a nature of galaxy.

Like expanding star emit all a time pushing force which have a nature of expanding photons.

That visible universe outside system "emit" all a time pushing force which have nature of expanding galaxys.

And yes, galaxys born inside to outside and every galaxy is already faraway from other expanding galaxys.

Some collide together later.

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 03:59 AM   #65
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
So, expanding visible universe moving very very fast.

That fast, that expanding light moving only little bit faster that we.

Hole visible univrerse in one moment away that area where is now and next moment away from area where just moved.

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 04:20 AM   #66
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
Well, as I was saying, the best thing would be to do some maths and show us how that pushing force works and what is it causing. Words are good and fine, but some maths that works out just right would go a long way to convince most of us. Just as a suggestion.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 06:38 AM   #67
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 16,380
That said, here's an idea for you, about the current understanding of Big Bang.

Essentially the early universe was one big galaxy. Out of the big bang, the first things that formed were some really huge stars. I'm talking between 100,000 and 1,000,000 times as heavy as our sun.

Those first stars formed when the universe was merely 100 million years old. Even the faintest galaxy formation wouldn't form until 300 million years later. Initially the observable universe was first essentially one big galaxy of really big stars.

Then those stars exploded and part of them collapsed into those... supermassive objects around which galaxies formed, and part of them ejected the gas from which the stars in those galaxies formed.

And dark energy has been pushing them apart ever since.

So essentially if in your model a galaxy can form from the middle, so to speak, why not the galaxy that was the initial universe? I mean, it all started as one galaxy. If your model can deal just fine with a normal sized galaxy, it should be able to deal just as fine with a bigger galaxy, right?

And if your model doesn't have a problem with a really big galaxy, why not just go with the big bang? Since it's essentially just saying how that initial galaxy grew from the middle, so to speak.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 23rd March 2018 at 06:52 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 12:17 PM   #68
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
That said, here's an idea for you, about the current understanding of Big Bang.

Essentially the early universe was one big galaxy. Out of the big bang, the first things that formed were some really huge stars. I'm talking between 100,000 and 1,000,000 times as heavy as our sun.

Those first stars formed when the universe was merely 100 million years old. Even the faintest galaxy formation wouldn't form until 300 million years later. Initially the observable universe was first essentially one big galaxy of really big stars.

Then those stars exploded and part of them collapsed into those... supermassive objects around which galaxies formed, and part of them ejected the gas from which the stars in those galaxies formed.

And dark energy has been pushing them apart ever since.

So essentially if in your model a galaxy can form from the middle, so to speak, why not the galaxy that was the initial universe? I mean, it all started as one galaxy. If your model can deal just fine with a normal sized galaxy, it should be able to deal just as fine with a bigger galaxy, right?

And if your model doesn't have a problem with a really big galaxy, why not just go with the big bang? Since it's essentially just saying how that initial galaxy grew from the middle, so to speak.
Did you look that already?

https://youtu.be/A-45AqYtkFw

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 06:42 PM   #69
W.D.Clinger
Illuminator
 
W.D.Clinger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 3,663
the map is not the territory

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
With that kind of "curving space" i dont have problem.

But how many science people think about that way?

And why nobody explain curving thing that way.
The reason scientists (and other people who understand Einstein's general theory of relativity) don't explain spacetime curvature as a mere artifact of their preferred coordinates is actually quite simple: Spacetime curvature is real, and not just an artifact of coordinates.

The curvature of a spacetime manifold is independent of the coordinates used to describe the manifold. All coordinate systems that describe the manifold accurately are describing exactly the same intrinsic curvature.

In particular, the Riemann curvature tensor field is an invariant of the manifold.

In an atlas of the world's surface, the distance between the dot named "London" and the left and top sides of some page in an atlas vary depending upon the page you've selected. That does not mean London moves when you flip through the pages of the atlas.

In like manner—the correspondence is mathematically precise—the numerical components of the Riemann curvature tensor depend upon the coordinate patch (aka map or chart) used to describe it.

Because the Riemann curvature tensor field of a spacetime manifold remains the same regardless of the numerical coordinates used to describe the manifold, the Ricci tensor field that appears within the Einstein field equations is also an invariant of the manifold, as is the Ricci scalar.

The scientists who started this thread in 2009, almost ten years ago, knew those things. Tim Thompson, ben_m, sol invictus, Vorpal, twistor59, and edd are no longer contributing to this forum; their scientific expertise is missed.

Most scientists do not understand general relativity as well as those named folk do or did. Botanists and chemists (for example) are not required to study differential geometry, which is a prerequisite to understanding the Einstein field equations, which are the core of general relativity. With rare exceptions, scientists who do not even understand the notation used in Einstein's field equations recognize the limits of their understanding, and are content to understand Einstein's general theory at the level of presentations aimed at scientifically literate audiences.

Most non-scientists are also aware of their own limited ability to understand general relativity, and learn whatever they wish to learn about it from those less technical presentations, which include several books written by experts such as Einstein, Hawking, and Thorne.

Occasionally we hear from people who understand general relativity not at all, but are so unaware of or unable to acknowledge their own ignorance that they decide they are the true experts in that arcane and highly mathematical branch of physics. There are not many such people, but they make a lot of noise.

Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
I mean, when space is nothing and dont do anything, you have to explain everything with something which moving in space.

And thats what i do.

...snipping for brevity...

You can forget space which do something!!!

Space dont do anything!!!

When Einstein was developing his general theory of relativity, his key insight was the mutual interaction between mass/energy and the non-Euclidean geometry of spacetime, as expressed by his field equations.

Einstein's theory runs contrary to what passed for common sense circa 1900, so its surprising predictions have been subjected to many experimental and observational tests.

So far, that evidence favors Einstein's theory over ideas expressed by Pixie of key.

Einstein's general theory of relativity predicted the possibility of gravitational waves. The mathematics of gravitational waves is so daunting that Einstein himself went back and forth on the question of whether gravitational waves were consistent with the mathematics of his theory, but that question has been laid to rest:

Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post

As explained in those articles, Einstein's general theory of relativity is not merely consistent with the possibility of gravitational waves. Einstein's theory actively predicts a specific form of gravitational waves that would be created when two black holes collide.

That prediction has now been confirmed. By detecting the specific form of gravitational waves that were predicted, we have now witnessed two separate collisions of black holes.

That evidence for the physical reality of black holes had not yet been observed back in 2009, when this thread began. It deserves to be mentioned within this thread.

From page 706 of the second of the two papers cited by Ziggurat:

Quote:
Until now, we had inferred the existence of black holes by either observing how other stars orbit around supermassive ones at the center of galaxies or by observing enormous disks of gas orbit around stellar mass black holes and the X-rays emitted as some of that gas falls into the black hole. The aLIGO observations are the first direct observation of radiation produced by binary black holes themselves through the wave-like excitations of the curvature they generate when they collide. Not only did the aLIGO observation prove the existence of binary black holes, but even the first observation brought about a surprise: the existence and merger of black holes in a mass range that had never been observed before.

The aLIGO observations have demonstrated that general relativity is not only highly accurate at describing gravitational phenomena in the solar system, in binary pulsar observations, and in cosmological observations, but also in the late inspiral, merger, and ringdown of black hole binaries. Gravity is truly described by Einstein’s theory even in the most extreme gravity scenarios: when the gravitational interaction is strong, highly nonlinear, and highly dynamical.
W.D.Clinger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 23rd March 2018, 07:33 PM   #70
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Tim Thompson View Post
A lot of people don't seem to like the idea of black holes. Understandable if you happen to run into one, but not if you simply wish to challenge the general validity of the idea. But whether you like the idea or not, it seems only reasonable that one should actually know what a black hole is before deciding, one way or the other. So I steal the following comment from the overcrowded "Lambda cosmology" thread to illustrate the point.

The "zero volume" and "infinite density" part applies only to the singularity itself, but the black hole is a considerably more complicated thing which enjoys a volume considerably larger than zero, and a density of finite value.

The word singularity is a term from mathematics and describes a point, or locus of points, where a given equation is undefined. The ratio 1/0, for instance, is not equal to infinity, but is rather undefined because you simply cannot do it, the arithmetic operation does not exist at all. However, the limit of the ratio 1/x as x approaches 0 is infinity. There is a distinct difference & important between the two ideas, which is left as an exercise for the reader to figure out. So we say that the equation 1/x = is singular if x=0.

The key is the singularity is a mathematical artifact and not a physical object. The singularity is not as such expected to exist, but rather to indicate that the singular equation needs to be replaced with one that is not singular, either from the same or a different theory, if one is to physically describe events at the singular points in spacetime (the points which are singular in one equation need not be singular in another; 1/x = y is singular if x=0, but x2=y is not singular for any non-infinite value of x).

Viewed from the outside, the singularity is hidden behind an event horizon so it cannot be seen. Once inside the event horizon, the geometry is such that all existing spacetime trajectories terminate at the singularity. What happens than is, of course, equally undefined.

So let us ask the question: Do black holes actually exist? How can we tell, by observation, one way or the other? The answer is to look for the event horizon. All compact astrophysical objects, except black holes, have a hard compact surface. Most of the objects that appear massive enough to be candidate black holes are accompanied by an accretion disk of infalling material which becomes extremely hot, and is easily visible to astronomers in X-rays. If the hot matter hits a hard surface, it will flare in a manner that indicates the presence of a hard surface. On the other hand, if the hot matter falls into a black hole it simply disappears with no appreciable fanfare. Hence, we should be able to observationally distinguish between the presence or absence of the unique event horizon of the black hole by its flaring behavior. We also know that any hard hot surface will emit thermal X-rays, whereas a black hole event horizon will have no detectable thermal emission. So we should be able to distinguish between a "normal" compact object (such as a neutron star or exotic quark star & etc.) and an event horizon by the presence or absence of a thermal component in X-rays.

These have been done and observations now positively indicates the presence of event horizons. See, for examples Paul, et al., 1998; Done & Gierliński, 2003; Narayan, 2003; McClintock, Narayan & Rybicki, 2004; Remillard, et al., 2006.

All of you who have your own alternative ideas in cosmology or relativity, and those of you who insist that black holes are just artifacts of some kind, and not physically real have a new problem. Observational evidence strongly supports the presence of event horizons, and only black holes are known to be associated with such things. So in order to argue that black holes are not physically real, you have to deal not only with the mathematics of general relativity (i.e., read Chandrasekhar's Mathematical Theory of Black Holes and prove he is wrong), but also with a small but growing mountain of observational evidence.

Black holes are physically real and they are not going away any time soon.
I trust Chandrasekhar and Hawking quite thoroughly so a yes here!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 01:57 AM   #71
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, as I was saying, the best thing would be to do some maths and show us how that pushing force works and what is it causing. Words are good and fine, but some maths that works out just right would go a long way to convince most of us. Just as a suggestion.
Well, i think you should to first understand that you never can explain pulling / drawing force with something whis is and moving in space.

But you can understand the force of push without math.

Your body is a pushing force. your body takes its own space from space.

Nothing can enter the area of space where you are.

Unless you first push you out of that place.

Same on a small scale.

The pushing force is not separate from the substance / energy.

Everything that is physically concrete exists is a pushing force.

The pushing force recycles itself in space.

And it succeeds with what it is.

As the expanding system gets more of what it consists of.

It allows it to squeeze more dense.

it allows a dense system to expand / spread to larger space space.

When you realize that any physically concrete existence is a pushing force, can you ask what is the pulling / drawing force?

It can not be anything that is and moves in space.

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 05:36 AM   #72
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
HansMustermann

Well, there is one thing what i like to tell you.

My model an atom.

Lets think about one nuclei of atom faraway from us.

That nuclei of atom dont have any electron outside nuclei.

Even how massive nuclei it is.

That nuclei expanding and recycling expanding pushing force which is from other expanding nucleus of atoms.

But if you go near that expanding nuclei of atom and put some photons moving that way where it is. That photon interactive with that expanding pushing force which pushing away from that expanding nuclei.

And then born new expanding electron.

Now physics people think that electron was there all a time, but it is not that way.

Expanding nucleus of atoms recycling all a time dark expanding pushing force which sometimes is nature of expanding electrons and sometimes nature of visible light.

First thst dark expanding pushing force have to expanding very fast and that happening if there is some outside pushing force like expanding photons.

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 06:02 AM   #73
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,183
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Your body is a pushing force. your body takes its own space from space.

Nothing can enter the area of space where you are.

Unless you first push you out of that place.
This is obviously wrong. Your body contains both pushing and pulling forces. Without pulling forces, how can you have solids? Why wouldn't you just have liquids or gasses? They contain pushing forces, but without pulling forces, you can't keep matter together in a fixed shape. Only a pulling force can keep your body from simply falling apart.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 06:48 AM   #74
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
This is obviously wrong. Your body contains both pushing and pulling forces. Without pulling forces, how can you have solids? Why wouldn't you just have liquids or gasses? They contain pushing forces, but without pulling forces, you can't keep matter together in a fixed shape. Only a pulling force can keep your body from simply falling apart.
in the solid material, expanding the nuclei of the atoms on the holster / arches to recycle the expanding pushing force between each other.

Each of the expanding atoms of the atom comes from every direction as much as an expanding pushing force.

Pushing forces are in balance.

This happens when, for example, the water freezes. but when there is coming enough pushing force from outside to inside the ice, it will lose the internal balance etc.

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 06:57 AM   #75
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 46,183
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
in the solid material, expanding the nuclei of the atoms on the holster / arches to recycle the expanding pushing force between each other.

Each of the expanding atoms of the atom comes from every direction as much as an expanding pushing force.

Pushing forces are in balance.

This happens when, for example, the water freezes. but when there is coming enough pushing force from outside to inside the ice, it will lose the internal balance etc.

.
Sorry, no. Your explanation cannot distinguish between solids and liquids.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 08:31 AM   #76
Pixie of key
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 2,169
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sorry, no. Your explanation cannot distinguish between solids and liquids.

Maybe not, but i think it is that way.

But you can not explain how pulling force working between solid matter nucleus.

What is reason for gluon start moving away from guark and how gluon can get other quark moving that way where is that other quark?

Maybe gluon slow down speed and say for that other quark, hello, you should move that way?!?

If gluon collide with other quark, it can only pushing that away from other quark.

For me that is not problem, because expanding quarks recycling expanding pushing force with each other and pushing each other away with that pushing force what they recycling together.

.
__________________
http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l4

"Math without words is meaningless.
Words without math can have meaning."
by Maartenn100
Pixie of key is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 12:34 PM   #77
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Well, i think you should to first understand that you never can explain pulling / drawing force with something whis is and moving in space.

But you can understand the force of push without math.

Your body is a pushing force. your body takes its own space from space.

Nothing can enter the area of space where you are.

Unless you first push you out of that place.

Same on a small scale.

The pushing force is not separate from the substance / energy.

Everything that is physically concrete exists is a pushing force.

The pushing force recycles itself in space.

And it succeeds with what it is.

As the expanding system gets more of what it consists of.

It allows it to squeeze more dense.

it allows a dense system to expand / spread to larger space space.

When you realize that any physically concrete existence is a pushing force, can you ask what is the pulling / drawing force?

It can not be anything that is and moves in space.

.
No.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 12:35 PM   #78
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Maybe not, but i think it is that way.

But you can not explain how pulling force working between solid matter nucleus.

What is reason for gluon start moving away from guark and how gluon can get other quark moving that way where is that other quark?

Maybe gluon slow down speed and say for that other quark, hello, you should move that way?!?

If gluon collide with other quark, it can only pushing that away from other quark.

For me that is not problem, because expanding quarks recycling expanding pushing force with each other and pushing each other away with that pushing force what they recycling together.

.
Also no. Where did you buy your Physics doctorate?
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 12:37 PM   #79
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
Originally Posted by Pixie of key View Post
Maybe not, but i think it is that way.

But you can not explain how pulling force working between solid matter nucleus.

What is reason for gluon start moving away from guark and how gluon can get other quark moving that way where is that other quark?

Maybe gluon slow down speed and say for that other quark, hello, you should move that way?!?

If gluon collide with other quark, it can only pushing that away from other quark.

For me that is not problem, because expanding quarks recycling expanding pushing force with each other and pushing each other away with that pushing force what they recycling together.

.
The noted is called gravity. Get real, get gravity. You also need, but do not have, gravitas.

Last edited by fuelair; 24th March 2018 at 12:40 PM.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th March 2018, 12:39 PM   #80
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
The other bad news for your line 3 is that quarks/related are not capable of speech.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Science, Mathematics, Medicine, and Technology

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:38 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.